Rocky

Not that any GSC readers (unless perhaps they are newly escaped from the fundamentalist cult that is TWI) necessarily still believe or understand this particular manipulation of language to be unique to TWI, but a friend of mine just yesterday had an article posted to rollingstone.com. She (Ashley Sanders) wrote the story last year on escapees from Scientology. The first paragraph reads, Scientologists have special words for the people gathered at a sleek Airbnb townhouse on a mild day in September. They’re irrational, or “banky.” They’re putting off bad vibes, or being “downtone.” They’re full of negative energy, or “chargey,” and they won’t contain it — they won’t “get their TRs in.” But the people sprawling on the living room’s vinyl wraparound couch don’t use those words to describe themselves anymore. Growing up in Scientology, they say they were constantly told to be stoic. Now that they’ve left, they’re tired of jargon about repressing emotion. Instead, they’re looking for new words to describe themselves—new ways to express the psychological consequences of their upbringing—and they’ve traveled all the way to Brooklyn to tell their stories. They’ve already landed on one new way to think about themselves—a phrase that helps illuminate why it’s so hard for them feel things. They call themselves the Children of Scientology. Psychologists call them SGAs, or Second Generation Adults. Aren't tribal idiosyncrasies special?

Ah HA... I thought it might have something to do with cannabis.

For the record, the book has not changed my world view that much, or my political views at all. But it has made me more able to move with confidence toward my goals.

Many of us who long ago recognized the evil in the TWI viewed, for a time, maybe long time, maybe short time, The Way AS the obstacle. An obstacle that distracted us sometimes for decades, sometimes less. On this forum (specifically "About the Way" forum) there are stories of wasted years that Victor Wierwille "stole from us." For me, it's been more than three decades (33 years, more or less) since I "copped out" or rather escaped the cult. That's no longer how I choose to look at the situation. That's not to say that I was (we were) wrong in viewing that reality in that way. Wierwille sold us a myth. A story. A cult. A subculture. And yes, a family of sorts. I long ago shed WayBrain. BUT now, I no longer look back and regret my time being part of that dysfunctional subculture. GOOD things happened after I left twi. But so did things we traditionally consider bad. Difficult things. Obstacles. Challenges. The transition to acceptance of and growth into the new perspective took years. The obstacles became the path to achievement, accomplishment and growth. They often weren't pleasant. As (included in the book above) Ben Franklin said (probably more than once), what hurts, instructs. Rather than ramble on, I'll just say that I've found the book tremendously insightful and inspiring. Obviously, I highly recommend the book to you. Maybe you can find it in your local public library. I obtained it from Amazon (Kindle version) for $1.99. I subscribe to a daily email that Amazon sends out with books at special low prices, often $1.99. Beats the hell out of paying $100 for a class (or hundreds to thousands for variations on PFLAP or Momentus) these days. And your life is YOURS to live as you see fit. There's no group to join but it will likely provide great insights for self-determination.

Do you know why you can't access the video?

It's all about TWIs tribal idiosyncrasies. We've also discussed the notion of "belonging" in relation to twi. That's inherently tied into tribalism. The word "tribe" can be defined to mean an extended kin group or clan with a common ancestor, or can also be described as a group with shared interests, lifestyles and habits. The proverb "birds of a feather flock together" describes homophily,[3] the human tendency to form friendship networks with people of similar occupations, interests, and habits.[4] Some tribes can be located in geographically proximate areas, like villages or bands, though telecommunications enables groups of people to form digital tribes using tools like social networking websites. In terms of conformity,[5] tribalism has been defined as a "subjectivity" or "way of being" social frame in which communities are bound socially beyond immediate birth ties by the dominance of various modalities of face-to-face and object integration.[6] Ontologically, tribalism is oriented around the valences of analogy, genealogy and mythology. That means that customary tribes have their social foundations in some variation of these tribal orientations, while often taking on traditional practices (e.g. Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), and modern practices, including monetary exchange, mobile communications, and modern education. Tribalism implies the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from the members of another group. Based on strong relations of proximity and kinship, members of a tribe tend to possess a strong feeling of identity. Objectively, for a customary tribal society to form there needs to be ongoing customary organization, enquiry and exchange. However, intense feelings of common identity can lead people to feel tribally connected.[10] The distinction between these two definitions for tribalism, objective and subjective, is an important one because while tribal societies have been pushed to the edges of the Western world, tribalism, by the second definition, is arguably undiminished. A few writers have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism by its evolutionary advantages, but that claim is usually linked to equating original questions of sociality with tribalism.[11] Tribalism has a very adaptive effect in human evolution.

When I was in twi, that meant, "sell the PFLAP class."

That's the con that "organized" religion continues to play. We fell for it. Among the billions who have done so through the years.

Given that the twitter account cites him as Loy Craig Martindale rather than L Craig... or just Craig, is the first clue. It seems extremely unlikely that the account was set up by the real LCM.

That all makes sense to me.

Published on YouTube, May 28, 2019 Maybe the R&R group would be interested in knowing whether there really is something to restore.

The line isn't necessarily as fine as one might think. The essence, in one sense, comes down to whether one can rightfully be associated with VB (for example) as opposed to actually proving allegations of actual wrongdoing (criminal or tortious (civilly liable) conduct). And whether only being associated with him makes the associate liable for anything other than having made extremely poor judgment in having that association. We can and do rightfully infer that VB, besides his acknowledged criminal conduct, was a master manipulator and deceiver. That inference makes it impossible to, absent actual evidence, make any inferences as to what criminal conduct his associates may have committed. Who of us has never been conned? I have been. Besides falling for VPW's BS, I can cite a couple of examples of when I fell for things when I should have known better. The fact that a lawsuit alleged harmful conduct against VB's associates is one thing. That the court dismissed the lawsuit means we cannot rely on those allegations to make any reasonable inferences that VBs associates committed the alleged acts or omissions. As far as I know, we do not have any such actual evidence at this time. Heresay -- in the form of I heard or read that she or he said _________ is NOT actual evidence. However, when one has a mental framework in which that one views any such associate, it can be extremely difficult to discern that what one believes as a result of heresay or as a result of prior observation of said associate is NOT actual evidence. That said, I personally know NONE of VB's associates. 40 years ago, I KNEW one person who subsequently became an associate of VB. But I do not now know and have not seen or spoken with that associate of VB since the 1970s. And I cannot vouch for or against that person.

So people can see what is in the youtube link before clicking on it.

Some people? I'd say that social science suggests that ALL people only see what they want to see. 1) That doesn't supercede the concept of communication whereby you are responsible for ensuring your message is clear to your audience. (that doesn't change the reality of the concept of communication) 2) You can't see into the heart (intentions) of those who would argue contrary to your position. Do you need chapter and verse for that one? (I can find it if so)

I agree, that it IS a problem. Is it the root problem? Not in my opinion. But the issue you described is definitely a problem.

Maybe the first time we sat through that session we were "taught," as opposed to "taut," which may have been the case for those conducting the class. But even then, to the degree that we abstained from challenging it in our own minds, we were indoctrinated, IMO. Indeed, one can, among devotees of twi, trace the stubborn attitudes to that session. But vpw was definitely not the first to come up with ideas on how to get people to give up their personal responsibility to exercise reason and critical thinking. I wholeheartedly agree that Walter Cummins's two classes that you cited were fundamental to constructing the forms and pouring the concrete to solidify the mindset for us. Insidious, really. Of course, those two classes may not have had far reaching influence outside of twi and/or offshoots thereof. But that's why I posed the question the way I did, regarding the biblical story of the various ways the Adversary is portrayed, starting with the first one.

1) I am most certainly NOT saying PFLAP is a valid interpretation of the Judeo-Christian creation story. 2) Indeed, tribalism is not confined to religion. Perhaps references to academic studies of zoology would also enhance this discussion. 3) I'd be reluctant to look for it outside Earth's atmosphere... until we find "intelligent" life there. 4) I appreciate your perspective and agree that it's sometimes beneficial and sometimes harmful.

Yes. My point is that it (for those who may prefer not to anthropomorphize the concept) is imaginary. For the record, I'm not atheistic nor agnostic. But if I was, I'd lean toward agnostic. I prefer Deist. IT is more than religion's way of keeping skeptical influences suppressed (or trying to do so anyway). As Einstein posited, imagination is very powerful... or at least more important than knowledge. What got me thinking about this was the fact that tribal conflict seems to have been around since early humans. Or, at least since history was first recorded, which seems to me to predate the Judeo-Christian tradition. So, being curious, I asked myself... I said, "Self, why is that?" Clearly, I'm not capable of answering that question with any sort of authoritative knowledge. But I can imagine. I can wonder. And I can at least do some rudimentary and superficial research.

Feel free to do so.

There you go again... did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are responsible for making your intended message more clear to your audience?

There should be no doubt that much of "American" Christianity, or the people therein, have a (major) problem with "the other," despite Jesus' having taught that the "bottom-line" of all the commandments is to love God and love one's neighbor.

Thanks, but that wasn't the point.

After all, the could just as easily have rewound the tape and played it over and over. And for those of you who never heard the word "retconned" (like me), Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short,[1][2] is a literary device in which established facts in a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former.