Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxm!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Sean McLinden on authority and brainwashing Message-ID: <503@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 18:09:58 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.503 Posted: Sat Feb 9 18:09:58 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 06:34:27 EST References: <293@decwrl.UUCP> <398@pyuxd.UUCP> <237@cadre.ARPA> <241@cadre.ARPA> <467@pyuxd.UUCP> <249@cadre.ARPA> Organization: The Gang - Other Other Operations Division Lines: 108 Xref: watmath net.religion:5563 net.flame:8283 > brainwashing - a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to GIVE UP > basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to > accept contrasting regimented ideas. [Webster's New Collegiate] It needn't be forcible when it's part of the societal status quo. (Shouldn't argue with a dictionary: it's an "authority"!!! :-) > If you want to learn something about brainwashing, you might try reviewing > the large body of psychology literature that arose after the Korean War. > I can give you references, if you wish. (But then these texts were probably > written by individuals who had grown up being "brainwashed" by their > teachers, parents, television, talking pets, visions of the Four Horsemen, > and Bazooka Joe comics so I don't know if you would value them.) Good point, that parenthetical sentence there. I'd guess that you yourself don't agree. >>Especially when its "purpose" seems to be to direct its "victims" towards >>a specific type of thinking to the exclusion of more reasoned analysis. > Just because you ARE paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. You obviously don't bother to read articles you respond to. I quoted the word "purpose" and explained WHY I quoted the word "purpose"---because notions of conspiracy may be construed from such ideas, but there isn't necessarily any basis for doing so. Do you know Gary Samuelson personally? Did you take lessons in excerpting from articles from him? :-( You quote out of context with his unique flair and panache. >>Members of the status quo (powers-that-be) are people >>too, as I mentioned in my own response to Ramanathan's article. And they >>are equally subject to the brainwashing effects. > Interesting concept, a sort of "self-perpetuating brainwashing". Lucky for > you (for all of us perhaps), you were able to escape centuries of this > madness. There's always a few. The freer a society gets, the more there are. >>>Religion is NOT science (although the latter arose >>>from the former), and does not require the rigorous scientific >>>justifications that other intellectual disciplines do. >>Why? Because you say so? For your own personal perspective of the world, >>I agree, it does not; one chooses to believe what one likes. But for the >>perspective of a societal morality, and a system of indoctrination, it most >>certainly SHOULD require such rigorous justifications!!! > "and a system of indoctrination", I thought that you were against this. > (Or is it that you only object to "indoctrination of ideas with which you > disagree). I *am* against this. My point was that when religion enters the realm of determining societal morality and systems of indoctrination, "it most certainly SHOULD require such rigorous justifications!!! > I retain for myself, always, the > right to decide what is moral (right and wrong). I don't care how much > "evidence" you give for your "opinion", the individual will still always > be the ultimate judge of morality. The individual might choose to accept > the teachings of others and religion is one such framework for that. Science > and philosophy are others. But no individual should let Rick Rosen, or > anyone else, tell him/her than they can offer "proof" for what is right > and what is wrong. That is a belief. Stop agreeing with me, it's getting annoying. :-) If you really feel that the individual has the right to his/her own life, then I'd think you'd feel that societal indoctrination (be it brainwashing, religious permeation of morality, or television shows) is detrimental to independent thought. >>>In some of these religions, >>>certain people are endowed with special "powers" which allow them to >>>interpret messages from this authority (God). >>In my book, such people are known as "charlatans". To believe in such >>"special authority" is ludicrous. > When "your book" is read by as many people as the Bible, or the Tao, or > the Torah, or even the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence, > I MIGHT (heavy emphasis on MIGHT), be mildly interested. Let me know > when you get into second printing and I'll get a copy from the library. The number of people who've read a book has little bearing on correctness. Or is popularity itself an "authority"? >>>It is not undesirable for us to learn to accept certain things on authority >>>from others. It is not "brainwashing" to teach beliefs in addition to >>>facts. The mere fact that you question what you have been taught is >>>evidence that parents/teachers/etc., whom you have accused of brainwashing >>>you, cannot, in fact, control what you believe. >>Some are luckier (and/or smarter) than others. Unfortunately, the less >>lucky and the less smart, the more gullible and easily brainwashed, are >>greater in number. > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by > their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, > liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pretty inspired for a bunch of > automatons. I have no idea what relevance Sean McLinden's previous paragraph has to the two that preceded it. Did it sound real good, just in that spot? It certainly didn't make any point. Maybe that was your point: to show that pompous words vested with emotional meaning can be used in the absence of substance to sway people to your point of view. Thanks for showing that. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen {ihnp4|harpo}!pyuxd!rlr