:"I'm no conspiracy theorist, but, the correspondency is so exact as to be dictated by a careful shadowing of the Thoughtspeak policies and Doublethink.
Chilling."
yeah, I actually reread it last year when most of the cognitive dissonance in my brain was starting to come to a head and I was absolutely floored at all of the parallels. It was chilling. It really freaked me out and made me reexamine a lot of what I had been taking for granted for so many years. I've joked before that the governing body use that book as a how-to manual, but it's one of those jokes that you kind of uneasily chuckle at because it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. As you said, the correspondences are disturbingly exact. To write the articles with the language that they use belies a very deep understanding of psychological and group-mind principles. And that's what angers me most, there is a very willful, deliberate use of mind control tactics. It's not as if they just stumble along, writing articles that happen to keep people in check, they're very carefully crafted.
RUSSEL MEETS RUTHERFORD: a fantasy conversation
by Terry 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Cognitive_Dissident
-
Terry
I had to pull every single concept out of my head and examine it carefully for faulty definitions and short-circuited connectives.
There were a HUGE STORE of phoney concepts and doublethink.
The Watchtower Society hotwires your head and steals your thinking by taking it for a joyride and leaving your life ditched on a sideroad with four flat tires.
1984 is the closest thing to prophecy we have had in our time.
T.
-
Cognitive_Dissident
I completely agree. About six or seven months ago, after finally realizing that I was willingly trying to hang on to something that was slowly killing me - mentally, physically and spiritually, I made the conscious decision to reject all that I had been taught by the WTBTS. But making the conscious decision didn't just automatically reset everything to zero. I was able to examine and reject many things right off the bat, most of which I'd never been able to swallow to begin with, but I'm fully aware that after so many years of being under the influence of the dub "teachings", there are a lot of connections and synapses that are still firing on faulty instructions. What I'm trying to do now is force myself to be radically open-minded, taking a second look at things that a person wouldn't usually think twice about. Since being a JW wasn't ever just a religion, but more a way of living, breathing and interacting, they really had their tendrils in to much more than just my thought process. It affected every part of my being, so I'm trying to honestly, for the first time, be open-minded to all of the different sides of an issue without automatically discounting or devaluing certain arguments based on the "absolute sanctity" of "my" belief. I'm slowly adding to the list of things that I can actually say that "I" agree with, and I don't feel guilty admitting that I don't know enough about something to give my honest opinion. And that feels good. It's been a pretty painful process at times, but I can honestly say that the way I feel today versus how I felt six months ago are like night and day. Even at what used to be my happiest I didn't feel half as good as I do on a mediocre day today. Do you have any suggested reading or other resources you think might help, or perhaps just thoughts on what you found to be helpful during these early stages?
-
Terry
. Do you have any suggested reading or other resources you think might help, or perhaps just thoughts on what you found to be helpful during these early stages?
-
Terry
I wrote you a long reply and then hit the wrong button and it vanished!!
I'll be briefer this time.
Reading that helped me the most, that pulled my head out of my religious ass and gave me a clarity of purpose in understanding my own thinking:
Mortimer J. Adler (TEN PHILISOPHICAL MISTAKES) and Ayn Rand, (PHILOSOPHY-WHO NEEDS IT?).
Adler does with Philosophy what somebody should do with religion. Examine what it is and where it has gone wrong in each stage of development. Adler is clear, logical, reasonable and doesn't talk down to you. He explains what we never seem to stop and examine: what is an "idea" and how is the intellect assembled? He gives the nuts and bolts of thinking in everyday language.
Ayn Rand explains with rigorous logical detail why we cannot function without a personal philosophy. We are sitting ducks for other people's agendas when we haven't taken the trouble to understand our ability to answer the simple question: WHAT DO WE KNOW AND HOW DO WE KNOW IT?
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
- Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)
"The only standard we have for judging all of our social, economic, and political institutions and arrangements as just or unjust, as good or bad, as better or worse, derives from our conception of the good life for man on earth, and from our conviction that, given certain external conditions, it is possible for men to make good lives for themselves by their own efforts." Mortimer J. Adler
That which you call your soul or spirit is your conciousness, and that which you call 'free will' is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.
- Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)
- Regarding moral absolutism, let's be clear. There are some so-called moral absolutists who think there is a list of immoral actions or "sins." Virtually all of these people are talking about religious ethics. I am excluding them from this discussion since that is not philosophy. Now, I am a moral absolutist only in this sense: There is at least ONE moral or ethical criterion or principle that is absolutely true for all human beings at all times everywhere that allows us to pass a moral or ethical judgment on a human action. This criterion or principle or standard must be objectively true. We may apply it differently in different circumstances and we may interpret it relative to a particular situation. But the truth of the basic criterion remains. And there is always a fundamental uncertainty that remains in the application of a moral criterion or standard to a practical problem. After all, we are only human and subject to error.
- The application of a moral criterion to public policy issues is always interesting and accounts for most of the debate in the political arena today. In my opinion, the same ONE moral or ethical criterion that is absolutely true for all human beings, etc., applies in the public arena as well. No, I do not want someone's particular moral code to be encased in law. Yes, I am willing to allow people to be able to do "their own thing" as long as it does not harm other persons or society or the culture in general. If you are asking for my personal opinion regarding certain specific public policies, let me state just a few: 1) the "War on Drugs" should be terminated and the use of so-called illegal drugs should be designated a medical problem, not a legal one; 2) prostitution should be de-criminalized, although, maybe, subject to licensing for health concerns, and the police ought to be addressing themselves to real crime; 3) so-called obscenity laws should be abolished and anyone should be free to read and/or view whatever he or she cares to read or view; and 4) it is not the government's nor society's business what you do in the privacy of your bedroom as long as consenting parties are involved. This does not mean I personally approve of each of the above, it simply means that, as a matter of public policy, I do believe that there is no genuine government or societal interest in the above behaviors. MORTIMER J. ADLER
-
Cognitive_Dissident
thanks for the suggestions, Terry. I have only the most basic knowledge of Ayn Rand's writings and philosophy, and don't know anything at all about Mortimer J. Adler. From the passages that you quoted, however, my interest is definitely piqued. Thanks again!
-
stealyourface
Terry, that was great! Better yet, how about a movie or a mini-series.
If I had the money and the connections, I would have you write the screenplay and get Joel and Ethan Coen to direct. John Goodman is a no brainer for the part of the Judge. Who would you cast as Charlie?
-
Terry
Terry, that was great! Better yet, how about a movie or a mini-series.
If I had the money and the connections, I would have you write the screenplay and get Joel and Ethan Coen to direct. John Goodman is a no brainer for the part of the Judge. Who would you cast as Charlie?
PETER O'TOOLE! T.
-
DannyHaszard
News Results
Page 1 of 108 results containing jehovah (0.12 seconds)
Results
Jehovah's Witnesses Ghost of Watchtower Past
There is a knock at the bedroom door. ' Come!' the Judge growls. The finely polished door opens and into his bedchambers steps a newly resurrected Charles Taze Russell with full beard (minus mustache) and naked as a jaybird. ... Jehovah's Witnesses Ghost of Watchtower Past Rootin Tootin-Russel Meets Rutherford Distribution ... Date : Saturday - August 13, 2005 JEHOVAH WITNESS FAQ (ArriveNet - Aug 13, 2005 ...- ArriveNet
- 8/13/2005
-
Terry
I must say, Danny, you did a superb rewrite on my story and fixed the lapses quite extraordinarily well.
I'm impressed.
Terry