|
|
|
Sanford,
The way I see it, Cynthia's preoccupation with the mental-intellectual approach to analyzing the situation we all find ourselves in by assoication, is no more or less valid than my spiritual approach. The only difference is what is politically correct and in vogue now is intellect and mentalism, not so much things of the spirit. And that is what I got busted and edited for, because I am not a member of the dominant social order here at this Forum, which is primarily intellectual, not spiritual. That is not good or bad, I am just calling it for what it is, a clique. And there is one even here, do not be deceived.
There's an article being written on Wikipedia about Prem Rawat and ex-premies. In that article ex-premies are called a hate-group, apostates, and cyber-terrorists, among other derogatory things. Gordon Melton considers any former member of a NRM (cult) to be untruthful by definition of being an apostate and unreliable in their testimony about any cult they (we) were in.
The only sources being used as references in that Wiki article are writings by Gordon Melton and Massimo Introvigne among other sociologists of NRMs. Oh, yeah, Dr. Ron Geaves is also referenced. Sanford, it's against the rules to even use the word "cult" on Wiki.
The point of my post, which I suppose I didn't make clear enough, is that my interest is to find out why these sociologists have been given so much more credibility, not only on Wikipedia, but by our own Federal government in the U.S. (more on that later) than people like say, Margaret Singer, Steve Hassan, and other cult experts who have actually worked with former cult members to help them out of destructive cults. The sociologists have used the APA's old writings/assessments (which I found out are inconclusive) as a basis for their premise that mind-control or thought-reform does not exist.
This has nothing to do with my particular interest in psychology except as it relates to how the psychologist folks (who are on our side, btw) have been trashed by the sociologists. And when I say trashed, I really mean trashed.
I've been researching the issue of the two camps: the sociologists of NRMs versus the psychologists (or cult experts). The reason I've become interested about it is close to home -- here and EPO. Just about everything I've posted about Prem Rawat and premies/PWKs/students on the Wiki article discussion page has been dismissed as unreliable and untrue. Why? Because I'm considered a digruntled apostate and disgruntled former employee of DLM (DECA) therefore, a hateful liar. It's not about any preoccupation of mine with psychology or intellectualism or atheism. This is about digging to get to the truth about why you, me, and other ex-premies are called liars by definition (of the sociologists).
I'm very surprised by your reaction, Sanford. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how I've offended you personally by making this post.
Btw, I wouldn't be caught dead in a clique -- you really don't know me very well.
Cynthia.
Modified by Cynthia at Mon, Sep 13, 2004, 07:59:07
|
