Housekeeping: As is posted on the EMF Message Board page, this forum is for support, sharing opinions and experiences for those who have left RSE and have doubts and concerns about their tenure there. It is NOT a place for proselytizing for RSE, JZK Inc or Ramtha. Play nicely or your post will be sent to cyberspace time-out for all eternity. The disclaimer for EMF is located on this page http://enlightenmefree.com/disclaimer.html and all posters agree to the terms of the disclaimer. Be sure you've read it before posting.
You may also want to visit a complementary forum at FACTNet http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/779.html
If you wish to use a Spell Checker, you may wish to use this free one: http://www.jacuba.com/
EMF has its first "guest speaker" article posted now at http://enlightenmefree.com/speakers.html
The Role of Critical Thinking in Recovery for Ex-members of Destructive Groups
If you read the article, and care to open a discussion about it, here is a thread in which you can do so.
Thanks to Hal for giving permission for EMF to reprint his article on our website.
awesome, awesome information!
Even though I have had the pleasure of participating in an intense "exit counselling" session of 3 days, there were so many clues in this article that I was not fully aware of that happens with a person's mind.
I pray that we all be tolerant of one another as to where each person is at in their recovery.
I have recently met some who have been out of RSE over 7 years, who are definitely stuck in some aspect of anger or confusion.
Knowledge is definitely power!
And I am still dealing with the "mind reading" issue.
To look seriously about the warpage of people's minds is just astounding to me.
Thank god for not going over the deep end
Although I acknowledge that this article is a valuable contribution toward recovery from cults, Hal himself seems to have suspended the faculty of critical thinking in his point #7:
"7. Emotional reasoning. In groups that place emphasis on feeling over thinking, members learn to make choices and judge reality based solely on what they feel. This is true of all New Age groups and many transformational and psychotherapy cults."
Hal, would you care to comment on why you used the word "all" when you said "This is true of all New Age groups..."? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "all New Age groups whose beliefs I have thoroughly examined (or words to that effect)"?
To back up your statement the generalized way you worded it, you would need to have investigated ALL New Age groups on this planet. Even with the power of the Internet, I doubt that you can justify your statement. Even if your career was exclusively based on investigating New Age groups and you could somehow monitor their beliefs 24/7, new New Age groups can form at any time, and the guiding principles of New Age groups also change over time.
The other overly generalized word you used was "solely" as in: "...members learn to make choices and judge reality based solely on what they feel." Can you explain to me, using critical thinking, how you can use the word "solely" in this context? Wouldn't a word such as "largely" or "primarily" be more accurate here?
So would you clarify: Do you believe that ALL New Age groups on this planet "place emphasis on feeling over thinking" and teach their members "to make choices and judge reality based SOLELY on what they feel"? (I used caps here for emphasis.) If you do believe this, can you explain why you believe this to be true?
If you cannot back up these two statements, have you considered how you came to hold such beliefs? Is it possible that in this particular instance, you yourself were "indoctrinated" by some group, teacher, mentor, religious leader, etc. to hold such over-generalized, black-and-white-no-shades-of-gray beliefs about New Age groups?
Perhaps you yourself would benefit from using critical thinking to examine your own beliefs in this regard?
Thank you in advance for your response.
onehand: are you just talking terms of semantics? or did you take offense to someone's work for over 30 years?
Neither, Tree. I asked only the questions I asked, about only 1 paragraph of Hal's article, and my questions had nothing to do with semantics. Please tell me where in my post I said anything about Hal's career?
you appeared just highly critical is all.
One of the drawbacks to message boards is that the reader can't see or hear the writer, so the reader may make assumptions about the writer's emotions or motivations. I do not feel critical of Hal, but I do question his use of the word "all" in just this one paragraph.
Let's say that I made a statement that started with the word "all" as in:
All women who work outside the home are...
All blacks are...
All ex-Ramsters are...
All Ramsters are...
All Christians are...
If there was ONE exception to whatever I said, then my statement would be incorrect. "All" is a word not to be used lightly for that reason.
Tree, I ask the following with all respect: As someone who was pretty entrenched in RSE as a staff member and as someone who has not been out of RSE for very long, was it your experience that it would have been considered pretty disrespectful--even unheard of--for anyone to publicly question or point out an error made by Ramtha, JZ, a respected guest speaker, or any of the higher-ups on the staff?
If so, is it at least possible that your buttons got pushed when you read my post because I was questioning someone who has proven expertise in his field? You see, I acknowledge Hal's expertise. But outside of groups like RSE, it is perfectly ok--and not inherently disrespectful--to question people who have expertise or are in authority, whether they are politicians, scientists, pundits, teachers, you name it.
In this particular case, Hal has expertise in his field that I respect, but he is not omniscient. I believe I have more expertise than he does when it comes to the use of contemporary American English, because I am a professional editor. I am not omniscient either, and I don't always wear my editor's cap.
But when anyone makes a statement that ALL rap artists are _____ or ALL Jews are_____ or ALL left-handed people are ____ and so on, I just have to ask, unless the person making the statement is omniscient, how can they know that?
This, to me, is not about semantics. It is about critical thinking, which is what Hal is espousing! I'm simply "calling" him on one paragraph where I think his critical thinking abilities took a holiday. And critical thinking isn't the same thing as being critical.
I think I get where you are coming from re the use of the word all in Hals paragraph. Perhaps that is because I am a bit of a nik-picker. If he had an editor, they should have picked up on it. Otherwise I feel it displays a certain bias. I certainly would admit that I have a sterotypical view of "new agers" however I would also admit that I do not know "all" new age groups and would admit to having biases.
I think what is unhelpful about the use of the word all in this case is that,for persons involved in groups like RSE reading a statement like that can sound condesending and he may not have reached fully the potential audience that he may have should he have left out that particular word.
You may have a point Onehand...
Please take your “expertise” of contemporary American English
that framed your discourteous response to Hal…elsewhere.
Hal is not a poster on this forum. He is an invited Guest Speaker and there is a difference. If you chose to attend a lecture presented by Hal would you stand outside the door after it was finished announcing to everyone your personal objections?
if you read my above post, in answer to my question, you could have just said
"semantics" and leave it at that.
I hear your point.
Maybe let Hal's editor know.
maybe this thread could be re-railed back to the intent of the message of the speaker and not an English lesson.
Powerful words.. Sir King David!
As "a member of a destructive group, like ALL New Age groups, my critical thinking is blocked"..perhaps,
so do not care too much about my opinion.
But you seem to have learned a lot at "Judy's Place" at least about mind-control!
Where else could you have learned so much?
My respect to your gained power!
Hi Everyone! I just read this thread & wanted to make a few comments. 1st of all, I received the newsletter online a couple of weeks ago with this article. It is a wonderful article & does give us some reference points to start connecting some different dots in our heads.
I also would like to address the issue started by onehand... The issue she addresses has validity. In a nutshell she caught what "could be" a bias by the author. I too get "turned off" by anyone whose supposed to be an expert & saying the "all" of anything. This smacks too mucb of authoritarianism, military style "shut up & do what your told" type (RSE type) of thinking. The author's 1st point he addresses is: "All-or-nothing thinking." This is a blatant departure from that. (Or was it a test for us to catch it? chuckle!) David, you're comment was discourteous. I saw nothing "discourteous" in what onehand... said. She merely pointed out an inconsistency in thinking, which at this stage is to me "critical" to evaluate. Because many of us from RSE have suspended this, it is valuable to "pour" carefully over all informational literature. I personally found that, if nothing else, the one good that came out of that RSE experience for me is that I evaluate all kinds of informational literature & lectures with careful scrutiny. I carefully choose what I want to take into myself for integration, sentence by sentence. Nobody gets me "carte blanche" anymore. I'm "tired" of being told I have to think & be the exact way some authority says I'm to be. Perhaps this was a slip "typo", but because of the damage that many of us experienced due to care--lessness to our minds, it is a big deal. Also David, watcha..'s opening introduction to this thread said, "If you read the article, and care to open a discussion about it, here is a thread in which you can do so." The discussion said nothing that it could only be one-sided (the RSE way). This experience of this discussion is good in that we can use this to gauge ourselves individually on how much of our "critical thinking" were we using.
I personally don't accept any authority "carte blance" anymore. Just as many people see their M.D.s as can do no wrong, I question everything since they only have a small part of the picture by which they are operating. I worked with M.D.s for almost 30 years & found that many of them have a lack of integrity & morality that's astounding, much like RSE -- greed & power. Not all, but many. Saying "all" to any group is no different than saying "all blacks are lazy". These are untruths that have been promulgated by those who have prejudicial issues. To me the learning from this article & this resulting discussion is that "critical thinking" needs to be a way of life applied to every aspect of life on this planet, not just when it's convenient. This discussion in no way negates the article or the points of critical thinking. Instead it can make us use our heads to evaluate wisely; even the experts can have biases which I may not want in my life. Thanks for posting this fine article! M.
Cowboy, my apologies. Of course, we are never supposed to question anything an invited Guest Speaker has to say. After all, if JZ invites anyone to be an invited Guest Speaker at an event, that must mean that they have Our Beloved Teacher's seal of approval, so everything that comes out of their mouth must be correct. Maybe I'd better go make a card on this...
Oh, my bad. For a moment there I thought I was back at the Ranch!
wow! I am really surprised at David's commnet above
I think David is an amazing person to get this site up and running and a place we all found and went to for support but the above comment sounds like someone really angrg - I was too when I found out all the stuff at RSE but there comes a time in our lives when we really have to let that anger go or else JZ/R still has us!!!! For me I wasn't in the school for 10 or 20 years but my whole life I have belived in the stuff they taught at the school so I may just have been in the school for 30 years.
David, We do owe you alot for this website but the above statement was very harsh - don't you think?
Care to share a cup of tea sometime?
Here is my email
Marching on within..
I stand by my words, with no offense intended.
OneHand said, "And critical thinking isn't the same thing as being critical."
I think this is an important point.
Even if Hal and/or his editor could have, should have, would have, and maybe "missed" the context of the word "all" in the article, and would have refrained had they realized how it could come across, the article is filled with helpful, pertinent information. With that in mind, I hope that this thread isn't going to get derailed so far that it loses sight of the "good" information that Hal had to offer.
Also, it may well be worth it to contact Hal and ask him about his intent, in using that word in the context that he did. It may be something that was missed in the editing process. I've certainly seen enough typos in published books (and articles) to know that it does occur. Then again, he may have fully meant and intended to use that word. It would be interesting to find out.
onehand... you have a good point re Hal's statement: "This is true of all New Age groups and many transformational and psychotherapy cults." He does use a totalist term without qualification. He was wrong to use "all". However, if we were to look at Hal's article critically, we should see it as very, very brief regarding a rather complex and wide ranging topic. He's only suggesting or indicating his observations, not the results of a dissertation with hundreds of footnotes and references. Hal is a specialist regarding fringe militias and neo-nazi type cults that have a racist agenda. Hal has studied and criticized many of the same, paranoid government conspiracy buffs that have influenced Ramtha's ideas over the years but he has not made specific connections to Ramtha as far as I know.
I'd like to make a constructive criticism.
Targeting one or two errors is not an exercise in critical analysis if that is what onehand wants us to exercise here. It appears to dismiss the entire article. We would have been better served, onehand, if you brought out what was valuable in what Hal said that might apply to you. Perhaps that was what concerned David....
Also, if Hal's "all" comment was wrong, which group labeled as New Age does not emphasize feeling and emotion or 'resonating' over critical and scientific thought processes? Maybe by naming a specific group, it might help Hal adjust his point of view.
I think we might all benefit from your insights.
do I REALLY care about someone named
I have NO respect for ANY red guards at
JZ's place (aka Mall guards)
The EMF moderators, Joe Sz and I all missed something: The paragraph #7 that I quoted and commented on was not written by Hal. Here is the paragraph that preceded the section in which I found paragraph #7:
"The area that seems the most popular for discussion on these blocks to critical thinking is Cognitive Distortions, or making mistakes in thinking. Aaron Beck did a lot of research on this and the following is taken directly from the book, Taking Back Your Life by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias. These are the best examples that I have seen on the subject:"
So, my apologies to Hal for saying he wrote that paragraph, but now that it's been clarified that Lalich and Tobias published the "this is true of all New Age groups..." statement and Hal included it in his article, I still feel that it was a good example itself of a "mistake in thinking."
David, the tone of your comment above felt as harsh and off-putting to me as it did to some of the other posters. I received an email from an Austrian woman who called it an "EMF disaster," and I hope she will post her full statement here. I do not feel that your comment belongs on a website that calls itself Enlighten Me Free, because to me it didn't represent enlightenment or freedom.
All posters are supposed to abide by the following. Are you any different?
"Post using maturity and respect toward others, in particular when you don't agree. We're all entitled to our viewpoints, and posting our viewpoints. However, be sure you disagree with issues, instead of attacking people. Vitriol toward ANY group or individual is uncalled for & may result in a deleted post, and possibly being banned from further posting."
So there we have it, as I suggested, something was missed, after all ! But, not what we thought.
I do agree with you about the use of the word "all". I personally try to avoid what to me, is black/white attitudes and beliefs with such strong statements.
The authors you mentioned were both ex-cult members themselves. Perhaps (and I am guessing), they just feel very strongly, and accept that comment as valid. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but as an observation I have made in my own life; sometimes people will leave these sorts of groups and then make any and all things related to it, "wrong". To me, that's just as faulty in one's thinking, as believing that the cult was 100% "right".
It reminds me of a well meaning relative, who attempted to convert everyone in the extended family to her religion, because she fully believed it was the right one. Black/white thinking is just that, no matter the cover on it.
It is ironic to see you quoting the posting guideline, "Be sure you disagree with issues instead of attacking people."
Your statement, "Hal himself seems to have suspended the faculty of critical thinking..." is attacking the person, not the issue.
Same thing on the thread "Question for Johnny." Johnny made the statement, "However the Earth is in a mess mainly due to pollution, not changes in weather. We can adapt to weather in no time at all."
Your response, "Do you really believe those incredible statements?" attacked the person and not the issue.
I can understand why you would say to David, "...your comment felt harsh and off putting..." sometimes that is how you come across.
IMHO, there is a big difference between applying critical thinking to what a person SAYS (or writes in a book or article or in a post on this forum), and attacking the person themselves.
The ability to understand the difference between the two was something I found lacking in some RSE members after I left the group many years ago. If I questioned or challenged one of the teachings or writings of Ramtha/JZ, my friends still in the school often took it as a personal attack on R/JZ. I saw that as an aspect of cult-think: question what a cult leader or teacher SAYS, and often members will close ranks and react as if you have attacked their beloved leader personally.
I hope that people posting on this site are free to apply critical thinking, as Hal's article talks about, to what other people write, without being accused of attacking the writer on a personal level.
By the way, EWO, you made an incorrect assumption. I am not the poster who calls themselves Twohandsontheelephant.
In all sincerity and in the interest of being constructive here:
Since you said I might have a point (as did Joe Sz), would you take that same paragraph #7 from Hal's article and make the same point I did, but do it in a way that you wouldn't find objectionable? In making my point about the use of the words "all" and "solely" I seem to have crossed some line. So I really want to see how you would have said the same thing, including how you would have responded to Tree differently than I did but make the same point.
Incidentally, I see this thread as being on-topic with Hal's article, because the discussion we have going here is about how to apply the faculty of critical thinking, which often gets suspended while one is in a cult-type group. (One could argue that critical thinking is under attack by other elements of our society too...including those whose position is, If you criticize our government's policies, the terrorists win!)
"Targeting one or two errors is not an exercise in critical analysis if that is what onehand wants us to exercise here. It appears to dismiss the entire article."
If you read my two posts above, I specifically and repeatedly directed my comments to paragraph #7 ONLY. I fail to see how that "appears to dismiss the entire article." If I "targeted one or two errors" in a book, would you say that appeared to dismiss the entire book? If I took exception to the wording in 1 paragraph of a legal contract I was considering signing, would you say that appeared to dismiss the entire contract? If a lawmaker took exception to 1 provision of a bill, would you say that he or she appeared to dismiss the entire bill?
Is there such a thing as “The tyranny of the majority of words?
The main issue here and this is my “opinion” is this..
Hal was our first EMF guest speaker,,and I emphasize “guest”..
Your response to Hal was discourteous and accusing…
‘in my opinion”
I don’t expect you to agree but I hope you take into consideration my comments,
As I do yours.
As to .
"7. Emotional reasoning. In groups that place emphasis on feeling over thinking, members learn to make choices and judge reality based solely on what they feel. This is true of all New Age groups and many transfor¬mational and psychotherapy cults."
From my experience after 35 years of being involved within the “New Age”
arena, I know of none that have placed emphasis on thinking over feeling.
In that regard I agree with the statement… This is true of “all” New Age groups.
Have the cows come home yet?
Why do you think that RSE has placed emphasis on feeling over thinking?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
involved-observer AKA twohandsontheelephant
Thanks for clarifying your name,
“Why do you think that RSE has placed emphasis on feeling over thinking?”
In a nut shell… “pun intended”.
RSE is about mind control… for the most part achieved through fear.
fear is a “feeling”..
Achieved through the many techniques of brainwashing or “thinking control”
This Judith has perfected over the years..
The path of RSE starts out with the “feelings” of wonder and promise, regardless if it makes sense or not. Remember “doubt is the sword of the image”…?
There is the camaraderie with the secret groups and teachings, we are so special.. “feelings”
The “thinking” aspect is used in terms of keeping an open mind..With a seemingly deep religious philosophy, the over the heads science talk and PHd seekers nodding their head in unison to “Ramtha’s” commands…this looks like there is some serious thinking going on.. It is not.
Judith’s ace card is induced “fear”
RSE is the quintessential school of fear under the guise of an open mind.
Thanks for pointing out that OneHand and TwoHand are different posters.
I agree with you that "there is a big difference between applying critical thinking to what a person SAYS and attacking the person themselves."
I hope that you won't mind me pointing out that you did both.
"Hal himself seems to have suspended the faculty of critical thinking," is a personal attack on Hal. You refer directly to him by name.
"Do you really believe those incredible statements?" is also a personal attack. "You" refers to someone specific.
If it is not your intention to attack others then do not refer to them. In both cases you can make your point without insulting the other parties.
EWO said:"Hal himself seems to have suspended the faculty of critical thinking," is a personal attack on Hal. You refer directly to him by name."
"Do you really believe those incredible statements?" is also a personal attack. "You" refers to someone specific."
Good grief! DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT IF I WANT TO DISAGREE WITH WHAT SOMEONE POSTED, THAT IF I SAY WHICH SPECIFIC POSTER I AM REFERRING TO, THAT CONSTITUTES A PERSONAL ATTACK? JUST BY IDENTIFYING THE PERSON AND DISAGREEING WITH THEM? In my opinion, a personal attack in the context of discussion on a message board means attacking the person's character or something else about the person, like saying he is a wife-beater or kicks his dog.
David said: “You may have a point Onehand...
Please take your “expertise” of contemporary American English
that framed your discourteous response to Hal…elsewhere.”
David, I asked you to show me how I could have disagreed with the guest speaker without being labeled discourteous. You didn’t do that. Apparently, it is discourteous to disagree with an invited guest speaker, period! Well, excuse me for not sitting at the feet of your “guest speaker” and agreeing mindlessly with everything they say. There is enough of that mind control going on at the Ranch without my being subjected to it here.
And you dismissed another of my posts with this snide (imho) comment:
“Is there such a thing as “The tyranny of the majority of words?
Who is the tyrant here? I have begun to get a sick feeling at your “chuckles.”
okay, enough of the banter. Hal quoted Lalich et al---so be it.
Please, anyone, give us an example of a group generally seen by scholars as New Age that utilizes scientific and critical skills over "intuition, feeling, resonance, superconscious mind, esp, psi," etc. You need only one example to dismiss Lalich et al's statement.
For example, Rudolf Steiner in his Anthroposophy claimed to have a scientific approach, yet there is little of the scientific method in his approach. He emphasizes what Lalich stated, his idiosyncratic sense or "feeling" that his ideas are true.
I can understand if no one can come up with an example easily---but I am merely asking. No criticism impied here.
This is the simplist way to disprove Lalich's "all" claim.
Please, anyone, give us an example of a religion that utilizes scientific and critical skills...
Why is New Age held up for scrutiny on this website, but not religion?
Hey David.. you are so fast.
And thanks for your communication!
From my side there is no "pun intended"!
And "fear", as you stated, is the basic button you may push to control or manipulate any homo sapiens.
And being "special", as you stated, is the second main button you may push.
If Ramtha (okay let us say J/R) is talking about earth-quakes and cataclysmic disasters, north-pole in Europe, where I live, he is pushing the first button.
If Ramtha is talking about you, being in his army, of course under his control, and he cames after you, because you are so "special", and you will be the coming Christ.. and ascending master .. wooouuw you are the most special being there is!
How can you push those buttons in a better way?!
Many students who came to school are programmed to "fear" (by catholic-church, corporations, government etc.).
Fear of sin, of hell, of losing the job and so on.
I have lived a half life-time in a communist country - and there is mind-control.
In the "western countries" there is subtil mind-control ..increasing, and if you step in the wrong way you can be kidnapped, reprogrammed, for example, not just by cult-deprogrammers (sorry Joe, you are an exit-counselor - I don't mean you), but by some other institutional power, where the license to kill is owned.
There are students who are coming to RSE, who think they are "so special".
Because of their job, their money, their famous personality, their importants etc.
How can you deal with those kind of people?
You push their buttons, you teach them about the programms and mind-control going around, you recommend some readings, for example "transformation of america", you teach them how to reprogramm themselves.
I do remember Ramtha saying that "the basic root of fear" is the fear of dying.
I do remember Ramtha saying that there is no failure, just experiencing and learning.
(And I do allow JZ this kind of learning, as I allow myself - fake or not it's not the subject now)
I remember Ram saying something like: are you applauding, are you reaching your hand, just because of your neighbour!?
He said that "you are a bag of chemicals", referring to emotions, as shown in the low-level-beginner-movie "what the **** do you know???".
I do remember Ramtha saying "you think you are special".
"Everyone is special" - look around.
Or something like you are not your amount of money,
or your job..
And there are stories from the Ram about beggars and so on - you know it!
"You think you are special" - show it on the field.
And he told us that we are going to die, regardless of how special we think that we are - if we do not change.
I do know the school just since 99, but I am sure that Ramtha made similar statements even before, in some perhaps "more boring" way.
And if there are some ramster-oldies complaining about the school today, there should be stated that the contemporary ramsters are, first of all, a product of the present society and not of RSE.
And then he said that, as long as we are involved in the past, as long as we have emotions, patterns, footprints - we can be, let us use that wonderful slogan: "brainwashed".
And we get the technology of how we may reprogramm our self!
According to our own intent!
It does not work?!
You know something better?! What?
You think this is all bull**** or fairytale?
Okay, but you have learned enough about mind-control - it is on your own NOW!
Sorry for my fast English as a foreigner.
And I get a clue of how much energy it takes to rule this forum.
And I do respect everyone who is experiencing, manifesting and living his reality, as you are doing it...
Sorry (american way), I meant "raising your hand".
one hand: you never addressed the fourth response (mine) which would have digressed this whole thread to where it is.
And yes, I too, thought David was a bit off- color. But you know, we are friggin human. For like 99% of the time, he does an awesome job.
So David got a little edgy.
Give the guy a break.
He is moderator here, and for the most part, keep his opinions out.
One time, this time, he let his opinion in.
Can we not let this go yet and just get on with the information Hal presented?
Okay, don't shoot the messenger....
In the last five years (I don't address prior years and the teachings do morph), this is what we were told/taught about feelings vs. thinking:
Our feelings cannot be trusted and could mislead us as they are only chemical reactions from PAST experiences.
We were told/taught that we should think (choose) what we want to have manifest, and stay focused on that irregardless of any feelings we have about it.
Now, I am not going to get into how accurate or what garbage this "philosophy" is or is not, as my point is NOT to do that here. It is only to answer the question that was asked, with regard to naming a New Age type of group that promotes using thinking over feeling. RSE did/does do that.
As a matter of fact, students have been told that when they are doing their disciplines, do it without any emotion and just hold the focus.
That has been my EXPERIENCE there with what has been a 180 degree turnabout over the years. We were initially told to feel things into reality in years gone by.
OneHand wrote, "Please, anyone, give us an example of a religion that utilizes scientific and critical skills...
Why is New Age held up for scrutiny on this website, but not religion? "
Probably because the site is related to the RSE issues, and generally speaking, RSE is seen as a New Age group. If you want to start a thread that compares/contrasts New Age and more traditional religious views and hold them up to scrutiny, I don't see a problem with that. You may want to preface the thread in it's title to include "for debate". I say that because we clearly stated that unless a THREAD is labeled up front, that it will include debate, that it won't be allowed.
As most of us probably know, debates can get heated and the same "rules" apply; attack issues, not people. David and I, as moderators, do our best (and yes we sure are human) to be flexible, but sometimes enough is enough.
I know this isn't super important, but I just re-read my own posts and caught typos. it's should have been its, and ...oh, nevermind.
have a big piece of chocolate...
take a marzipan (german marzipan) and a deep breath!
i did.......i ate some fudge brownies my daughter made. yum.
it's all your fault (joking)
TWO HAND ON THE HIEROPHANT AKA INVOLVED OBSERVER
"Why do you think that RSE has placed emphasis on feeling over thinking?"
You are "wrongo in the congo" with this statement.
You need to go back to RSE and be more properly educated on the finer points of mind control that states,
"One never lets ones FEELINGS dictate ones course of action. One KNOWS then follows THAT knowingness to fruition."
We "Rebels" here at EMF have gained this wisdom and have chosen our own own paths away from RSE "cuz" we know better.
I know.. that:
We "Rebels" here at EMF have gained this wisdom and have chosen our own own paths away from RSE "cuz" we know better.
that's why I am here to humbly learn from YOU!
That statement was as a guest-speaker comment about statements of a guest-speaker.
It was not my own unknowingness!
"...Please, anyone, give us an example of a group generally seen by scholars as New Age that utilizes scientific and critical skills over "intuition, feeling, resonance, superconscious mind, esp, psi," etc. You need only one example to dismiss Lalich et al's statement."
I always considered RSE a more mental scene, more left brain, and Ramtha rather more cold and calculating in a "thought" way...and what made me leave the school was the strength of my feelings, and deciding to face that Fear of Death, which was present only until I got my van over the other side of the Cascades. It always seemed to me that Ramsters were trying real hard to ratioalize thier emotion/feelings to a state of resolution, rather than to allow feelings to take them thru it. LIke everyhting was about "observing" our emotions and not letting our chemical bodies sink into them feeling wise...as if that would only take us down. To me that looked like denial and guilts breeding ground. I get a headache just Listening to Ram go on and on about the physics of emotion. My feelings told me to not return to RSE, and only my thoughts caused doubt and worry over that decision.
I think Feelings always come first to the body, and later, thoughts intrepret and put them into word form, and then later, you can use Thought to inspire more feeling...but Its like being a baby...remember that state of Being with no thoughts or words, just that feeling/ knowingness?...ramble...
Wolfman wrote,"One never lets ones FEELINGS dictate ones course of action. One KNOWS then follows THAT knowingness to fruition."
Yup, that would be the teaching.
So what do I know ?
I know that a student in RSE has their place there quite conditionally. They must abide by the "RSE social consciousness", or they are a misfit.
I know that when I am told by a teacher who has professed him/herself as The Authority (a God), what's real and why, and I can't question that, but should accept it because even though I am God and create my reality, I NEED a Hierophant (this is wat we were told), something is very wrong.
I know it's time to transcend such a "teacher" and be, as Wolfman says, the REBEL.
No M-A-N-D-A-T-O-R-Y $$$$$$ events; no compliance-or- you-are-told-you're-free-to-pack-up-and-leave, just no-events-at-all, except the event of me, being free to be... me.
Enlighten me free of RSE. Thinking critically.
''''So David got a little edgy.
Give the guy a break''''
I'm not really inside of this thread. I'm just 'channeling' it to my higher self.
imo, probably the ressy 'spies' love to see a 'titanic' occur here. We're more evolved than that. WE graduated
There are a tremendous amount of significant issues broached on this message board. Humor can be quite beneficial during many healing processes.
What say you an off-topic thread for laughs, witticisms and idle banter of the fun sort? Or the ressy flavor of the day contest-just have some fun while we all heal and help one another. Have you ever had an argument with someone only to find yourselves both laughing hysterically afterward?
What a gutter buster]
Cheers. Hm. Song of the day according to JR?
'Just my imagination once again' or 'Mind Games'
An interesting take, I am glad for you that you were able to listen to your feelings. An interesting quote also.
"I think Feelings always come first to the body, and later, thoughts intrepret and put them into word form, and then later, you can use Thought to inspire more feeling...but Its like being a baby...remember that state of Being with no thoughts or words, just that feeling/ knowingness?...ramble... "
I think I more or less agree with you in the respect that in a healthy evolving mind one uses feelings and thoughts as a ladder of sorts with alternating rungs of thought and feeling each moving towards and with each other.
In a group such as RSE however, it is possible that ones feelings (their original ones prior to the group) get steered and moulded as they are climbing on their ladder.
The ladder is slowly and skillfully bent around until the top meets the bottom and then before one knows it, they find themselves on a hampsterwheel possibly still going rung to rung but with no idea that thier destination had now been predetermined for them.
As you brought up sincerity may I say that I asked you a sincere question which you responded to with pure sarcasm. Sarcasm is a communication dead end. How about responding with sincerity instead?
My answer to your question is no. If I chose to attend a lecture by Hal and I disagreed with something he said, I would post my disagreement on this message board in a thread labeled "Guest Speaker." That way, those people who choose to read that thread and who choose to read my post can do so, and those who don't want to read that thread or my post can choose not to read it.
Come to think of it...that is just what I did.
With all due respect, OneHand, not only did you disagree with Hal but you also insulted him.
Your statement, "Hal himself seems to have suspended the faculty of critical thinking" is, in fact, attacking his character. (As you phrased it in your CAPITALIZED response above.)
It suggests that he doesn't know what he is writing about and in one fell swoop you dismiss his credibility.
To make matters worse, he is not a poster on this forum, so you have insulted someone who is not in a position to respond.
OneHand wrote, "Although I acknowledge that this article is a valuable contribution toward recovery from cults...."
This is the aspect of the article that I intended for the thread to address; critical thinking and recovery from cults.
This thread is a week old at this time. The majority of the thread has not been about posting experiences about using critical thinking and how it relates to recovery from groups/cults. I reread my initial post and I assumed that it would be obvious, but I was mistaken. I could have been more clear, so I will do that now.
After a week of postings on various viewpoints with regard to the use of the word "all", which was improperly attributed to Hal as author, it is time to move on. A week is enough time, people have had their say. This thread is going to be locked, and a new one begun.
The other option was/is deleting this entire thread. That has not been ruled out. If anyone is OPPOSED to the deletion of this entire thread, PLEASE EMAIL THE MODERATORS firstname.lastname@example.org