from Internet radio show:
"Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome Joe Szimhart to Skeptiko. Joe is an expert on cults and has been counseling, lecturing, and helping people with cult-related issues since breaking away from a New Age sect in the 1980s. Joe, welcome to Skeptiko.
Joe Szimhart: Yeah, glad to be on, thanks.
Alex Tsakiris: Well, I’m just really excited to have you on. It’s a totally different topic than anything we’ve talked about before but it’s just fascinating to me in so many different ways. It touches on so many things that we’ve talked about. In a rather strange way it leads back to some of the conversations we’ve had with some of the leading researchers and scientists on human consciousness.
I first ran across your name and your work, if you will, when I was researching J. Z. Knight, the leader of the Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment and the person behind that super-popular New Age science movie from a few years ago, What the Bleep do We Know? Can you tell folks a little bit about your interview that is on your website with Jeff Knight?"
-----for rest of interview see:
http://www.skeptiko.com/religious-cults ... periences/
SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
Re: SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
Psss....as a caution, the skeptiko site promotes an idea that some science does and can prove or disprove spiritual experience of out of body/after life awareness without resorting to spiritual or religious faith. I do not completely buy into it religiously or skeptically, thus the tension you sense in the interview---on reading it over, I did not handle the interview very well...
Joe
Joe
Re: SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
Hi Joe,
On the contrary, I think that you handled the interview very well; especially in pointing out the need to really assess the context in which one might have had an experience. That analysis itself may be the most important thing; for from that we can sometimes gain a greater understanding of how our mind works. Yes, it can be the turning point in how someone then perceives a belief system, but I have found that freedom of thought in that area was the most helpfu in getting myself extricated from RSE.
I did return to Buddhism and retook my vows, but I must also say that the RSE and aftermath experience did change how I thought and think about things in general and also in how Buddhist philosophy is personally received, experienced and processed since.
I too am often asked what I believe in...what Buddhists believe in, and I have found it helpful to examine the question itself. It must be looked at from the perspective of why it is being asked and by whom. In discussing what could best be described as a personal experience for those who have had it (or believe that they have), I simply suggest that someone who has had an experience do exactly what you suggest. Settle down and really have a look at it, perhaps even from the devil's advocate position. At the very least, from the persepctive of attachments to it and where they stem from.
Thanks for sharing your insight.
It is always appreciated.
With love, Kensho
On the contrary, I think that you handled the interview very well; especially in pointing out the need to really assess the context in which one might have had an experience. That analysis itself may be the most important thing; for from that we can sometimes gain a greater understanding of how our mind works. Yes, it can be the turning point in how someone then perceives a belief system, but I have found that freedom of thought in that area was the most helpfu in getting myself extricated from RSE.
I did return to Buddhism and retook my vows, but I must also say that the RSE and aftermath experience did change how I thought and think about things in general and also in how Buddhist philosophy is personally received, experienced and processed since.
I too am often asked what I believe in...what Buddhists believe in, and I have found it helpful to examine the question itself. It must be looked at from the perspective of why it is being asked and by whom. In discussing what could best be described as a personal experience for those who have had it (or believe that they have), I simply suggest that someone who has had an experience do exactly what you suggest. Settle down and really have a look at it, perhaps even from the devil's advocate position. At the very least, from the persepctive of attachments to it and where they stem from.
Thanks for sharing your insight.
It is always appreciated.
With love, Kensho
"Don't let any person bring you so low as to hate them."
Booker T. Washington
Booker T. Washington
Re: SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
KENSHO
thanks for feedback
the same or similar rational principles operate whether one is defending membership in a cult or in an established religion
however
the so-called great religions are wide-ranging and include a history of conduct codes and social governance sorely lacking in new religions and small sects with founders yet alive. When someone accuses me of belonging to the biggest "cult" as a Catholic, for example, I am not sure where to start with them without rehearsing a huge amount of history and doctrine.
It is probably easier for westerners to grasp what is meant by "great religion" by using Hinduism which may be the most difficult to pin down as a doctrine. Among those usually classed as "great" most have founders: the Buddha, Jain/Mahavir, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Nanak/Gobind Singh of the Sikhs, Islam, eg. Hinduism proper has no founder but ancient texts like Rg Vedas based on chants developed by unnamed "Rishis" or seer-shamans. Hinduism tends to absorb rather than deflect new religions, thus we find versions of the Issa myth about Jesus circulated among modern Hinduism. iow, when someone claims to be Hindu, it is almost like saying "I drink wet substances" or "my pet is an animal." A constricted Evangelical Christian might say "You are in a cult" to a Hindu but that has no real meaning.
The skeptiko moderator favors such 'scientists' as R Sheldrake and I do not. I can understand the desire for sscientific evidence of psi, OBEs or "miracles" but I am not convinced and i have been following Sheldrake's so-called experiments for some years.
thanks for feedback
the same or similar rational principles operate whether one is defending membership in a cult or in an established religion
however
the so-called great religions are wide-ranging and include a history of conduct codes and social governance sorely lacking in new religions and small sects with founders yet alive. When someone accuses me of belonging to the biggest "cult" as a Catholic, for example, I am not sure where to start with them without rehearsing a huge amount of history and doctrine.
It is probably easier for westerners to grasp what is meant by "great religion" by using Hinduism which may be the most difficult to pin down as a doctrine. Among those usually classed as "great" most have founders: the Buddha, Jain/Mahavir, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Nanak/Gobind Singh of the Sikhs, Islam, eg. Hinduism proper has no founder but ancient texts like Rg Vedas based on chants developed by unnamed "Rishis" or seer-shamans. Hinduism tends to absorb rather than deflect new religions, thus we find versions of the Issa myth about Jesus circulated among modern Hinduism. iow, when someone claims to be Hindu, it is almost like saying "I drink wet substances" or "my pet is an animal." A constricted Evangelical Christian might say "You are in a cult" to a Hindu but that has no real meaning.
The skeptiko moderator favors such 'scientists' as R Sheldrake and I do not. I can understand the desire for sscientific evidence of psi, OBEs or "miracles" but I am not convinced and i have been following Sheldrake's so-called experiments for some years.
Re: SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
I just read the whole interview.
I agree with Kensho, and I think your handled it brilliantly, Joe.
But that's a whole other can of worms that maybe I shouldn't open up here... don't mean to hijack...
I agree with Kensho, and I think your handled it brilliantly, Joe.
Kind of like trying to explain the science behind evolutionary theory to a religious fundamentalist (or other evolution-denier - because they aren't all religious); it's exhausting and it's futile because there's no way you can teach the history and philosophy of science and help somebody to understand the nature of scientific evidence and scientific "proof" when they are completely lacking in that background.the so-called great religions are wide-ranging and include a history of conduct codes and social governance sorely lacking in new religions and small sects with founders yet alive. When someone accuses me of belonging to the biggest "cult" as a Catholic, for example, I am not sure where to start with them without rehearsing a huge amount of history and doctrine.
But that's a whole other can of worms that maybe I shouldn't open up here... don't mean to hijack...
About me: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1363
Re: SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
Well put, Ponysong. I've tried to talk to my friends that are in JZ's talons. I would really like to be able to have a conversation, I'm not trying to, "convert," them away from being ramsters - that's their choice, and while I do care about their welfare and I feel they could do more constructive things, they are free to choose.
Anyway, trying to have a real talk about what comprises ramtha-think is really difficult. The non-disclosure thing keeps getting in the way, or I'm told I'm stupid because I listen to scientists who are in conspiracy with the government, Bilderberg Group and they're all liars. Lieing about what?, everything I suppose, but then why?, what would be the benefit to them?
The ramsters are like evolution-deniers or holocost-deniers. If you try to have a discussion and something that contradicts their biased or incomplete view of reality, they start making blah-blah-blah noises so they don't have to hear something that shakes their fantasy.
I happen to work in a technical field, and we use physics that operates in the quantum domain. People have conducted experiments and figured out how the technology I use operates. We have applied science to make things that produce meaninful and useful results in the real world. It is provable and repeatable ivestigation and observation of facts that have made it possible to do my work.
Contrast that to JZ-Ramtha pontification. As far as I can tell nothing useful or even measureable has come out of several decades of the RSE, "shcool." Learning to recognize the scratches on hte backs of playing cards to, "predict," what is on the other side of the cards doesn't comprise anything devine or useful. Does doing hours of C&E get you anything you can actually use? Maybe bumbling around in the Tank (tm) and getting your pinky finger torn off on a ladder builds self confidence that you can go beyond your everyday ordinary life - but so does an Outward Bound leadership course, or joining the army and making it through six weeks of boot camp.
I am willing to accept that the science I use may not explain everything. All I know is that what we know as Modern Physics works in the familar four dimensional space-time that our physical senses are able to percieve. The stuff that RSE passes off as science is terribly incomplete or in opposition to the curriculum of an average junior level college Modern Physics class. I'd love to know if there is any substance to some Ramtha secret sauce. That's where I've run into the stone-walling. I've asked about stuff in the Ramtha (white) book, for example, that doesn't square with wha't I learned in physics. That's where I've been blah-blah-blah'ed. I don't really care that doesn't align - that's what I'm curious about, and I have an open mind to hear why it is different. The contrast between the two schools of thought, is that the Modern Physics devotee conducts experiments and observations to arrive at the accepted model of understanding; on the other hand, ramsters listen to JZ Kinght or her Ramtha character say things and accept it without any sort of philosophical or physical test. OK, so there's the Tank (tm); what is it that makes it meaningful? And why?
That's also the difference between a ramster, platonist, Catholic priest or physicist. All the latter are willing to sit down and have a conssturctive converstion about the basis of their beliefs. It is a lot more satisfying than being told that a 35,000 year old guy said it, and that's the way it is. So be it. I don't have pay $20,000 at an auction to have a one-on-one session with the minister of the church I like; she's quite willing to talk whenever she has time. Amen, brother (and sister)!
Anyway, trying to have a real talk about what comprises ramtha-think is really difficult. The non-disclosure thing keeps getting in the way, or I'm told I'm stupid because I listen to scientists who are in conspiracy with the government, Bilderberg Group and they're all liars. Lieing about what?, everything I suppose, but then why?, what would be the benefit to them?
The ramsters are like evolution-deniers or holocost-deniers. If you try to have a discussion and something that contradicts their biased or incomplete view of reality, they start making blah-blah-blah noises so they don't have to hear something that shakes their fantasy.
I happen to work in a technical field, and we use physics that operates in the quantum domain. People have conducted experiments and figured out how the technology I use operates. We have applied science to make things that produce meaninful and useful results in the real world. It is provable and repeatable ivestigation and observation of facts that have made it possible to do my work.
Contrast that to JZ-Ramtha pontification. As far as I can tell nothing useful or even measureable has come out of several decades of the RSE, "shcool." Learning to recognize the scratches on hte backs of playing cards to, "predict," what is on the other side of the cards doesn't comprise anything devine or useful. Does doing hours of C&E get you anything you can actually use? Maybe bumbling around in the Tank (tm) and getting your pinky finger torn off on a ladder builds self confidence that you can go beyond your everyday ordinary life - but so does an Outward Bound leadership course, or joining the army and making it through six weeks of boot camp.
I am willing to accept that the science I use may not explain everything. All I know is that what we know as Modern Physics works in the familar four dimensional space-time that our physical senses are able to percieve. The stuff that RSE passes off as science is terribly incomplete or in opposition to the curriculum of an average junior level college Modern Physics class. I'd love to know if there is any substance to some Ramtha secret sauce. That's where I've run into the stone-walling. I've asked about stuff in the Ramtha (white) book, for example, that doesn't square with wha't I learned in physics. That's where I've been blah-blah-blah'ed. I don't really care that doesn't align - that's what I'm curious about, and I have an open mind to hear why it is different. The contrast between the two schools of thought, is that the Modern Physics devotee conducts experiments and observations to arrive at the accepted model of understanding; on the other hand, ramsters listen to JZ Kinght or her Ramtha character say things and accept it without any sort of philosophical or physical test. OK, so there's the Tank (tm); what is it that makes it meaningful? And why?
That's also the difference between a ramster, platonist, Catholic priest or physicist. All the latter are willing to sit down and have a conssturctive converstion about the basis of their beliefs. It is a lot more satisfying than being told that a 35,000 year old guy said it, and that's the way it is. So be it. I don't have pay $20,000 at an auction to have a one-on-one session with the minister of the church I like; she's quite willing to talk whenever she has time. Amen, brother (and sister)!
Re: SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
Well said Ockham :)
Re: SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
I didn't realize this would become such an interesting thread, but again, the skeptiko question drives us into the heart of what is wrong with ramtha. Ockham makes the point well, I think:
In all my years of exit counseling I found it miraculous at times that after ten to twenty hours or more of frustrating dialog, suddenly something "snaps" or emerges, and I watch a change occur, a reversal from defensiveness to contemplation, and then to real questioning that often but delightfully puts me back on my heels. I observe the lock-step neuropathways lose their power and collapse as new rivers or streams of thought break free from the neuro-reservoir or dammed up self.
I recall this same experience in my self when I struggled over a year to recognize what CUT was really about. Most cult members who emerge do it on their own in fits and starts but it is amazing to watch it occur in compressed time as a "coach."
This is what sociologist Janja Lalich coined as "Bounded Choice" and Robert Lifton characterized as "constriction" being the hallmark of what it means to be in a totalist cult. Any healthy priest, minister, rabbi, Muslim cleric is open to discussion with skeptics be they philosopher or scientist. Lifton states the constriction is a matter of degree---some cults are more constricted or bounded than others and some cult members within the particluar closed system are more anxious thus more "bounded." The latter operate in a fundamentalist loop of ready-made answers to avoid thinking or stretching consciousness.That's also the difference between a ramster, platonist, Catholic priest or physicist. All the latter are willing to sit down and have a constructive converstion about the basis of their beliefs.
In all my years of exit counseling I found it miraculous at times that after ten to twenty hours or more of frustrating dialog, suddenly something "snaps" or emerges, and I watch a change occur, a reversal from defensiveness to contemplation, and then to real questioning that often but delightfully puts me back on my heels. I observe the lock-step neuropathways lose their power and collapse as new rivers or streams of thought break free from the neuro-reservoir or dammed up self.
I recall this same experience in my self when I struggled over a year to recognize what CUT was really about. Most cult members who emerge do it on their own in fits and starts but it is amazing to watch it occur in compressed time as a "coach."
-
freemysoul
- Posts: 362
- Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:40 am
Re: SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
The moment I approach RSE or JZ in conversation with current ramster friends, it always goes to the same place. My friends will tell me that I just don't understand because my doubt and questioning have clouded my opinion. They also revert to the old standby: "Thats your truth." I haven't had an actual conversation about why I know that RSE is a scam perpetrated by JZ Knight because my friends still want to believe in what they see as magical, or think they are special and unique. They don't want anyone to upset the world they have created for themselves because in some strange way, they have found comfort in it. I remember the days when someone would question me about my beliefs and try to make me see the contradictions and outright inconsistencies. I would just shut down and shut them out, thinking that they were full of 'lack' or trying to convert me back to 'social consciousness'. It doesn't make it any easier to watch my friends fall deeper and deeper into delusional thinking just because I understand why they do, but at least I can be here for them when and if they awaken from JZ's trance.
Re: SKEPTIKO interview mentions ramtha
freemysoul
I finished a draft of a paper for the ICSA conference coming up in Barcelona in July
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_respon ... kshops.asp
I am not going but I will be represented on a panel with Spanish psychologists addressing the same topic-- the paper is about why cult members resort to using a thought-blocking cliche like "that's your truth" and why adherence to constricting belief systems resembles an addiction or bad habit. I will post an early draft on another thread as it is 3500 words, too long for here, for emf readers to consider.
joe sz
I finished a draft of a paper for the ICSA conference coming up in Barcelona in July
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_respon ... kshops.asp
I am not going but I will be represented on a panel with Spanish psychologists addressing the same topic-- the paper is about why cult members resort to using a thought-blocking cliche like "that's your truth" and why adherence to constricting belief systems resembles an addiction or bad habit. I will post an early draft on another thread as it is 3500 words, too long for here, for emf readers to consider.
joe sz