First of all, I have to agree that malicious intent is not required to violate people,
but that harmful behaviours or harmful practices are what matters,
even if they arise as side-effects of well intentioned ideals.
It is a matter of definition what counts as a destructive cult,
if you think exploitation is required, as Lifton does,
I think that presupposes malicious intent but I am willing to let that bit go:
[forum.culteducation.com]
The first point is obvious, they worship the hell out of Moo.
The second point, though reform, is pretty much central to the groups goal,
which is to bring people to the “realization of absolute truth”, a radically different view of reality than we normally hold,
which I think can only be achieved by some form of though reform.
But it is also my opinion that though reform in itself is not malicious or harmful,
it is the purpose for which it is employed that makes all the difference.
If the purpose is to make people free of their suffering or bring the to a fundamental knowledge about reality,
which as an apologist I would say the purpose of Mooji's group is,
than I would put the enterprise in the same category as I would psychiatry or academia,
which both employ though reform techniques to bring people to a view of reality
that is “sane” or one that is “scientific”.
The third point is where I think Moo's group falls short of this definition.
I don't think there is “economic, sexual or other exploitation”, especially not in a systemic pattern.
I feel that people willingly engage in this process of though reform, no one seems to be forced to be there or to remain there,
they WANT their thoughts to be reformed, they want relief from their suffering and profound wisdom.
This is why I am looking for clues of coercion and exploitation to be able to complete the definition by Lifton.
Thank you happytown for your effort to sift through the forum and bring together these complaints in a single overview.
Most of the complaints are in the “though reform” category,
which I think is very convincingly shown to be happening in Moo's group.
What about exploitation or coercion? Without it Moo is NOT a destructive cult.
What do you call a well intentioned thought reform group with a leader that is being worshipped as god,
but that people engage in of their own free will and where they are not being exploited?
but that harmful behaviours or harmful practices are what matters,
even if they arise as side-effects of well intentioned ideals.
It is a matter of definition what counts as a destructive cult,
if you think exploitation is required, as Lifton does,
I think that presupposes malicious intent but I am willing to let that bit go:
[forum.culteducation.com]
Quote
rrmoderator
Lifton explains:
"Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:
1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;
3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie."
The first point is obvious, they worship the hell out of Moo.
The second point, though reform, is pretty much central to the groups goal,
which is to bring people to the “realization of absolute truth”, a radically different view of reality than we normally hold,
which I think can only be achieved by some form of though reform.
But it is also my opinion that though reform in itself is not malicious or harmful,
it is the purpose for which it is employed that makes all the difference.
If the purpose is to make people free of their suffering or bring the to a fundamental knowledge about reality,
which as an apologist I would say the purpose of Mooji's group is,
than I would put the enterprise in the same category as I would psychiatry or academia,
which both employ though reform techniques to bring people to a view of reality
that is “sane” or one that is “scientific”.
The third point is where I think Moo's group falls short of this definition.
I don't think there is “economic, sexual or other exploitation”, especially not in a systemic pattern.
I feel that people willingly engage in this process of though reform, no one seems to be forced to be there or to remain there,
they WANT their thoughts to be reformed, they want relief from their suffering and profound wisdom.
This is why I am looking for clues of coercion and exploitation to be able to complete the definition by Lifton.
Thank you happytown for your effort to sift through the forum and bring together these complaints in a single overview.
Most of the complaints are in the “though reform” category,
which I think is very convincingly shown to be happening in Moo's group.
What about exploitation or coercion? Without it Moo is NOT a destructive cult.
What do you call a well intentioned thought reform group with a leader that is being worshipped as god,
but that people engage in of their own free will and where they are not being exploited?