Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!idis!cadre!sm
From: sm@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame
Subject: Re: Sean McLinden on authority and brainwashing
Message-ID: <249@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 14:47:49 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.249
Posted: Thu Feb 7 14:47:49 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 03:10:11 EST
References: <293@decwrl.UUCP> <398@pyuxd.UUCP> <237@cadre.ARPA> <241@cadre.ARPA> <467@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: sm@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 128
Xref: watmath net.religion:5552 net.flame:8267
Summary:
In article <467@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP writes:
>>>... It does help at
>>>times to look at our own beliefs without the cloud of religion/ideolgy/etc.
>>>that each of us has acquired over the years, thanx to our parents/teachers/
>>>friends/etc., which I'd term as an unseen form of "brainwashing" -- strong,
>>>gradual, but very potent. [RAMANATHAN]
>
>> You might call it "brainwashing", but it isn't, and the use of that
>> term is an example of the inflammatory rhetoric you claimed that you
>> wished to avoid. [McLINDEN]
>
>It may be "inflammatory" to say so, but it *is* brainwashing nonetheless.
[Rosen]
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]
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.)
>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.
>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.
>> 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).
Don't confuse morality with law. The idea of a collective (societal)
morality is dangerous. We can surrender to government and society the
right to make laws by which we live but 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.
>
>> Some of what I (and I would assert you, too), believe
>> in, has come to us on the authority of another. This authority might
>> be a textbook, a journal article, a speech bu a Nobel laureate, or
>> a teacher. You may choose to accept or deny the authority of any
>> source of information but I would venture to say that a good percentage
>> of your beliefs are rooted in authority rather than your ability to
>> demonstrate them to your own satisfaction.
>
>There is a difference between an authority who simply asserts (an opinion?
>based on what?) and an authority who supplies reasoned analysis and evidence.
That's not the point, The point is: Have you taken the time to rigorously
verify everything in which you believe? Does gravity exist? Does it exist
EVERYWHERE on earth? Prove it. The point is that you acccept some of your
so-called scientific notions because you accept someone else's authority
in that matter.
>In my experience, the people who have the most rational outlook on the world
>are the ones who were raised, not by blind assertions and demands of an
>authority, but by authority that proves itself and explains its motives for
>its demands.
Oh, and I suppose that you have, in fact, studied the upbringing of these
people in enough detail to know. Tell me, what stories did their parent's
tell them as kids (name ALL of them)? How many rational people are in your
"n" (enough to be significant in a U.S. population of 300 million?). Oh,
excuse me, what you meant was that a few of your friends tell you that
they discussed "Critique of Pure Reason" in kindergarden and had read
the original scriptures (in Sanskrit) by age 3. NEXT!!!
>> 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.
>> 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.
Thus spoke:
>BRIAN: "You're all different!"
>CROWD: "YES, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT!" Rich Rosen
>MAN: "I'm not ... " {ihnp4 | harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
Sean McLinden