From: david buchanan (dmbuchanan@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 00:17:16 BST
Rick and all MOQers:
Rick said:
Using Pirsig's vocabulary, it's tempting to take your continuum and replace
the "free-thinking" end with "dynamic thinking" and the "cultish thinking"
end with "static thinking". DQ alone is chaotic and SQ alone stagnates so
we can speculate that to be too far to either side of the continuum is a
negative thing...
dmb says:
I would have posted sooner but my hand was stuck in a jar all day.
Hate to be such a party-pooper right from the start, but I think our central
term (cult) is being used too casually. I'm not even sure its a good idea to
oppose "free thinking" with "cultish thinking", let alone translate those
into Dynamic and static thinking. This formulation seems to use the word
"cultish" to mean "closed-minded" or intellectually "stubborn". It seems
that we're really trying to get at is the kind of cult that dictates the
beliefs of its members. We're not really talking about ancient local
religions. We're not talking about the fans of Harry Potter or the people
who show up for star trek conventions. We're not talking about
narrow-mindedness or other personality traits, are we? I think cults, by
definition, are groups. More specifically of course we're talking about
groups that define themselves by their beliefs and that enforce those
beliefs through some kind of coersion. So its not so much that "cultish"
thinkers join cults, its that cults demand compliance.
I would also point out that Pirsig's treatment of contrariians and outsiders
doesn't exactly appeal to conformists, patriots and other joiners.
I think its pretty clear that Mark's questions about Christianity being a
cult and Sam's questions about the MD being a cult are lurking close behind
this month's question. I think both of them meant to imply that the
organization in question does control people's beliefs. So again, I think
we're using the term "cult" to refer to such a group. Just to get oriented
to this meaning of the term a little better, lets look at what Mr. Wikipedia
had to say today...
Eileen Barker
A checklist, allegedly based on empirical research, was made by professor
Eileen Barker, in which traits of groups that can evolve to be dangerous are
described. These traits include:
A movement that separates itself from society, either geographically or
socially;
Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view
on reality;
Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;
Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and satanic, good and
evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;
Leader who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to
their followers;
Leader and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain
goal.
Steve Eichel
In his "Building Resistance to Manipulation", the psychologist Steve K.D.
Eichel created a checklist of signs of a sect designed to brainwash its
members into loyal followers:
Isolate them in new surroundings apart from old friends or reference-points;
Provide them with instant acceptance from a seemingly loving group;
Keep them away from competing or critical ideas;
Provide an authority figure that everyone seems to acknowledge as having
some special skill or awareness;
Provide a philosophy that seems logical and appears to answer all or the
most important questions in life;
Structure all or most activities so that there is little time for privacy or
independent action or thought, provide a sense of "us" versus "them";
Promise instant or imminent solutions to deep or long-term problems;
Employ covert or disguised hypnotic techniques.
James R. Lewis
In his book Cults in America, a scholar named James R. Lewis describes a
number of properties he would expect a dangerous sect to have:
The organization is willing to place itself above the law. With the
exceptions noted earlier, this is probably the most important
characteristic; The leadership dictates (rather than suggests) important
personal (as opposed to spiritual) details of followers' lives, such as whom
to marry, what to study in college, etc.; The leader sets forth ethical
guidelines members must follow but from which the leader is exempt; The
group is preparing to fight a literal, physical Armageddon against other
human beings; The leader regularly makes public assertions that he or she
knows is false and/or the group has a policy of routinely deceiving
outsiders.
dmb continues:
As you can see, all three lists include that element of coersion. Its also
easy to see that all three lists include a strong charismatic leader and and
the followers in some kind of isolation. I would argue that its simply not
possible for a cyber-discussion group like this one to meet any of these
requirements and is therefore in no danger of becoming a cult. I would argue
that Christianity would qualify as a cult except for one thing; there's no
such thing as a carismatic Christian leader. ;-)
Rick quoted ZAMM:
>"The most striking example of value rigidity I can think of is the old
>south
>Indian Monkey Trap, which depends on value rigidity for its effectiveness.
>A
>hollowed-out coconut chained to a stake makes the trap. A monkey can put
>its
>hand though a small hole in the coconut and grab some rice inside. The
>monkey can put its hand into the hole but cannot take its fist out with
>rice
>in it. The monkey's value rigidity traps it when it reaches in. The rice
>cannot be revalued. He cannot see that freedom without rice is more
>valuable
>than capture with it."
>
Rick said:
>Although it predates the MoQ, the passage seems relevant to the issues at
>hand (at least via analogy). I think that a dangerous level of "value
>rigidity" is precisely the dangerous quality that makes a given group or
>person appear to be "cultish". And I say "dangerous level" because I think
>we have to admit that we're all value rigid in some senses, as we should
>be,
>since life can't get by DQ alone (in fact, I'm suddenly moved to wonder
>what
>the substantial difference is between "value rigidity" and "static
>latching"? I mean, aside from the fact that one has a negative connotation
>and the other a positive). The cultish thinker is the thinker who has
>completely closed the door on DQ. ..
dmb says:
If we're using "cult" as I presented it above, I'd have to point out that
the monkey is only ignorant of the value of freedom. We could say he loves
rice too much. But unless there is a carismatic chimp with brainwashing
skills in this monkey trap scenario, his devotion to food is not "cultish".
Animal foolishness, sure, but not faith-based rice worship. Its not
hypnosis, its just stupid hunger that has him trapped. I think this kind of
value-rigidity gets at the problems that come from the inability to see
higher level values, which is an interestng topic, but not quite the one
that was elected...
I think the sudden movement to "wonder what the substantial difference
between 'value-rigidity' and static latching'?" was a good one. Do chemists
and physicists suffer from "value-rigidity" because their fields require
great precision? No, I don't think it helps to think about intellectual
conformity in terms of the static/Dynamic split simply because all beliefs
and ideas are static. The degree to which one clings to beliefs and ideas is
another matter, the validity of those static forms is yet another. If were
talking about cults, the level of certainty or clarity of the contents of
the belief system aren't so important compared with the coersive group
dynamics and their psychological effects of the believer. Emotion is what
makes them grow and hold together. The "us and them" mentality appeals to
our vanity, the certaintly puts us at ease, they provide hope, love and
friendship. They recruit through flattery and acceptance. Just today I heard
about a manipulative technique cults might use called a "love bomb". Its not
to hard to imagine an explosion of warm fuzzies or the effects of such a
weapon. Again, this sort of thing isn't even possible in cyberspace. But the
basic features of a cult do seem to echo the things Sam has been saying
about Christianity.
Or did I misunderstand the question?
As to the question of what makes a free-thinker? I'm really not sure what
that means. I thought that was a Victorian euphemism for "atheist".
Thanks.
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 08:52:21 BST