--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > I am just claiming that it helped me understand my experiences Judy. > > > > No, you've been claiming a *lot* more than > > that, Curtis. > > > > For example (just from FFL, not alt.m.t):
Curtis, did you understand the point I was making here? To avoid a discussion of Lifton's criteria, you asserted (above) that you were only claiming they had helped you understand *your* experiences. That would have made some sense. If that's all you were claiming, there wouldn't be much point in such a discussion. But that *isn't* all you've claimed. Your assertion was not true, as I demonstrated with the quotes from some of your posts. You've made much broader claims for those criteria than just your own experience. And those types of claims are what I was interested in discussing, but with specific reference to Lifton's criteria. I'm *not* interested in the kind of discussion you attempt below, which simply asserts that Lifton's criteria apply in a general sense. The only way to determine if that is, in fact, the case is to go over the criteria one by one--which you aren't willing to do. <snip> > > [LB Shriver says he was told his presence > > in the dome would be "disruptive"; someone > > else asked, Disruptive of what?] > > "What is disrupted is Milieu Control. I'm sure everyone here > > is hip to that Lifton concept." > > Me: Milieu Control is the control of information. People who > are not allowed in the dome because they don't buy the party > line are disruptive to MUM's information control. I stand by > that assessment. OK, here you *are* dealing with a specific criterion. Exactly how much communication of information goes on in the domes? How much opportunity is there to pass on information *outside* the domes? To call this "milieu control" is just silly. If you want to put the dome situation under one of Lifton's criteria, it would be "demand for purity." Even that doesn't fit very well, but that's another discussion. <more broad assertions snipped> > > And most recently: > > > > "I do know that Lifton and Singer both believed that his > > eight mind control principles did apply to full time members > > in the TM group." > > Me: This a fact Judy. They did believe this. It was a > correction of your erroneous claim below: > > Judy from a previous post: > "Plus which, it trivializes Robert J. Lifton's > important work about *real* thought control by > pretending it's applicable to the TMO." > > Me: This is false. Lifton did believe that his principles of > thought reform were present in TM facilities. No one > is "pretending" that they are applicable and "trivializing" > his work. Studying people in groups like TM was part of his > work. I'd need some documentation that Lifton actually studied TM groups, and what that study consisted of, as well as a quote of his conclusions and his reasons for them. I strongly suspect that, with some help from Singer, he ended up inadvertently trivializing his own work. > > > Why would I want to argue with you about my own experiences > > > in the movement 20 years ago and how I view them? > > > > I don't know, Curtis, but you brought up our > > past discussions, not me. And as the quotes > > above show, you don't just refer to Lifton's > > work as useful to understand your own experiences, > > you cite him as an authority on what goes on in > > the TMO. > > Me: I believe that Lifton and Singer offer a valuable insight into > what happens to people who are full time in the movement. Yes, we know you believe this. You've asserted it over and over. The point is, you refuse to discuss the specific insights and exactly how you believe they apply. My opinion is that they didn't know as much about the TMO as they thought they did. But to show how that might be the case, we'd need to discuss their insights and how they're said to apply, which you refuse to do. <snip> > > If you don't want to discuss your claims that > > Lifton's criteria apply to the TMO, then STOP > > MAKING THE CLAIMS. > > Me: I chose to hear your rude caps in the hysterical voice > of Yosemite Sam. It's called EMPHASIS, Curtis. Why a big tough guy like you should feel threatened by capital letters is beyond me. BOO!! > Yeah, that works for me. I won't stop expressing my opinions, > no need to shout. Of course you won't. My point is that if you refuse to support those opinions in open discussion, they aren't worth a whole lot. > > > I don't hold you or you challenges as authoritative on my > > experiences or Lifton's material. How can you tell when you haven't been willing to discuss my challenges? I don't think that this kind of complex > > > material, which has had a very important value to me personally, is > > > best discussed in a combative context? Do you? Do you want to win > > > something or prove me wrong is some way? > > > > Again, *you* barged in with your citation of > > Lifton's belief that his principles applied to > > the TMO. I hadn't been talking to you, hadn't > > referred to you. So don't you accuse *me* of > > wanting to be combative. > > Me: So now commenting on someone else's post to correct an > erroneous statement is considered barging in? I'm not objecting to your having barged in, merely pointing out that *you* were challenging *me*, not the reverse. And this is automatically > considered combative because you had not been talking to me? Wow, > that is going to be an interesting standard to apply to your writing > here Judy. I never said I wasn't combative, just that it was disingenous of you to claim I was being combative in this instance when you were the one posing the initial challenge. <snip more disingenuous self-justification> > I believe you are attempting to play to an imaginary crowd of > perspective TM lurkers who you fear will be influenced by me > stating that Lifton considered TM full time people to be > subjected to thought reform practices. My concern is that all the Lifton-and-Singer stuff is presented as if it were somehow established fact. I think there's an excellent case to be made that it is not. There's some truth to it here and there, but as a blanket characterization of the TMO as a "thought reform cult," it just doesn't hold the volume of water it's credited with; it leaks, badly. John Knapp confirms my concern when he says Lifton is in danger of being taken as a "holy text" in the anticult movement. You yourself said you're prone at times to turning it into dogma. I think that's a big problem, not only for prospective and current TMers who aren't familiar with Lifton's work, but also for former TMers who have been led to believe they are "cult victims." I think *you* have adopted it as dogma for yourself at least in part to ward off some difficult questions you might otherwise have to ask yourself about your participation in the movement. I think Singer in particular is like the proverbial carpenter with the hammer to whom every problem looks like a nail. I think this is why you are invested in attempting > to stop me from expressing this fact and want to "go at it" with me > about it. Uh-huh, and just how could I both stop you from expressing your views and also "go at it" with you? I'd like to have it closely examined to determine what is of value in it and what isn't. If you want to present your own ideas about Lifton's > theories and why he was wrong to apply them to the > experiences of full time members, go for it. Obviously I can't do that without bouncing off someone who was a full-time member. But you refuse to discuss it with me. Seems to me more like it's you who doesn't want me to be able to present my ideas.
