This is where you completely divert everyone away from your group having to provide proof for its claims. This is where you directly 'make it about the critic'. From this point, you are going to make it an emotional, personal issue - even appealing to me personally is an aspect of that - anything, ANYTHING to take the discussion out of the level of rational, cold consideration, where your group can be utterly defeated and shown to be false, and in to emotional level communication, where no one can really win. That is a deliberate tactic - whether you are consciously aware of why you do it or not.
No I'm not. I can make "their" stuff work. The difference between your spiritual visions and my taiji is that no one else fom outside your cult saw your visions. I can throw people untrained in taiji and unconnected to my group and other people unconnected to my group have seen it.
Ooo, nasty. Exactly, you brought up the whole issue of emotional investment. Me directing it back at you is not an attack. If I walk up to someone in the street and punch them, that is an attack. If someone walks up to me and punches me and I punch them back, that is defence. No that's just your theory. There are other reasonable assumptions. Such as that I have been brainwashed, that I don't actually believe it but think I can make money out of peddling it or that there is evidence that I have seen that supports it. Since this is just your theory perhaps you could furnish us with evidence that demonstrates that people only believe this because they are emotionally invested in it. Dear child?
This is emotional level argument. It is an attempt to isolate me. Your language suggests that i am the only one who can't see the truth and that you and those who agree with you are awakened. And again. Believe as we do and you will be rewarded. You will be accepted. This plugs in to the deep need in humans to be accepted by the group. This is the flip side of something you did some time ago on another thread where you said you hoped one day someone would come along and give me a good smack in the mouth. In other words, doing as I do (i.e. disagreeing with you) could result in me being hurt. This is punishment and reward, another tactic of the cult. Of course you are too smart to threaten me directly so you involved a third party you know "if you keep acting like this someone's going to smack you one". In other words personalise it. Just as you do when you switch from debating my opinions to calling me the infected cult messenger. Of course this is mostly for the benefit of others - another isolation tactic - "his words are dangerous, fear him".
Do you mean me complimenting your writing? I am able to separate the opinion/ belief from the person. What you wrote was informative but don't think for a minute that that means I think you actually live by it. Just because a physicist can elegantly explain the way a bird flies, doesn't mean he can fly like a bird. You talk about scientific method but I urge you and others reading this thread to imagine a scientist debating their conclusions with a skeptic to use language like you do. Not likely.That's because scientific language is carefully constructed to remove anything personal. Of course, you will interpret this as "attack the critic" but this just highlights the power imbalance you are trying to create. You can make it about me all you want but if I point that out to you I am just attacking the critic and you feel you have won. If I point out the inconsistencies in your posts that is just me attacking the critic and you feel you have won. It puts me in mind of a cult leader who banned all the men from having sex then humped all their wives. No - if it's okay for you, it's okay for me. I will always be suspicious of someone who claims rights for themselves that they deny others. You have created rules for the system that can only "prove" you right. Even someone disengaging from the debate is cult-like and proves you right. Heaven forbid someone might actually get bored of going round in circles whilst being critisised on a personal level. Do you really believe that someone not wanting to talk to you proves they are using the tactics of the cult?
Hey Count, Ha Ha! You really know your Star Wars - I had to look that one up. Thanks for bringing the post back North a little with your much appreciated levity. ( If your totally serious then I don't know what to say - lol ). Best
If you have nothing to say your silence speak for you it will. (yoda kaine) Speaking without words?? Now were talking. regards koyo
Well, you can't do what Huang could do - even Huang couldn't do it. Making stuff work is relative, at the end of the day. I don't know if you watch 'around the world in eighty faiths', but the priest who presents that was deeply, deeply moved by the generosity of Ethipoian priests - moved to tears by it. Now, I could see what was coming next - it's such a psychological cliche. We call it 'elision' - smoothly uniting two things in to one,so you can't tellwhere one ends and the other begins, as in the French language elision - and sure enough, he made a deeply powerful connection between the emotional level response caused by the priests' generosity, and the reality of God. He was effectively manipulated at the emotional level, and his emotionally vulnerable state made it very easy to then imprint him with the idea that God was being proved by his experience; when in reality, the two weren't connected. Int he same way, be wary of how much of what you can do - of what is practically, obviously doable, such as arm locks and basic push hands - be wary how much youuse that to then 'extend your belief' in to more unlikely areas, such as Huang's light touch skill. I can't make you doubt it - and doubt is an emotion; I don't wantto emotionally manipulate you, I want you to come back to cold, rational level of thinking. That's true, but you have to remember, in any group there IS shared perception of things - not always visions; sometimes it's a shared, usually emotional level sense, about the validity of the group's teachings. Let's just put it on a simple level - what if you're in your group, but you look at Huang's videos and think, well, that's not true. What happens to you in the group in that case? You know - and you do know - that's enough to explain how we allow ourselves to be groomed in to the group belief structure. Yeah, well, not like Huang can. Again, you have to beware of the elision. Sure, you can throw people - it's not hard, and almost certainly your group teaches throws, etc., that actually work to whatever degree - but, only you can actually stop yourself from extending that in to an expectation that the skill can become so refined that it ends up in Huang's purported skill level. I can see how it seems logical to think that that makes sense, that skill gets better and better. But, if you're going to use logic, use it as your ally, not your enemy - those videos of Huang; no one can do that. We all have our moments, but those videos are fake, and not only can you not do that, you also can never progress to real skill as long as you're aiming towards something false - which is why I hate this stuff; it actually de-skills Chinese martial arts yet further, by misdirecting committed practitioners.
You already are isolated. The 'group' isn't a group at all - it's the rational consensus - not a group, but a way oflooking at the world that has evolved to allow us the best possible chances of being free from manipulation, and being able to assess information in a way that is the most free from bias, perosnal, emotional level interference, etc. Anyone who is separated from that already is isolated, and already can not see the truth. It's not really about what you believe - the rational consensus isn't there to alter people's beliefs - it's about how you support what you have come to believe; how you skew and manipulate the best possible tools of evidence gathering in order to come out with a false outcome. As long as you do that, yes, you have been isolated, and you have been separated from the rational consensus. Part of that is to think that what I'm talking about is 'being awakened' - it isn't; although, it takes some deliberate engagement of the idea to see that. The rational consensus isn't a view point at all - it's a way of processing information, such as, for example, beginning at a point of being prepared to receive information critically, as opposed to the skewed idea of being open minded, which you use constantly to mean 'all beliefs have a right to be treated equally' - well, they do - they all have a right to be examined equally critically - but they don't, as in your meaning, have a right to be trated as equally true. And as a spin off to that, I have to tell you, yes, actually, the rational consensus way of approaching information IS enlightened, and it IS better than emotional level manipulation, and it IS better than just deciding that personal experience is all that counts, and those that use the toolsof the rational consensus to their fullest ARE more enlightened than those who use poor, easily manipulated methods. Funny - at some point, it became unpolitically correct to believe that rational, critical assesment of ideas was superior to backwards methods of the past. And again, all you're really doing is accusing me of what your group does. The rational consensus isn't a group, nor am I inviting you to have any belief at all - I'm inviting you to alter your means of assessing information to a much higher level, truer and more accurate and rewarding method - a method which, unlike yours, will prove Huang's skill if it is actually real - all you can do at this point is criticise any critics as untrained and closed minded - you can't even prove Huang's skill level at all - THAT'S how good your way of doing things is - only the rational consensus can genuinely prove things like that. It isn't a belief at all - it's a way of doing things, so we don't have to believe - we can know what is knowable. And, yes, that will be a reward for you - for all of us - and it IS the reward we have been given for the work of our ancestors in establishing the rational consensus. The rational consensus idea can be hijacked like that, but in truth, it isn't a group belief at all - it's a set of obviously true and effective tools for establishing what is true, and what isn't - that is, out of those things which can be tested. Far from it being about you being accepted, it's about you accepting it.
Gee - way to take responsibility for your own actions. I never said I wasn't taking perosnal insults personally - I assure you, I am. And I resent that, because of all the people on this board, I have been consistently taunted by weak, fat, cowardly, poorly skilled people who have been outrageously rude in the things that they've said to me - universally because I doubted - just doubted - something that they'd said - and I've consistently kept to my sacred principle that we must always make them prove their own claims - we can never accept that we, the critic, must dis-prove it for them. but I've never said that they WON'T get their come uppance - I hope they do- not for disagreeing - for lying, and using aggressive, rude tactics to back that up - which is why I said that to you. Part of the rational consensus is - ta dah - reality - and reality is, 99% of the boastful claims made by CMA people on this board are not true - and reality has a way of giving people their come uppance. SO yeah - being rude to me does upset me. Sorry. And yeah, if that's how you act, you probably will get your come uppance. That's not about disagreement, or not believing, it's about being god damn rude, and you know it. Yeah, your words are dangerous - but fear the words, not him. As for being personal - don't kid yourself, some things are, and I take a lot of things very personally. On the other hand, if I can get people to understand what I'm saying, and where I'm coming from in a simple, easy way, then no matter how nasty they've been, I completely open myself to them, to help them positively in any way that I can - I have a tremendous gift for that - I keep it all in the moment, not in the past. But yeah - we should fear de-education.
There's something more I want to say, Unfettered Mind; I'm not your enemy. A lot of what I say makes sense in stages - because that's how I learned and researched it all too - over a long period, seeing it in glimpses, losing it, seeing it again, losing it, and so on. Having an open mind isn't what it's about - we're so far through the looking glass that it seems ridculous to say that having an open mind might be a bad thing in some ways... that's a sin against common sense, isn't it? Well, no. An open mind is nothing without the filters, and subtley to process information. 'Have an open mind' has been corrupted in to the idea I've spoken of - 'belief rights' so that now, beliefs have more rights than people in some ways - recently, a 15 year old boy was prosectued under religious hate laws for holding a sign saying 'Scientology is a cult' - that means that Scientology, a set of beliefs, has a superior right than the boy has to free speech. We've been conned in to allwoing all beliefs to be treated as equally true - to our very great detriment. We've been conned in to turning 'open mind' in to 'all beliefs should be treated equally' - and I'm afraid, that just isn't true. It's what let'speople say Creationism should be taught in schools, or we can't expressconcern over Scientology, or if we doubt empty force, we must be closed minded. Secondly, I want to tell you something that is true; but, I'm not going to press it - you're not thick, the only thing stopping you understanding why it's true, is you - because you don't want to understand it. It is a subtle point - a lemon-eyer; the kind where, my sister, who has a degree in psychology, squints, then asks what'son telly, lol. You have to understand it - I can't make you. Your beliefs ARE about you. It isn't 'making it personal' - your beliefs ARE all about you. The reason you believe them, and also the techniques, methods, tactics, you employ to divert rational criticism away from your beliefs - that's all about you; discussing you isn't 'making it personal' or going after the critic - your beliefs are about you. My criticisms or doubts aren't about me. Reasonable doubts and criticisms self-justify. Critical doubt isn't about me - it exists as a filter of its own accord. My reasons for expressing doubts, or writing about them, or voicing the criticisms, are about me; my motivations are about me. But to confuse the two is both a category error, and manipulative fallacy. The criticisms, and my reasons for bothering to write them, are two different things. What you have done is tried to attack my reasons for making them - like, I want to belong to the group, be seen as enlightened, etc.; and you know, all of those points may well be true - but they don't in the slightest way affect rational, reasonable, critical doubt or the rational method of engaging and testing unlikely claims; those self justify, self validate, and stand alone from the person who is making them. So you can tell me all day long that I just don't believe in faries because I want to be part of the group - but doubt in faries will not be one jot weakened by you making it personal and going after the critic directly, ad hominem. Whereas, your belief, if it were in faries, would legitimately involve looking at how you process information, to see if it is flawed. There's a 'fire break' between rational criticisms of faries, or old men with magic powers, and me, or any other critic - but there's no fire break between a person and their beliefs; in fact, if you choose, as you do, to disdain the rational method of allowing us to look at the evidence for and against the claims, and instead make it about triacks of language and personality assasination, then why shouldn't we look directly \at that? In fact, it's entirely apporopriate, because pretty much all of these claims work by never allowing rational critique; only by attacking the critic - and who does the attack? You.
I'm all for debate, I'm just wondering why their seems to be this constant persecution of eachother. It's quite common on this forum, my view is debate should continue but on a more relaxed and positive level, rather than in a degrading, "your thoughts are inferior" frame. Positivity and respect is awesome!
I don't disdain the rational method. I do try to apply it and I do appreciate the possibility that my mind has been manipulated because I know that minds can be manipulated - so why not mine? Discussions on this forum with you and others have led me to think a lot about how I can test this. This is a work in progress but I have found a club locally that teaches BJJ and sambo so I'm joining (sambo only - at least at first). I figure if you're going to do it, really do it! Now of course I expect to get pounded and I'm not going expecting my taiji to make me competitive with those guys but I hope I'll be honest enough with myself to assess fairly just how much my training has given me. As I've stated before, I don't train taiji in order to fight better, I train for what you might call the spiritual side but since I haven't worked out how to test that yet, I'll start with the physical. And ,well I have always quite enjoyed the rough stuff. I'm kind of working on the "trusted source" approach. If what my school say about taiji and movement is rubbish then there is a good chance that the rest is also. In fact one of the reasons I chose taiji as a method is that it has more of a feedback mechanism than most other spiritual methods as far as I can see. What I come up against when I think about the spiritual side is this (I'll try to be brief because my thinking on this has been loooong and ,I freely admit, sometimes very confused): The rational consensus is that all existence is the result of chance. The universe itself and, perhaps more relevantly, life. Consciousness, sense of self, everything we are and do is the result of natural selection, a random "bubble" of negative entropy in the system. When we die it's over and given the size and complexity of the universe, all life, let alone my life, is insignificant, just a set of chemical reactions with no plan or purpose. In effect, meaningless. If that is the case I don't see how it can matter what I or anyone else does. In fact, to take it a step further, all human thought and action from the most depraved to the most compassionate is a result of this relentless process so, yes in that sense, equally valid. In that case, I have nothing to lose by my spiritual practise because in the end I'll be dust like everyone else. However, if there is a spiritual dimension and I don't explore it, especially given my interest in it which seems to come from deep within (and I really do accept that that is very possibly completely delusional) then I reckon I'll have lost a great opportunity. In any case, I enjoy the exploration. But that's the easy bit. The difficulty comes in choosing a method that can uncover that spiritual dimension (if it exists) and with that, scientific method, rational consensus etc can be of no assistance because it states that there is no spiritual dimension. That's where I get stuck. So I spent a long time looking at as many methods as possible, looking for the areas of overlap and chose a method that seemed that it could approach what I perceive as a common thread in those methods. That's what I pursue with admittedly no great expectation of success, just an awareness that if there is no spiritual dimension I have lost nothing and if there is, well hopefully I've maximised my chance of learning about it. Now we are way off topic here and if the mods suggest a new thread in philosophy or elsewhere then I'm happy to move on but I would like to continue this conversation with anyone who wants to chip in. By the way, if some of my previous posts have ****ed you off well I am genuinely sorry for that, my intention has only ever been to explore this stuff. From early on I figured (and still do) that you had a similar intention to explore and much like a bout of hard sparring we were both going into it willingly and prepared for a few bruises. Peace.
You posted while I was writing my last post so this may seem like a needless repetition but I refer you to the sparring analogy in that post. Lots of people, quite reasonably, may look at a hard sparring session and say "why are you doing that to each other?" For me the answer is simple, I accept the pain because I think it is worth it to improve. This kind of debate bores and irritates quite a few people on this forum but in the end it is all consensual right? The nature of debate is the challenging of beliefs and we identify strongly with our beliefs so sometimes it can get messy. But for me it's a fair price to pay.
You know, this isn't what 'rational consensus' means. The rational consensus isn't a set of beliefs, whether on spirituality or science. The rational consensus means the tools of cognitive engagement - or, how we think about stuff. The rational consensus isn't an alternative to religion; and one of the problems, both from militant atheists, and from spiritualists, is in thinking that it does. The rational consensus just means not being bs'ed - understanding how we approach, consider, process and communicate information affects the way we come to see the world. Here's an example. Joanna - Zorya - says that she knows God is real because she's experienced him as a lion coming out of a tree. Now, she's very smart, but, she's also been de-educated in to thinking that a personal experience is proof - so much so that she disdains anyone who thinks that God doesn't exist, because it contradicts the absoloute proof of her own experience. To Joanna, her own experience was an empirical proof of God. But, for those who want real truth, Kant has already given us the tool - knowledge of the fallacy of 'subreption' - that tells us that personal experiences aren't empirical proof. And what's more, people like me can tell the rest of the society, from our personal experience, that we can't really trust our own experiences, because we can be influenced, emotionally manipulated, percpetually managed, in to seeing anything, experiencing anything. The rational consensus doesn't dismiss God - Kant wasn't an atheist. What it does is find the best possible tests, means and processes that allow us to find truth. It's not even difficult. The rational consensus doesn;t reject God - it can't; personal experience is in a different category. What it can do is explain that personal experience isn't actually objective proof. It can tell us about mass manipulation, or the word games people use to protect untruths. It can tell us how people argue via fallacy, and how effective that can be. But it can't dismiss spirituality - it just sets that aside, as a different category of human experience. Nothing I say is intended to deny your spirituality. I am, similarly, on a journey to understand the nature of my own spirituality. Whoever told you that the point of the rational consensus was to deny your spirituality lied. Humans have many aspects. It's part of our nature that we have to try to understand that aspect of us that is deeply personal, and not subject to what other people think and experience. But knowing the difference between the two things - the personal, and the testable - is crucial to all of us. Isn't spirituality something that strives towards the greatest possible good? And isn't what all cults say - that they work towards the greatest possible good? To me, there is no greater good than powerful minds, capable of processing information at a high level, deeply understanding the mechanisms of manipulation, to whom games of word and emotional manipulation are see-through child's toys; because that's what they are to me, and that's my spirituality. The rational consensus is not a set of beliefs, it's education. Education is there to allow us to have a better chance of exploring the world without being hoodwinked, that's all. It doesn't end spirituality - if anything, it rationally gives spirituality it's own, spiritual space to exist within. But dessicated old men throwing willing cohorstto the floor with a touch isn't spirituality. Mirror mirror on the wall, that's the evil after all. What is evil, if not the deliberate lie? If God is truth, what is lie? In terms of Quan itself, yes, I am deeply personally affected by it. I make a choice to invest my emotional energy in something. I reject the false spirituality that says nothing matters, and see the deeper truth that we ourselves are masters over choosing what matters to us. 'By the work of thy hands, establish thou it.' Well, no, nothing really matters, that's true - but that's what makes us special; that we have a choice, and use it, to make something matter. In terms of you offending me, I wouldn't have even remembered that you had, if you hadn't mentioned it. Questions over whether empty force exists are different to personal level communications and insults. My work as a thinker and philosopher deserves to be considered seperately from my perosnality - that's the same with all philosophers. As an individual, I'm primarily motivated by concern for people; it's the bent of my character - I give a damn about people being manipulated, hurt, swindled, attacked, whatever. In a crisis, I want to be in charge, because I trust my level of giving a damn more than I trust others. People insult me - it's meaningless, but, where their insults are being used to de-educate, as in, where they using lies to support themselves, and attacking me simply to divert attention from what I'm saying or asking, then it's a professional matter - and I take that very, very personally. I choose to, because, I believe that what I say on CMA is valuable, and will contribute positively to promoting it. People who want to really be very rude on a perosnal level need to make sure that they either train harder than the people they are rude to, or else don't cross paths with them. I'd just like to reiterate at this point my disdain for the fat frauds, jokers and con men of false CMA - y'all make me puke.
Gee - way to completely miss the relevance of everything I've said. Some thoughts are inferior. Even in our own minds, some of the thoughts we have are inferior - and I work deeply with though, coming up with ideas, on a day to day basis - some are inferior. This is what I've been saying - we've been led by the nose in to a culture where we dare not have discernment any more. 'Everyone has a right to an opinion' has been corrupted in to 'all opinions are equal'...... belief rights, again.... all beliefs, all opinions are equal. Well, you know what, they aren't. Some are nonsense. Others are clever, and only revealed to be wrong after serious thought and discussion. And I challenge the rationale of your post, because, after all, what is even the point of a 'discussion' board, if we start out from the premise that all opinions are equally valid, and all perspectives equally true? We might as well just die, because the whole point of being human is over.
Hi People, FireQuan posted: what is even the point of a 'discussion' board, if we start out from the premise that all opinions are equally valid, and all perspectives equally true? We might as well just die, because the whole point of being human is over. I agree that we are here for the discussion - what else? Certainly all people feel their view is the correct one whether they admit it or not. We should have the freedom to say what we feel and hold beliefs for ourselves that we can live with. So all the power to you guys for having a debate that you are that passionate about. Personally I get sick of the way Political Correctness has derailed our culture and undermined the character of existence in the 21st century. The PC thing is way out of hand. It has the ring of inquisition to it, it has replaced the "interference of Church in State" with interference in Church, State, Human Rights and Freedoms all via the PCness of our current culture. The PC movement is a spiritless and machiavellian set of secular morality that is made up as we go along to basically legitimize any BS bandwagon that can gain attention. It is an attempt to impose/superimpose a secular morality that is devoid of belief, faith or religion. It is morality for the moraless. So I like that you want to be human and LIVE. At the same time I wonder what you have in mind as your "meaning of being human"? Certainly just because all opinions are not equal doesn't create the right to impose those deemed more correct. To bring our opinions to bear with force cannot be any better than the case I put forth above. The meaning of being human to me definately involves the right to HOLD opinions and beliefs - but that goes both ways. Even if I believe that another's opinion is tit useless I have to leave him/her to it. Freedom is for everyone and cannot descriminate. I think that you have put alot of excellent content out there during this post regarding cult mentality and operation that truely deserves more attention. I think that another post on cult in relation to chinese culture and even taiji would be really interesting. Maybe use fa long gong (sp) as a starting point. Thanks for reading. Best
Well, I haven't said that opinions should be imposed by force - nothing could be further from the spirit of the rational consensus. To me, the only thing we truly know about 'what it means to be human' is that if wewant an answer, we each have to explore for ourselves what it means to be human, or indeed, what it means to be ourselves. My work on cults is not based on a premise of preventing people exploring ideas; but of making the exploration of ideas both effective, and safe, by helping people develop the critical tools necessary to recognise the most obvious techniques of emotional, perceptual, cognitive and conceptual manipulation - i.e. how people BS and manipulate us, and why we willingly go along with it. No one is saying that people don't have a right to their own beliefs and opinions. What this is about is how we communicate those beliefs and opinions, and the methods we use to spread or defend those opinions - or in some cases, as in martial arts, the way we prove, or else divert attention away from proving claims on to attacking the critic - of which I've personally been on the receiving end like two hundred times on this board. Not all opinions are as good, informed, well considered, proven, intelligent, considered, likely, reasonable, un-coerced as each other. Creationism is valid to hold as a personal belief, but it isn't as 'equally true' as evolution, because it does not pass the basics of proof and reason. Everything I've done, pretty much, in this taiji section has been to examine, explore and highlight cult mentality in the taiji community. Part of the problem is that we think of a 'cult' as saturating, malignant influence on people's lives, dictating all things in it, when in reality, a lot of what I'm talking about is little bits of cult-ish mentality, or skewed techniques of cultish logic or word/idea manipulation being used in stead of rational, reasonable means of assessing information. And not only that, as part of that process, the people who do it also de-educate themselves and others in to thinking that it is acceptable to do that. Somewhere along the line, people started thinking that the way to prove what they say wasn't to actually demonstrate that they can do what they say, or find proof of people doing it, but to label anyone who expresses doubt an idiot and to encourage others tolaugh at them and throw rotten vegetables at them; I can't force people to see why that is not only wrong, but culturaly disastrous, both for CMA and for society in general. De-educating ourselves is like giving ourselves a cultural lobotomy - and the deeper the lobotomy, the more stupid and crass I sound to them.
