Subject: Re: More (or less) of My Beliefs (was Re: Ease Off?) From: David Mayo Date: 1996/06/07 Message-Id: <4p9bmp$c4m@light.lightlink.com> Sender: electra@light.lightlink.com Organization: Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway v2.4 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Thank you Bernie, whoever you are, the following is an excellent compilation of what occurred on these threads. You did a better job of this than I could have and I appreciate that. I too, await the answers of either Dave Bird or efischer to my questions which you have SO clearly laid out below. Rev. David Mayo "So many have fallen, yet so far left to go ... " - ------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 06 Jun 1996 17:35:46 -0700, Bernie wrote: >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote: >> >> This responds to a separate p&m >> from david Mayo, same starting point. > >David Mayo: >> >> :: | I do not think that I am cultishly inclined but I would >> >> :: | like to know of any cultish characteristic that you have >> >> :: | perceived in me so that I can correct it. > >Bernie: >> >> :I would have been interested if someone answered the questions >> >> :of DM. Seems that nor ef nor you can satisfy my curiosity >> >> :here. I thought you guys were specialists in mind control. > >David Mayo: >> > Yes, I too, would have been interested if either efischer >> > or Dave Bird would answer the question instead of merely >> > continuing their unsubstantiated assertion that my beliefs >> > and/or practices are harmful -- especially when they have >> > failed to comment on *any* of the beliefs that I have stated >> > in this newsgroup and have no idea what my practices are! > >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine >> If you think I've drifted off track from some original questions, >> perhaps you could re-state them? What I have done is take up >> the challenge and opportunity in your question "well, why SHOULD I >> abandon Hubbard's tech?" (What is wrong with it that I should not >> continue developing it). I have tried to say what is IMO wrong >> with Hubbard's tech -- I don't know to what extent you still >> uphold that tech -- and if you wish me to respond on your current >> beliefs different from Hubbard's tech then please remind me what >> they are. I am not saying "damn you, David Mayo, you definitely >> believe all the things I find fault in"; merely finding fault >> in standard tech, and asking whether you agree with those faults. > >No no no Dave. The questions are straight above under your eyes, no need >of re-statement. We are *not* speaking here about the tech or believes >here, but about *cultish_behavior*. I would like to know what cultish >behavior DM displayed (because I never saw any), and DM wants to know >because he probably would like to improve himself. But you are not >helping him in this direction, you are making accusation in such a way >that he can't learn from them. So, did you recover from your illness and >can now answer the question which is straight above here? Or maybe you >did already in some other post I didn't see. > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote: > >Bernie: >> >> :I would have been interested if someone answered the questions >> >> :of DM.... > >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine: >> > I said in my post that I was tired and ill, and not capable >> > of doing the matter justice in the present article but >> > would attempt to do so in a later one. > >Bernie: >> >I will send you oranges, Dave, because you probably are still sick: >> >you didnt answered any single question of DM here. > >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine >> I am doing my best to address the subject of my doubts about >> the tech bit by bit. > >No! no, no, no and no. The question is *not* about the tech, it's about >alledged cultish behavior displayed by David Mayo (see above). > >[snipped the whole discussion about the tech, because it's getting a bit >confused] > >> I'm arguing that the tech is >> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and author, >> the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to separate them >> you end up with nothing left. > >I kept only the above paragraph of the whole discussion, which I think >summarize the essence of what you said. Can we agree that you are saying >that the mind control element of Scn is build within the tech itself, >while I am saying that the tech and the cultish mindset are two separate >things (like a knife is not responsible of my killing someone or >buttering my bread)? > >What can I say more on this that I didn't say yet? All I can say is that >things are not the way you see them. It's very important to see exactly >for oneself what the cultic or mind-control element is. That's the only >way to be free from it. As far as I am concerned, I may be wrong, but >the phenomenon is very clear for me, and I can see exactly at which >point the cultic mindset joins in with the tech, but then also at wich >point it separates from it. If you say "everything is flawed at the >start by the evil intention of the founder, and so everything is >mind-control the moment it has the Scn label on it", then I think that, >if you will ever pardon me, you do not have a correct conception of what >a cultic mindset really is. I may even go as far as saying that this >*is* a cultic mindset, a black & white view, a "we are all good/they are >all bad" attitude. > >That's all that is left to be said. I do hope, for the benefit of >everyone, that you will nuance your position with time. But maybe you >have no mean to do that, because maybe (I don't know your background) >you only have an external view and not an inside one. > >Bernie: >> >Well, I hope you get soon well enough and, secondarily, address at >> >least one of his question. > >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine >> I can't remember what they were. > >What did DM specifically do that you can qualify as cultic (see on top >of this p/m)? > >> But I think you will agree I >> am addressing **the** questions on separability of tech >> from its authoritarian purposes. > >Yes, kind of, but frankly I am more interested by the first question. > >Cheers, >------ >Bernie > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMbgfFOmCyCdNXuVZAQGsMgP8Drd95CQyfsuhX8e9fALjH5XPKZkFO2K2 rbOFK22S38D3MPqkY3Q7sdjWwVsPkjwzWD4hVQ8j3Xkmu3IL37hkVM1OK3EVBhJC kBWxND5bp0+jdE8y8LLQIUDY0IzWS7vE0GsH5h8ZM9FxEQpnEoGOYDvVyq3aIPQp anwaenJ5Lhg= =P194 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- [p&m'd]