The World Transformation Movement

Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The World Transformation Movement

 

Does anyone out there know anything about the World Transformation Movement, which numbers Carl Jung among its patrons. It claims to be based on biological understanding of the 'human condition'.

I watched a couple of the videos and there was lots of talk about how bad humans are and how all that will now change because the day of days has arrived and now everything is fine. After 15 minutes of

talk, no facts had hoven into view and I couldn't bear the endless repetition of lines like: "The truth is..." followed by a rank assertion, or "As a matter of fact..." followed by an assumption.

The link is below. If you're impatient, don't visit. I was waiting for the mention of god - the tone is there - but the mention of god never comes. If you look at the graphic on the intro video you'll get the picture.

It's straight from the good news bible, replete with rising sun battle flag.

 

 

http://www.worldtransformation.com/

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Never mind.

 

They just mentioned the garden of fucking eden...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

They just mentioned the garden of fucking eden...

Is this eden chick pretty hot?

Sounds like more hocus pocus, I'll take your word for it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Massive explanatory power...

I would suggest that you read "Species in Denial" by Jeremy Griffith. The explanatory power of these ideas are absolutely massive... Never have I encountered something that explains so many things that were previously only mysteries... Amazing stuff!

 


"WTM" response net searcher (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I actually watched all of them yesterday...

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Does anyone out there know anything about the World Transformation Movement, which numbers Carl Jung among its patrons. It claims to be based on biological understanding of the 'human condition'.

I watched a couple of the videos and there was lots of talk about how bad humans are and how all that will now change because the day of days has arrived and now everything is fine. After 15 minutes of

talk, no facts had hoven into view and I couldn't bear the endless repetition of lines like: "The truth is..." followed by a rank assertion, or "As a matter of fact..." followed by an assumption.

The link is below. If you're impatient, don't visit. I was waiting for the mention of god - the tone is there - but the mention of god never comes. If you look at the graphic on the intro video you'll get the picture.

It's straight from the good news bible, replete with rising sun battle flag.

 

 

http://www.worldtransformation.com/

So ya, i'm a patient one lol

It boils down to a fiew points whtch have nothing to do with religion. here goes:

-Selfless life forms, heros, often die befor spreding their genes therefore the selfish genes spread more easily.

-The natural order of the universe is order rather than caos, atoms naturally assemble to form molecules etc.

-Man is a deviant animal that is greaved by pear pressure from the time we seperated from the groupe causing denial witch perpetuates to this day: free thought vs denial causing insecurity from leaving the groupe amplified by pear pressure.

-Man was beforhand a nurturing animal due to the length of time we need to grow independent but this greaf has been perpetuated for the same reason: Daddy decides to move away becoming insecure in this exploration and can't talk it through with momy witch makes her insecure and baby laks nurturing and security becoming worse than daddy instilling a downward spiral over generations.

Although they are long boaring videos that contain alot of "aaah mmm aaahs", i think it's a fine effort to explain conciousness as we know it... As fine as any other that is! Giving #2 video might intice you to consider this ... Message of new knowlege???

Idk if this can convince anyone in a governing position of any kind to share the wealth, i'm a peace frog without it. lol Give it another go n give me youre take, i might be off a bit on some points!


rocki
Posts: 4
Joined: 2011-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I had a look too, but....

I had a look too. I thought the premiss seemed sound, ie we have 2 thought processes: genetic, which they describe as instinctual or the soul and which was present when we were apes; and the nervous system, which they describe as an experiential learning system or intellect that arose when we evolved from being just another mammal to sentient human beings (which was triggered by the process of nurturing which I add because it will become relevant).
They state that they KNOW the truth about why the human race is troubled and confused. They state the problem of the human condition is caused by the conflict between these two thought process - ie the genetic instincts or soul conflicts with the nervous systems knowledge seeking or intellect. Sounded plausible to me so I read on.
I quickly felt like I was drowning in a sea of repetition which included repetitious quotes, but i perservered. They warned me I would become "deaf" to what I was hearing because the truth is so difficult to admit to, so I perservered.
After a while I got the sense that they were very angry about the lack of respect they were getting from establishment scientist, although they do quote supporters such as Stephen Hawking and some other guy who is a Nobel Laureate. I couldn't find any links on google between them and Mr Hawking (in their current guise WTM, or their former guise FTA), or the Nobel Laureate (can't remember his name but his year of birth is 1915, so I presumed a cultural context). This anger didn't equate with their purporting to have solved the riddle of the human condition however. After all, they apparently aren't suffering the conflict anymore because they have managed to integrate the two thought processes to find meaning.
Eventually I scanned forward and found a section which purported to explain how their theory solved the problems of the battle between the sexes. Being female I read with interest, as all the heirarchy in the movement are men.
Apparently, men are the hero's of the story because women, in their neivete and their role as nurturers (I'm gonna get nasty now) ignored the call of the nervous system to learn, prefering to obey our genetic instincts. So we were responsible for making men feel guilty and therefor bad about wanting to seek knowledge rather than obey their instincts, and this explains where the problems of the human condition started. While they say other things contributed along the way, such as race and geographical location, they state the problem is still contributed to today by women making men feel bad. They also say this is why men are less man like and society is disintegrating because of it.
I stopped reading after this. I mean, give me a break! Not until the 20th century did we start to get the same opportunities as men to test our intellect. I am damn sure we had intellect before, we just couldn't prove it - and many women in the world still can't.
So while the premiss still seems sound to me, that the human condition is explained by a conflict between what our genetic instincts are telling us to do and our desire to seek out alternative ways of being and doing, I think they've taken this plausible scientific question and bastardized it with a lot of mumbo jumbo and spurious assertions.
Ofcourse, as long as your not harming anyone, you decide for yourself....


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Any argument using the

Any argument using the Garden of Eden gets you a PHD at Glen Beck University. That and a dollar gets you 12 rolls of toilet paper at the Dollar Store. At least you can use the toilet paper.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


j cote (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
the world transformation movement

 My gosh, this bit has the most spelling errors I've ever seen.  Plus, still don't have the patience to watch the videos and still don't have a clue what is the secret biological knowledge that will reconcile me to the existence of evil.

If someone has discovered the "meaning" of life, why the heck couldn't it be someone with good communication skills?

 

 

 

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
j cote wrote:If someone has

j cote wrote:

If someone has discovered the "meaning" of life, why the heck couldn't it be someone with good communication skills?

Because it's commensurate to their intellectual capacity, at the time.

It only follows logically, that someone with such an inane thought, really wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, to begin with.

It's not a 'sober' idea...

 

Some people grow out of it.

Some don't...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah this really applies

 

j cote wrote:

If someone has discovered the "meaning" of life, why the heck couldn't it be someone with good communication skills?

 

To Jesus, too. A mighty god you'd expect to deliver the sort of scything prose that would cut to the heart of the matter but no. Just a bunch of drivel for the most part, backed up by lake of fire hysteria.

It all comes down to loving your brother. Gee. Thanks lord. I have 2 brothers and this never, ever occurred to me before. I had planned to kill them both but now. Phew. I just don't know if it's right anymore.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:To

Atheistextremist wrote:

To Jesus, too. A mighty god you'd expect to deliver the sort of scything prose that would cut to the heart of the matter but no. Just a bunch of drivel for the most part, backed up by lake of fire hysteria.

Dude, if this Jeebus clown was the son of an uber ultra awesomeness super hero construction worker/mad scientist, he'd at the very least be a fricken' Ninja, and gone Rambo on some bad guys!

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


AGGRIEVED PARENT (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Transformation Movement is a CULT so BEWARE !

As one of the aggrieved parents of a child who was 'absorbed" into this movement,originally known at the Foudation for Humanity's Adulthood-we have not seen our chiold for over 16 years now. The leader doesn't permit those with parents whodid not agree with his tracjings/doctrines snd who opposed him to stay in touich with us. He also wont allow his members t mary or have children though he doesn"t opposethem living with their girl friends. He took well educated,mainly private school kids and those with Uni degrees into his fold, and uses one of Australia's leading mountaineering Hero's as his leading disciple. So,BEWARE !


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Rontimus wrote:I would

Rontimus wrote:

I would suggest that you read "Species in Denial" by Jeremy Griffith. The explanatory power of these ideas are absolutely massive... Never have I encountered something that explains so many things that were previously only mysteries... Amazing stuff!

 

 

And in turn, I would suggest that you read an introductory physics text.  The explanatory power of those ideas will help you to understand what we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  It will blow you away (but not like we did the two cities).

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Socratidis (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The World Transformation Movement

I disagree with the aggrieved parent, I believe the WTM is not a cult, but is an organisation that is full of hard working individuals who have a tremendous pride and devotion to their work. 

Just because the WTM organisations purpose is to rationally address the human condition, doesn't mean that it's a cult, especially if its basis is purely scientific. Just because your child and the founder of the organisation are passionate, hard working and completely devoted to promoting the content of an Australian bioligists synthesis, doesn't mean its a sect or cult.  

I would say that your child has choosen to devote their life to something that means something very important to them, and you as a parent could either offer your love and support to them, or you can try and control their life and oppress their freedom as individuals to pursue their own interests. What you may think is important in life (like marriage and have kids etc) doesn't mean everyone should think that. 

I've researched and studied the content of the WTM and FHA for 5 years now, and I am of a Greek Orthodox background and an engineer living in Australia. My family promoted similar family values, of marriage and children etc, and my opinion is that it is a very shallow and hollow perspective on life, if not pessimistic. Their is so much more meaning and beauty in our world that echoes so much more to our lives than simply getting married, having kids, working, paying taxes and dying. 

To my understanding, the biology behind the resolution of the human condition is very sound, and it does tackle the issue of the human condition head on, and those who are brave enough or at least innocent enough to hear the actual words, will naturally realise the importance of the issue and embrace it. 

I suggest you as a parent attempt to take a more positive interest into what your child pursues and is interested in, and resist the tendency to control their lives. You may see your relationship improve, and that you quite possibly overreacted in the first instance.  

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
AGGRIEVED PARENT wrote:As

AGGRIEVED PARENT wrote:

As one of the aggrieved parents of a child who was 'absorbed" into this movement,originally known at the Foudation for Humanity's Adulthood-we have not seen our chiold for over 16 years now. The leader doesn't permit those with parents whodid not agree with his tracjings/doctrines snd who opposed him to stay in touich with us. He also wont allow his members t mary or have children though he doesn"t opposethem living with their girl friends. He took well educated,mainly private school kids and those with Uni degrees into his fold, and uses one of Australia's leading mountaineering Hero's as his leading disciple. So,BEWARE !

 

I just got an email (technically 3 emails and a message on facebook) from an official of The World Transformation Movement asking me to remove the post that I'm quoting claiming it is libel and worded similar to libel that they sued in court over and won.  I've asked if he wants me to post his email, I await a response.  I'm not removing the post for now.

Additionally I wanted to note that there are several anonymous commenters in this thread that support the WTM, keep in mind that these could be comments made by people who are not exactly unbiased.  The WTM is aggressively seeking the removal of this post due to it's "defamatory" nature.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Check out the long history

 Check out the long history of lawsuits brought by WTM for unfair reporting and defamation and such: http://www.worldtransformation.com/History.html

 

I can't imagine how many suits I could've won by now if I had the money (and the time to piss away) to fight all of the slander and libel out there about me.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
unbiased?

 Comments made by people who are unbiased? And what exactly does that mean? You should know that all humans have biases, and we all need to work to be aware of what we are biased towards and against.

I have been researching the material of the WTM for the past 10 months rather intensely, and I can tell you as (a former religious  fundamentalist) that this material is extremely powerful, and that it does actually address fully what it claims to address. I actually had a lot of hang-ups when I first encountered this info, but I have gradually dealt with and overturned "biases" that weren't exactly rational (because the info is that powerful).

This material keeps proving itself over and over. Yes, I am just one person, and yes, this is just one person's opinion, but let's forsake this ridiculous idea that there is any such thing as an unbiased human. 

It's not a question of whether the promoters are biased or not (of course they are, probably for a myriad of reasons including the material's massive explanatory power), but rather whether or not the material presented does indeed make sense of our world. The topic of the subjective self is the hardest topic in the world to address, but let's not throw out the rulebook of fair behaviour by engaging in libel when you haven't even absorbed all the info.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The original point was

 

 

What the hell is this powerful new information? Does it coalesce down into a few hundred words so's we can understand what the hell WTM actually is? 

Sure, humans have biases, sure it's all subjective. But what is this massive explanatory power? Is it really just reptilian instincts vs the limbic system?

Personally I think the human experience is not large enough to make sense of reality but I'm willing to be persuaded by new data...genes vs nerves and all that.  

As for libel - this is the Internet - the unbridled thought process of the hive mind operating in real time but with an embarrassingly long term memory. 

Nevertheless, I didn't think the WTM was a cult. Maybe the poster mistook this organisation for another.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 175
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Rontimus wrote: The topic

Rontimus wrote:

 The topic of the subjective self is the hardest topic in the world to address, but let's not throw out the rulebook of fair behaviour by engaging in libel when you haven't even absorbed all the info.

 

http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/107544/dyn002_original_544_355_jpeg_2608177_1391946a0d6b60aaa1131c5b79050fe0.jpg

Absorb the info ! Absorb it ALL !


Rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
summary

 Good question, and to sum up the whole message of the WTM in one phrase, it would be this:

"Genes can orientate, but are ignorant of nerves need to understand."

To unpack further, humans are a "duality" of two "learning systems". Now there have been plenty of people in the past who have recognized the two elements of "instinct" and "intellect" in producing our tormented "human condition", but never before this has there ever been anyone who has explained WHY and HOW these two elements inside of us clashed.

The breakthrough information is exactly HOW these two systems are at war. In the human body, there has been forced to exist two learning systems (ways of "adapting" to the world) that are not in cooperation with each other. Therefore, we are tormented by how we are "made".

With the explanation of the HOW, for the first time in history us humans are assured of not just our inherent worth, but also of our immense heroism of having to deal with a tormented "state of being" while all the while never being able to explain it. 

I have posted on youtube the explanation that you can go directly to, and skip the intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4qis7bKTxA

And the crazy thing about all this stuff is that, once a person understands our condition, a whole world of understanding about the mysteries of life and human behaviour open up thereafter, and it's incredible. As some members of the WTM have said, an "avalanche of answers" follows this simple explanation.

As the song "Duality" by Slipknot goes: "I push my fingers into my eyes, it's the only thing that slowly stops the ache.  And it's made of all the things I have to take. It never ends, it pushes it's way inside. If the pain goes on, I'm not gonna make it". Interestingly, there's a very good reason that song is called "Duality"... I believe it is speaking of the tormenting question of good and evil, which amazingly now, is solved forever through this new advance of science (instead of religion, dogma, new age, etc). 

But anyway, I don't quote that song as if it's proof, and I recognize it's my interpretation (just to pre-empt accusations of misunderstanding), but just that in many songs (especially by heavier bands like slipknot) the truth of our "condition" often emerges. But thank God it's now understood, and we can now openly talk about it (when before we couldn't, for good reasons).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Intellect' is an emergent

'Intellect' is an emergent process from a complex system whose low-level structure is determined in general form and direction, but not in every detail, by genes.

We can distinguish a whole hierarchy of levels of structure and properties, from sub-atomic particles, thru atoms, molecules, macro-molecules ( eg DNA ), basic life-forms, complex life-forms, up to conscious or self-aware life-forms.

No 'higher' level is fully reducible to, or expressible in terms of, a lower-level without losing some concepts. So to talk about a 'conflict' across such levels is really dumb.

Any organization that paranoid about 'libel' deserves to be ignored and/or further insulted. In this case, t

If someone keeps saying something you disagree with, and won't enter into debate about it, ignore it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Rontimus wrote: Comments

Rontimus wrote:

 Comments made by people who are unbiased? And what exactly does that mean?

 

Let's see... comments by people emotionally tied to the subject at hand; people with an axe to grind (including aggrieved parent), or those cheering for their 'favorite team', people with something to lose or gain by the general reaction to the subject matter.

So basically, every fucking guest poster in this thread.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:Rontimus

Antipatris wrote:

Rontimus wrote:

 The topic of the subjective self is the hardest topic in the world to address, but let's not throw out the rulebook of fair behaviour by engaging in libel when you haven't even absorbed all the info.

 

http://static.skynetblogs.be/media/107544/dyn002_original_544_355_jpeg_2608177_1391946a0d6b60aaa1131c5b79050fe0.jpg

Absorb the info ! Absorb it ALL !

"Doctors! I'm cured!"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
From the description, it

From the description, it sounds very similar to the broad shape of standard Christianity - we are flawed, deeply tormented beings, who need a new 'interpretation' or or vision of reality which will fix it all up and bring us meaning and purpose.

I personally have no ultimate problem reconciling instinct and intellect - Science, ie the outcome of continuing empirical research, is extremely helpful to me in understanding how they fit together, and have never felt 'tormented' by any such inner conflict.

I have certainly had problems, but they have been driven by external circumstances, to some extent beyond my control, not without some less than ideal choices on my part, but that is a separate set of issues.

Sounds like some unfortunate people do feel that way, and are driven to such cults. I feel sad for them.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Bob, implying in any way

Bob, implying in any way that this movement is a cult is a total reverse-of-the-truth lie, and it's sad to see such claims come from people who haven't even absorbed all the material.

Cults are about control and mindlessness. This is the opposite. The WTM encourages you to reject the information if it doesn't make sense. It should make sense of your world in a totally rational way, or you should toss it. 

This info is incredibly powerful, and incredibly important. Blithe implications that the WTM is a cult, is dangerous, lazy in thinking, and absolutely false. It's one thing to criticize something that someone is well acquainted with. It's another thing entirely to use such labels in discussing something one has not even researched. Be careful with your careless implications.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the

Welcome to the forum.

rontimus wrote:

Cults are about control and mindlessness. This is the opposite. The WTM encourages you to reject the information if it doesn't make sense. It should make sense of your world in a totally rational way, or you should toss it.

That's good. I assume you don't mind if we just toss it then, and you certainly wouldn't mind discussing the claims of the WTM movement with us and why you believe them.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Absolutely

 

rontimus wrote:

Bob, implying in any way that this movement is a cult is a total reverse-of-the-truth lie, and it's sad to see such claims come from people who haven't even absorbed all the material.

Cults are about control and mindlessness. This is the opposite. The WTM encourages you to reject the information if it doesn't make sense. It should make sense of your world in a totally rational way, or you should toss it. 

This info is incredibly powerful, and incredibly important. Blithe implications that the WTM is a cult, is dangerous, lazy in thinking, and absolutely false. It's one thing to criticize something that someone is well acquainted with. It's another thing entirely to use such labels in discussing something one has not even researched. Be careful with your careless implications.

 

I'd be pleased to know more in a readily digestible format. What is this incredibly powerful info?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A cult is any group which

A cult is any group which has an excessive veneration or obsession with a particular person or system of ideas or way of doing things.

Sounds not that far off the mark here.

Watched most of those videos.

Extremely UN-impressed. Sorry.

That guy, and others who get drawn to this stuff, presumably have had a screwed-up life, 'tormented', etc. Far too influenced by the memes of religion and Platonic nonsense of 'idealism' and related crap, like his constant references to the Garden of Eden story.

I assume it works for him, but it adds absolutely nothing to my understanding. It is far too simplistic, ignores so many other ways of looking at things, doesn't appear to be aware that there are other quite different ways of understanding and coping with life, which don't involve many of the 'problems' he seems obsessed with.

I cannot identify with his 'paradoxes' and 'torment'. Of course there is conflict, but I cannot map my experience to the picture he paints.

There is no fundamental conflict between 'genes' and our 'nerves' - our reasoning ability is a genetically selected mechanism which gives us extra ways to manage our social interactions and have more flexible adaptive behaviors. In fact, the concept of 'memes' shows that intellect can be dogged by the same limitations, thought systems can get just as entrenched as genes.

The 'dichotomy' between genes and nerves is a total misinterpretation of how these things work.

The biggest core problem I see is that our society is now way too big and complex for either our intellect or instinct to cope with. Intellect and rationality are NOT necessarily capable of addressing every real-world problem.

The complexity of multiple non-linear feedback systems, which can so easily lead to chaos, are exemplified in human society, so if there is 'solution', it is unlikely to come from such simplistic reasoning and research as conveyed by this movement. They may well contribute to some improvements, but I am not holding my breath for any great ultimate answer from this approach.

The most positive slant on this 'movement' is that sure, we need to try all kinds of approaches, test them as far as possible, sure. And many of our instinctive  judgements and actions, etc, are not going to be helpful under conditions very different from those we evolved in. D'uh. Thank you Mr Obvious.

There is much research going on into the nature of our reactions and subjective judgements, etc, etc, under various circumstances, and how they can be changed by various experiences and training, all of which is very much what we need to know to give us clues as to what we can do to solve some of the problems of coping with our current circumstances, and what might be good moves to change those circumstances where possible.

Those videos did not come across to me as showing any real new insight into the real problems we confront. Seems a bit confused, with some less than accurate assumptions about 'human nature', to me.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Bob, the discussion of the

 Bob, the discussion of the material aside... let's stick to the point: Your definition of a cult is not correct. It does not mean an obsession with certain ideas (if that were true, I know some atheists who could be described as "cultish&quotEye-wink. If anything, such a group could only be called (at the most) 'obsessed'. But if these ideas do what the organization says it does (and that has to be tested personally in a rational way), then the responsible thing to do is to "obsess" about them (in the sense that we make it a major priority and support them). 

Again, let's be clear: an "obsession" with ideas (especially if the obsession comes about after long investigation and reasoning) does NOT make it a cult. You are being careless with your words, and especially when this info is so important (and is positively affecting so many lives), the supporters of this info have a right to demand that people do NOT use "reverse-of-the-truth" lies, which you are doing. 

Please don't just blithely come up with your own definition of "cult". It doesn't serve you,  and it doesn't serve the WTM. NO ONE is benefited by careless mislabeling (especially when this info is so important).

Cults are characterized by an obsession with a personality, and with mindLESSness (and is about being controlled by a leader who usually deceives and seduces via charisma and/or misrepresentation). This is the opposite of that. If I discovered (through careful reasoning and investigation) a way for a loved one to be cured of cancer, I would "obsess" about them learning about it. That would be the responsible thing, and the rational thing (not to mention the loving thing), regardless of whether or not they were open to looking at it. 

So if it doesn't ring true with you, no problem. Toss it. That's totally fine, and I wish you the best in whatever you pursue.

But throwing out the rulebook on decent representation isn't justified. 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OK not so much a cult, just

OK not so much a cult, just a bunch of poorly thought-through, confused ideas.

I would like to regain that time I spent playing those videos waiting for some momentous ideas to emerge...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
So, the 'point' is a claim

So, the 'point' is a claim about semantics? The people following this movement don't seem open-minded, their view of things is very simplistic, and they think they possess some special knowledge. That's cultish enough for me to call it a cult. 

And if you actually look up the definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult 

5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

b : the object of such devotion

c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

This is close to what has been described.

2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents 

This certainly fits some definitions of a system of religious beliefs, especially with all the references to Christianity.

If you don't like the word cult, you can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change what I think about it.

 


 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Semantics?

 Butterbattle said:

"So, the 'point' is a claim about semantics? The people following this movement don't seem open-minded, their view of things is very simplistic, and they think they possess some special knowledge. That's cultish enough for me to call it a cult. "

Again, this is false. To not call these people open-minded is a total reverse-of-the-truth lie. If you were to watch the videos of the different supporters, you would find out that almost all of the supporters wrestled with the information for a very long time. They didn't just "latch" onto immediately because they're "simplistic" or "close-minded". Rather, it was the OPPOSITE. They wrestled with it for a very long time (many years for most), and they support it because it withstood the test of intense scrutiny.

And "special knowledge"?? Jeez.... Can we stop with the misrepresentation now? There is no "special knowledge" about this. The information should stack up logically, and logically alone. There is no "divine revelation" or "inside track knowledge" that anyone has that all the other people of the world cannot access (for their own evaluation). 

So there you have it. It is NOT "cultish enough" for anyone to call it a cult, and this is not just about semantics. They encourage you to reject it if it doesn't stack up rationally. That is not the mark of a cult, it is the mark of a rational organization.

Unless you've watch all the testimonies of the different people and have absorbed large amounts of the info, you are NOT in a position to make a claim about their "open-mindedness".

 


Rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Thanks

 Thanks bob for your comment, and your re-clarification.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is a problem

There is a problem discussing ideas which are not so much about simple objective, observable 'facts', but about how to think about and assess ideas themselves.

You can get locked into a tight recursive loop...

Like when Christians say you have to know how to 'read' the bible, or 'believe' or accept the core idea first, then it will all make sense to you.

And I still object to the assumption that we are all in this state of deep conflict and 'torment' due to this supposed fundamental 'conflict' between genes and our nervous system-based reasoning. Even if we somehow don't realize it.

That guy is projecting his own inner confusion and sense of conflict onto everybody else as though he has had a 'revelation' as to how to address it.

Books by Douglas Hofstadter, including 'Goedel, Escher Bach' co-authored with Daniel Dennett, treat these sorts of issues with far greater subtlety and depth than what I saw, IMHO.

But of course they are not going to spawn a movement, they don't work that way, and aren't easily comprehended by people without a background in thinking deeply about thinking, based on as much relevant reading as possible, to compare and build on others ideas. That is simply not how most people's minds work.

How does one justify one viewpoint to someone with a very different one?? Not easy, if at all possible in some cases, which is why I force myself to at least look at different ideas which have at least some hooks into my 'reality'.

Sorry, didn't see or hear anything there which promised insights which might extend my current understanding, rather I heard someone fumbling around in areas I had worked through years ago.

Many times I have been accused of not 'getting it', when it seems to me I have already been where the accuser is currently, and worked through it and out the other side.

Doesn't 'prove' I am right, but I would need something more impressive than that stuff, sorry. Especially when I can identify some basic misconceptions or failures of logic, on a subject I have studied and thought about extensively.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm rather giving up hope

 

that these momentous ideas are ever going to heave into view. I admit I didn't get passed the Garden of Eden reference in the video but it was a viscous 15 minutes just getting to that gelatinous point and there was no sign of a coherent conclusion coming. 

I tend to agree with some one up thread who pointed out that if the answers to the human dilemma were solved it was a shame they'd not been solved by some one with a better comprehension of the news pyramid. Facts first, padding later. Or words to similar effect.

In any case, the fact there's an organisation dedicated to promoting these oblique views seems rather odd. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
rontimus wrote:If you were

rontimus wrote:
If you were to watch the videos of the different supporters, you would find out that almost all of the supporters wrestled with the information for a very long time.

They didn't just "latch" onto immediately because they're "simplistic" or "close-minded". Rather, it was the OPPOSITE. They wrestled with it for a very long time (many years for most), and they support it because it withstood the test of intense scrutiny.

That is what everyone says; no one ever describes themselves as being closed-minded or not thinking deeply on the issue. You're just contradicting me. 

I am judging the movement by a short skim of their website, including a couple minutes of one of their videos, a few other sources, and what other posters on rationalresponders think about it. I was not going to waste hours of my time watching potentially crappy videos, and I'm certainly not going to watch them now that Bob has verified that they are indeed extremely crappy.

If you want to drastically increase my respect for your movement, all you have to do is provide a short explanation of what this 'problem' with humans is and what their proposed 'solution' entails. It doesn't have to be very detailed; two paragraphs should be sufficient.

rontimus wrote:
And "special knowledge"?? Jeez.... Can we stop with the misrepresentation now? There is no "special knowledge" about this. The information should stack up logically, and logically alone. There is no "divine revelation" or "inside track knowledge" that anyone has that all the other people of the world cannot access (for their own evaluation).
 

Well, if I've deduced your position correctly, people can certainly access this information; you believe they have simply rejected the information because they are denying their 'human condition' or whatever, right? Furthermore, the World Transformation Movement, specifically, has the solution to the problem with the 'human condition' while the scientific and philosophical community at large does not. Thus, unless someone is a brilliant philosopher (like Plato....ha) and could figure out these things on their own, it is essentially necessary to refer to the WTM for guidance. I would call that special knowledge. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just to be careful, I should

Just to be careful, I should say I did not watch the last video in that sequence - i think it went to 'f', ie six videos. And I was multi-tasking somewhat after the first part of he first video, while getting on with my programming work.

I have 'trained' myself to be able to pick up on something interesting or useful or even just unexpected that pops up in a program that I am not giving full attention to, so I can 'rewind' and check it out. If there is sufficient density of meaningful content I usually realize that I need to give my full attention to it. This comes from years of following a whole bunch of podcasts while working.

But nothing there triggered anything much, apart from several negative WTF's at some of the statements. So by the time I got to the end of 'e', I couldn't summon up any interest in watching the last one. So maybe I missed the great announcement.

I think I understand what the guy was trying to say, but it just seemed that I was feeling a succession of "well d'uh" or "that is not very good way to express that", or 'that doesn't quite make sense'. IOW, no "now that is very interesting", "I hadn't thought of that before", etc moments such as I regularly get listening to stuff from Nature, Scientific American, The Royal Society, Science Magazine, etc.

EDIT: I should add that those sources frequently include ideas and speculations on the nature and future and past of human civilization, and how our minds work, not just the narrow idea of science as people in lab-coats with test-tubes.

Is there some concrete example of what this movement has achieved, apart from inducing revelatory experiences in various individuals? That itself would be valuable, if you could find a new way to get people to grasp the significance of new scientifically established knowledge and understanding, in the broadest sense, not just persuading them of how important your particular approach or insight is.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
wtm

"I am judging the movement by a short skim of their website, including a couple minutes of one of their videos, a few other sources, and what other posters on rationalresponders think about it."

Ok then. So then anyone in your shoes should admit that you're in no position to have an authoritative opinion on the movement itself. And even more importantly, you're in even less of a position to label it a cult (especially when the term brings to the average mind very negative connotations and implications that are definitely not true of the WTM).

"If you want to drastically increase my respect for your movement, all you have to do is provide a short explanation of what this 'problem' with humans is and what their proposed 'solution' entails. It doesn't have to be very detailed; two paragraphs should be sufficient."

My goal in this dialogue is not to increase your respect for the WTM. My goal here is only to defend against the mindless labeling of this movement as a cult. In light of how important this info is (in my opinion, and for reasons which would take me quite a while to articulate), and in light of how the label of a cult is a reverse-of-the-truth lie, I am defending against this tendency. 

And just to be clear, I don't mean to pick on you guys in particular. The WTM has had to ward off these implications before (in light of the members total devotion and passion to the spreading of this info). Whenever someone wholeheartedly promotes a movement (of any kind), the label of a cult tends to surface (a good example would be a more recent video from the band "30 Seconds to Mars" where, in light of the enthusiasm and devotion of the fans, they anticipate that people are going to label them as a cult, and so they jokingly and pre-emptively respond by saying, "yes, this is a cult&quotEye-wink

In many cases, defending against the label of a cult wouldn't necessarily warrant my time and energy. But the ideas of this movement are far, far too important to not do so. Indeed, the implications are world-changing (hence the name).

 


rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
special knowledge

 And to clarify... I was thinking about it... In some senses, they are claiming "special knowledge", but only in that it has never been "discovered", or rather "synthesized" before by humans. So it is "special knowledge" only in the sense that it is "new", and that, as far as we know, this is the only organization that has "discovered" it, or synthesized the information (put it together and made it understandable). But if another organization or person discovered these truths, then the info would obviously not be exclusive anymore. And of course, others promoting similar ideas (even under a different "name&quotEye-wink wouldn't be a problem. It's the ideas that are what's important.

And also, I understand you guys wanting me to give a deeper summary of the human condition. The only thing I'll say is this: Us humans are incredibly brave and heroic (every last one of us, including you guys). We were born into bodies in which two "learning systems" (ways of adapting to the world--namely, instinct and intellect) were forced to co-exist in ONE being. But what Jeremy explains (and what is "new" or "special" in that no other known authors have discussed in detail) is particularly how these two learning systems are at war with each other (hence why humans do "evil", or in scientific terms, are "disintegrative&quotEye-wink.

I'm not going to defend this last paragraph (the defence is in Jeremy's writings and I'd encourage you to read the PDFs available on the site), but that's about as far as I can go without (I fear) me misrepresenting it.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Apologies for the late

Apologies for the late reply, if you are still following this.

rontimus wrote:
Ok then. So then anyone in your shoes should admit that you're in no position to have an authoritative opinion on the movement itself. And even more importantly, you're in even less of a position to label it a cult (especially when the term brings to the average mind very negative connotations and implications that are definitely not true of the WTM).

Okay, I did become interested enough to watch a video, partly because Bob said he watched six videos, and I distinctly remember there being nine videos. So, I went back to the main page to check and watched Part 8, which is titled 'The Transformation.' 

Overall, it was much better than I expected, so...alright, I won't call it a cult. But, I can't say I was impressed either. I certainly didn't find any of it to be very profound or a revelation. The only part that I thought was interesting was when the man suggested solving the problem with the human condition by passing our knowledge about the truth of the human condition on to the next generation, but not our conflicted emotions or whatever. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think the idea that"We

I think the idea that

"We were born into bodies in which two "learning systems" (ways of adapting to the world--namely, instinct and intellect) were forced to co-exist in ONE being."

displays a complete misunderstanding of how our brains/minds evolved, and how they function. So if that is the core idea, the movement is based on a misconception.

We need both, or more accurately, three, namely instinct, intuition, and conscious reasoning.

We could not possibly manage to get through the day without the assistance of our instinctive/intuitive faculties, ie by 'reasoning' everything through.

The proper approach is to train our minds to recognize how and when it is appropriate to intervene consciously and override or at least steer or modify our instinctive or intuitive responses, which is the basic ability of a well-adjusted and well-'trained' mind. Our success as a species has been due to the ability to achieving an appropriate balance between all modes of reaction to events and of choice of action.

We start with a basic set of instincts which allow us to survive infancy, and hopefully begin to learn, initially more as "conditioned reflexes" which become part of our intuition or sometimes better described as "muscle memory", especially for activities like walking, running, cycling, even driving a vehicle.

Our intellect is there to step in and handle novel situations and initiate and guide the process of learning new things, which gives us and other higher animals abilities to handle a wider variety of situations,especially changing environments, that instinct and intuition alone are not adequate for.

We of course can employ it to go way beyond those basics that it evolved for.

The main issue facing us is how to train or otherwise assist our minds to adapt to a far more complex environment than we evolved for, which is straining those inherited abilities. I assume this is what the movement is attempting to address, but it seems to me they are starting with a bit of a mis-characterising of the problem, which can't be good.

I hope for the sake of the 'Movement' that that guy in those videos was not one of the top thinkers in it...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
rontimus wrote: And to

rontimus wrote:

 And to clarify... I was thinking about it... In some senses, they are claiming "special knowledge", but only in that it has never been "discovered", or rather "synthesized" before by humans.

Why all the rhetoric and suspense?

That's predominant in your posts, and all over that site. Too much woo woo language, and opinions. I'm not interested in arguments from authority.

Not all of us are laymen in psychology. Just give me the facts. Where's the data? What's the methodology?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:rontimus

redneF wrote:

rontimus wrote:

 And to clarify... I was thinking about it... In some senses, they are claiming "special knowledge", but only in that it has never been "discovered", or rather "synthesized" before by humans.

Why all the rhetoric and suspense?

That's predominant in your posts, and all over that site. Too much woo woo language, and opinions. I'm not interested in arguments from authority.

Not all of us are laymen in psychology. Just give me the facts. Where's the data? What's the methodology?

Yep, that's the problem.They claim they have the 'answer',  they spend so much time leading up to, sort of hinting at, dancing around, setting the stage, and then WTF?

"Where's the beef?"

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Yep, that's

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yep, that's the problem.They claim they have the 'answer',  they spend so much time leading up to, sort of hinting at, dancing around, setting the stage, and then WTF?

Selling the 'sizzle', and not the 'steak'...lol

BobSpence1 wrote:
"Where's the beef?"

I took a look at his book, and apparently he has to warn you that this 'beef' is so powerful that your defenses will not want to swallow it at first!

Then I watched the 6th video. "Men and Women Explained"

Oh crap it's funny...lol

Too much stuff to list, but it's official; they guy is a nutter.

This is definitely 'fringe' thinking.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps the "beef" is so

Perhaps the "beef" is so rotten and moldy that no one can swallow it unless they've already reached a certain level in the movement, like Scientology.

All the information so far seems too mundane to build a movement around. Most of the things the guy in the video said were true in some sense and all the factually incorrect things seem like honest oversimplifications or misconceptions of real scientific facts and theories. I can't help but suspect that this leads to some incredibly retarded punch line.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


rontimus (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Wrapping it up.

 Hey guys, I'm just gonna finish up this conversation by saying that all the ideas of the WTM are freely available on their site. 

This stuff is very confronting of us humans (even though it's compassionate and liberating), and so it's not an easy process to digest all of it.

But again, all the info is public and available, and it should be embraced if it makes sense of your world, and it should be rejected if it doesn't. There is no "cult" or "private knowledge", everything is open and available.

And of course, like anything, the responsible thing to do is to understand the material before you make a judgement on it (particularly making public judgements). What I have been trying to work against in this thread, is our tendency as humans to label things without fully understanding them. We all have that tendency (including myself), and so we need to work against that. 

I think that's just basic decency for any movement, and for any new ideas (the WTM and anything else). All the best.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Amazon review of Griffith's,

I'm really curious about what this movement actually believes, but it seems difficult to get much actual information. I know that Jeremy Griffith's books are like the Bibles of the WTM, so I suppose there might be something in there. But, if those books are half as vague, long-winded, and repetitive as the videos on the site, then I definitely don't want to read them. So, I decided to look for reviews. This helped me a little.

 

Amazon review of Griffith's, "A Species in Denial."

 

"In 'A Species in Denial' Griffith claims that the cause of human migrations out of Africa some two million years ago was the desire to consciously 'explore' what was 'over the hill', what was beyond the horizon of both our mental and geographical experience. It is also this psychological desire to explore, dominate and understand the world that he assumes lead to the migration of barbarian peoples from northern into southern Europe in the Middle Ages. As is the case with much of Griffith's work, his almost unearthly sensitivity and moral lucidity and purity, is marred by amateurish research and unsubstantiated assertions. His work in this and many other senses lacks the required intellectual rigor of objective scientific enquiry.

Migrations of people into foreign lands or territories, from those of the Barbarian invasions in Europe to the migration of desert Aboriginal people in Australia into neighboring territories, most frequently corresponds with periods of drought and/or climatic change. And such climatic changes, combined with unsustainable hunting and/or agricultural practices, often results in resource depletion and the need to find water and means of subsistence in other lands. Such a pattern occurs throughout history and it is this process that is currently affecting rural communities in Australia, who are feeling the need to move elsewhere where employment and/or resources are available. Such environmental determinants are fundamental causal factors in human history. Griffith does not acknowledge these climatic and environmental determinants, about which an extensive literature has been produced by historians and ecologists, most notably Jared Diamond in his 'Guns, Germs and Steel' and 'Collapse', and Tim Flannery in his 'The Future Eaters.'

Flannery argues that due to their superior hunting technology humans often exhaust the resources of a region. In Australia and New Zealand species such as the giant Diprotodon and the Moa bird did not `co-evolve' with human hunters and therefore did not possess the evolved instinctive inclination or ability to escape their spears. They were over-hunted, quickly became extinct, and the people had to therefore move on to different territories where game was available. They are therefore forced by necessity to migrate. Combined with climatic changes and the attendant lack of water and other forms of subsistence, such environmental factors accounts for prehistoric migration both to and throughout America, New Zealand and Australia. Further such a thesis, unlike Griffith's, is supported by extensive data from historical documents and the fossil record where animal extinctions and migration correspond with periods of climatic fluctuation. Griffith thus presents in his 'psychological exploration and domination'thesis what seems to be a flawed and unsupported theory of human migration and evolution.

Griffith is an unusually insightful thinker. But the flaw in this aspect of his work, which pervades this book and his previous publications, is that he has an idea and belief and then he searches for supporting quotes and authors to validate his preconceptions. He lacks both the research skills and sense of intellectual detachment necessary for truly objective research, relying as he does on introspection and subjectivity. This is problematic to say the least given his grandiose claims of offering the public the final and indutable 'truth' about human nature, history and evolution. It seems most of the people writing reviews on this site are yet to actually engage with his theory critically, but are content with emotive and intellectually sloppy assertions regarding the truth of Griffith's claims. The danger also occurs, which is a problem in all systems of thought that are 'unfalsifiable' or circular, that counterargument is assumed to be motivated by psychological repression, the so-called 'deaf effect.' This is a facile argument; if someone offers a counterargument to the thesis then objective evidence that refutes that counterargument should be forthcoming. To impugn the person's character for having the apparent temerity to disagree with you, to question the 'truth' of your theory, is unacceptable. This work needs much more critical scrutiny and objective analysis, particularly given the assertions that claim it to be the 'truth', which seem to be imbued with more emotion than a desire for critical analysis and concern with truth, a kind of religious fervour that lacks the essential qualities of objective critical analysis."

Link

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, butterbattle, for

Thanks, butterbattle, for posting that, very helpful in giving us some context for this 'movement'.

It really does seem to have become a dogma, a claim which cannot be questioned, which is very sad.

The other thought that occurs to me they must have some heavy and proactive security to have prevented any real hint of this 'challenging and confronting' knowledge from leaking out, since I have heard or seen nothing in those videos or in any other sources that would deserve that sort of description.

I now think of the Masons and their secret handshakes and knowledge, or the Church of Scientology who also claim and jealously protect their inner secrets, and want to sue anyone who leaks them.

I suppose it is just their concern for the stunning emotional impact of their 'truth' on an unprepared subject that has them keeping it 'under wraps' for the general public, until they have gone through this long and tedious conditioning or preparation, watching all those videos, reading whatever books they supply, whatever, before we can unveil The Secret of Life...

So, rotimus, you are part of that security detail. your role to try and stop people 'bad-mouthing' the movement?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
rontimus wrote: Hey guys,

rontimus wrote:
Hey guys, I'm just gonna finish up this conversation by saying that all the ideas of the WTM are freely available on their site. 

So, you're just a shill for these guys?

I asked you to describe or link us to the data and methodolgy, and after all your shilling you're not even willing to post a link to a white paper or something?

Are you some kind of comedian?

rontimus wrote:
This stuff is very confronting of us humans (even though it's compassionate and liberating), and so it's not an easy process to digest all of it.

More rhetoric and hyperbole.

rontimus wrote:
But again, all the info is public and available, and it should be embraced if it makes sense of your world,

I thought this movement was supposed to make sense of something that was never 'synthesized' by us humans before.

WTF???

rontimus wrote:
...and it should be rejected if it doesn't.

From what I've seen, this guy is a wannabe academic.

 

rontimus wrote:
And of course, like anything, the responsible thing to do is to understand the material before you make a judgement on it (particularly making public judgements).

That's pure Grade 'A' Bullshit.

I'm under no obligation to be kind or generous of anyone's ideas.

rontimus wrote:
What I have been trying to work against in this thread, is our tendency as humans to label things without fully understanding them.

I asked for data and methodology, and I get more rhetoric and lectures.

 

rontimus wrote:
...and so we need to work against that. 

You need to be more humble and keep your suggestions on what other people should do for your 'movement' to yourself.

rontimus wrote:
I think that's just basic decency for any movement, and for any new ideas (the WTM and anything else).

I see a 'movement' by a few fringe thinkers. I don't see any 'science'.

Get over yourselves....

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


bcronnie (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
WTF

hey, thx for summing this up from a womens perspective.  I too thought the religious 'contexts' and the position of women as enablers of men's dysfunctional mental conflicts was a little over the top.  Not that they portrtay themselves as a religion, just they dance too politely around religions.  for sure there is a problem between women and men, but whatever they are they are multiplied by 1,000 x's by religious influence.  In the end, it is all about power and money, feeling insecure,  and having a bigger pile of rocks than the other person.


WTM STOLE MY CHILD! (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
WTM or FHA ?

 I have just found this page when I was looking at the WTM website (the 'old' Foundation  for Humanity's Adulthood&nbspEye-wink and I see that there is another parent  out there who also has had an offspring stolen by the FHA originally and because my husband and I strongly opposed the body which we believe IS a sect or a cult- it certainly  has cultish   overtones about it-they brainwashed to such an extent that we lost our loved one. We had always brought our chiln up to think as an individual in new ideas and consider them- but this mad mob won' even look at black being black and white being white.

 

Just checkout their website, their leader lost his appeal in the High Clourt recently and there is not a word about that in their Media Room- they are so biased they cannot see the woods for the trees. AT LAST THEIR NUMBERS ARE SHRINKING AND THEY WILL DIE OUT AS THEY CANNOT MARRY NOR HAVE CHILDREN- THE PREVIOUS WRITER IS QUITE CORRECT! THEY ARE A DANGEROUS GROUP WITH CRAZY IDEAS AND NOT ABLE TO MAKE LOGICAL LEVEL HEADED JUDGEMENTS.  So the High Court saw through thweir leader- good for them!