On WIE--A Dialogue
At Thursday, 24 February, 2005, Anonymous said...
Is it just me or is the new issue of WIE just not as interesting as it used to be?
Maybe it’s because, as I’m reading along, a thought keeps flashing in my mind: 'He slaps his students around! He manipulates large sums of money out of them!'
I was reading Andrew’s editorial about Authentic Leadership in which he wrote about a group in Australia who seemed fearful and disinterested during one of his talks. Instead of thinking: they just can’t comprehend his enlightened mind. Now I’m thinking: 'How is it that authentic leadership involves slapping adults hard in the face? And manipulating people into giving 10,000 dollar “donations”?'
This issue’s Andrew and Ken dialogue seems to be a rehashed version of ‘my enlightenment is better than anybody else’s because it’s cutting edge and evolutionary.’ Or maybe it’s because I’m thinking: 'Guru, are you dysfunctional, and Pandit, are you looking the other way?'
And Don Beck, how does a face-slapping and money-grabbing leadership style fit in with your Politeness, Openness, Autocracy (P-O-A) principle as described in Spiral Dynamics?
At Thursday, 24 February, 2005, freewilly said...
Well Hal, you got what you wanted! I don't know if you meant this all to become so laughably - i don't even know what the word is - transparent maybe? In any case, just so this craziness does not go unremarked on:
One of your posters said: "Is it just me or is the new issue of WIE just not as interesting as it used to be?
Maybe it’s because, as I’m reading along, a thought keeps flashing in my mind: 'He slaps his students around! He manipulates large sums of money out of them!"
Dear poster, have you considered flipping your worldview upside down and thinking about the evolutionary ideas presented in WIE and then seeing the slaps and the alleged "extortion" from that point of view? Meaning, hmmm I wonder if there is ANY more to the story at all?
I've noticed that WIE is so challenging and groundbreaking that its very easy to write it off quickly as having become "heady" or "juiceless." However, if you switch into the mindset - just for fun see if you can - that those who write the magazine and those who are featured in it are actually doing and are serious about the kind of Global Human Change that is constantly pointed at, its very possible to "get it" in a very different way.
Good luck trying that experiment without getting at least a mild brain expansion!
At Thursday, 24 February, 2005, Anonymous said...
The Bullshit Never Ends.
One poster writes:
"Is it just me or is the new issue of WIE just not as interesting as it used to be?
Maybe it’s because, as I’m reading along, a thought keeps flashing in my mind: 'He slaps his students around! He manipulates large sums of money out of them!"
Another poster (freewilly) responds:
"Dear poster, have you considered flipping your worldview upside down and thinking about the evolutionary ideas presented in WIE and then seeing the slaps and the alleged 'extortion' from that point of view? Meaning, hmmm I wonder if there is ANY more to the story at all?"
Does anyone see the word "extortion" in the first poster's comments? How did "manipulates" become the much stronger and legally connotative "extortion"?
Does anyone notice a pattern here? Andre, Susan, Hal, Anastasi, et al write balanced reports about experiences which not one of them has described as "terrible" or as a "life-destroying police state," and none of them have described Andrew Cohen as a "menace to society," and yet Cohen's defenders have blanketly characterized "this blog" in toto as presenting an extreme, one-sided picture of Cohen and his community.
This is a tactic familiar to anyone who has ever watched shows like the O'Reilly Factor on the Fox TV news network. Regardless of how one may feel about O'Reilly, it's undeniable that he consistently exaggerates his opponents' actual positions in order to make their positions easier to attack.
Such argumentation tactics are a sign of weakness (as well as weak-mindedness.)
What I have consistently seen in posts by Cohen's defenders are a refusal to acknowledge a middle position between advocacy for Cohen and abject condemnation of him.
There is a name for that approach to argumentation; it's called sophistry, after the Sophists, who in Plato's Euthydemus are shown trying to convince a young man to agree that he was either "wise" or "ignorant," offering no middle ground when there should be.
Of course it's possible that those who do not see that Andre, et al, occupy a middle ground position that does not fall into an extreme do not see this because they have yet to "evolve" to the point that they can see beyond black/white, either/or, us/them, for/against modes of thinking. That may be why they need a "Rude Boy" teacher who uses sophisticated, mature teaching methods like having students slapped and writing messages on walls with fake blood. (I'm sorry folks, it's sounds like a really boring version of Lord of the Flies. When are the adults gonna show up?)
Is it just me or is the new issue of WIE just not as interesting as it used to be?
Maybe it’s because, as I’m reading along, a thought keeps flashing in my mind: 'He slaps his students around! He manipulates large sums of money out of them!'
I was reading Andrew’s editorial about Authentic Leadership in which he wrote about a group in Australia who seemed fearful and disinterested during one of his talks. Instead of thinking: they just can’t comprehend his enlightened mind. Now I’m thinking: 'How is it that authentic leadership involves slapping adults hard in the face? And manipulating people into giving 10,000 dollar “donations”?'
This issue’s Andrew and Ken dialogue seems to be a rehashed version of ‘my enlightenment is better than anybody else’s because it’s cutting edge and evolutionary.’ Or maybe it’s because I’m thinking: 'Guru, are you dysfunctional, and Pandit, are you looking the other way?'
And Don Beck, how does a face-slapping and money-grabbing leadership style fit in with your Politeness, Openness, Autocracy (P-O-A) principle as described in Spiral Dynamics?
At Thursday, 24 February, 2005, freewilly said...
Well Hal, you got what you wanted! I don't know if you meant this all to become so laughably - i don't even know what the word is - transparent maybe? In any case, just so this craziness does not go unremarked on:
One of your posters said: "Is it just me or is the new issue of WIE just not as interesting as it used to be?
Maybe it’s because, as I’m reading along, a thought keeps flashing in my mind: 'He slaps his students around! He manipulates large sums of money out of them!"
Dear poster, have you considered flipping your worldview upside down and thinking about the evolutionary ideas presented in WIE and then seeing the slaps and the alleged "extortion" from that point of view? Meaning, hmmm I wonder if there is ANY more to the story at all?
I've noticed that WIE is so challenging and groundbreaking that its very easy to write it off quickly as having become "heady" or "juiceless." However, if you switch into the mindset - just for fun see if you can - that those who write the magazine and those who are featured in it are actually doing and are serious about the kind of Global Human Change that is constantly pointed at, its very possible to "get it" in a very different way.
Good luck trying that experiment without getting at least a mild brain expansion!
At Thursday, 24 February, 2005, Anonymous said...
The Bullshit Never Ends.
One poster writes:
"Is it just me or is the new issue of WIE just not as interesting as it used to be?
Maybe it’s because, as I’m reading along, a thought keeps flashing in my mind: 'He slaps his students around! He manipulates large sums of money out of them!"
Another poster (freewilly) responds:
"Dear poster, have you considered flipping your worldview upside down and thinking about the evolutionary ideas presented in WIE and then seeing the slaps and the alleged 'extortion' from that point of view? Meaning, hmmm I wonder if there is ANY more to the story at all?"
Does anyone see the word "extortion" in the first poster's comments? How did "manipulates" become the much stronger and legally connotative "extortion"?
Does anyone notice a pattern here? Andre, Susan, Hal, Anastasi, et al write balanced reports about experiences which not one of them has described as "terrible" or as a "life-destroying police state," and none of them have described Andrew Cohen as a "menace to society," and yet Cohen's defenders have blanketly characterized "this blog" in toto as presenting an extreme, one-sided picture of Cohen and his community.
This is a tactic familiar to anyone who has ever watched shows like the O'Reilly Factor on the Fox TV news network. Regardless of how one may feel about O'Reilly, it's undeniable that he consistently exaggerates his opponents' actual positions in order to make their positions easier to attack.
Such argumentation tactics are a sign of weakness (as well as weak-mindedness.)
What I have consistently seen in posts by Cohen's defenders are a refusal to acknowledge a middle position between advocacy for Cohen and abject condemnation of him.
There is a name for that approach to argumentation; it's called sophistry, after the Sophists, who in Plato's Euthydemus are shown trying to convince a young man to agree that he was either "wise" or "ignorant," offering no middle ground when there should be.
Of course it's possible that those who do not see that Andre, et al, occupy a middle ground position that does not fall into an extreme do not see this because they have yet to "evolve" to the point that they can see beyond black/white, either/or, us/them, for/against modes of thinking. That may be why they need a "Rude Boy" teacher who uses sophisticated, mature teaching methods like having students slapped and writing messages on walls with fake blood. (I'm sorry folks, it's sounds like a really boring version of Lord of the Flies. When are the adults gonna show up?)
posted by the Editors at
6:45 AM
1 Comments:
"Guilt by association"
We all have a responsibility in spiritual abuse and enslavement by a teacher. In every relationship there is one and the other. Not taking a stand against abuse we are guilty by association with the abuser. Together we are caught in a snare, "pasa".
Within a community there is constant talk of slaughtering and surrendering the ego. Soon the ego hides, disguises with great cunning and deception, is on its best behavior knowing consequences follow if it surfaces unchecked. Outside the community the ego may run amuck by again masking itself and continuing the cycle of abuse unto others without fearing the anger and wrath of inside community members and the shadow of the guru.
From some of the postings there appears that spiritual abuses have also occurred outside the community by students either solitary, in a group, and/or in collusion with Andrew. Should this be true, please come and share your stories. We are here to listen, help, support and hopefully make amends to innocent members of society that may be lacking the knowledge and advantage that students have within a community. Don't suffer in silence!.
Also, should there be a student guilty of outside spiritual abuse, please come and share your story for healing.
We are all connected within the tapestry of life and one human family. With love and compassion we can overcome, help and heal together including Andrew.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home