I am very glad to have the board back. Here is a most interesting conversation from a message board that serves the needs of persons who feel damaged by having been entangled with personality disordered people.
(what follows is from the second page of this discussion)
One lone person, 'disengaged' was the lone voice of reason and critical thinking.
'Disenagaged' made a post on July 15th that suggests that there is one licensed mental health professional out there, a psychiatrist no less, who seemed to know what is going on. One wonders if this MD happened to have read a portion of this discussion thread.
(quote)Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject:
" I was just going to let this go, but I really don't want to leave anyone with the impression that by saying I have "mixed feelings" that it should be misconstruded as meaning I am somehow angry, insulted or anything of the sort.
"I read the book only because it happened to be sitting on the desk of the psychiatrist my husband and I are seeing--who is a specialist in "cult deprogramming".
"I asked him about it and he told me he was reading it for research purposes because it appeared on one of his cult lists, but he didn't recommend it--I of course had to read it to find out why. (Understand though that the book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" also appears on that same supposed "cult" list.)
I think it's better explained in Katie's own words from her book, "Losing the Moon", where she starts talking about a man who "learned to hate" on the day he personally witnessed Nazi's ripping babies out of their mothers' arms to burn them alive in a fire pit. Katie's response to this starts on page 35, as follows:
If Someone (God, "what is"), pulls my baby from me - if that's what it takes, I'm there. Take the baby. Tear my baby from me. Throw it in the fire....My discomfort is my war with God....
You see, there are NO choices. What is, is....
But when we get to the baby thing, we're getting down to our sacred little concepts now....You take my baby from me, you're messing with the illusion of I'm the mommy, this is the baby, there's the daddy...
But tearing the baby away- that's the higher. That's the higher, because it snatches your story from you and makes it apparent in your face - nothing's real short of reality....
That's it. That's what is. That's love. That's absolutely Un-describable love. That you, God, would even give me that.
Can you know that Hitler didn't bring more people to realization than Jesus? On your knees - God. God! God! But our stories of reality keep us from the awareness of God is Everything. And God is Good. [...]
There has never been evil and there never will be. Evil is simply a story about what's not...
But I have trashed the baby when I have trashed the Nazi... I am the baby going into the pit. I am the one throwing the baby in the pit..." (end of quote from Losing the Moon)
OK now, I can't even bring myself to get upset at the insensitivity, callous indifference, and possible racism of this attempt to trivialize the Holocaust. I've read neo-nazi propaganda which does a much better job, even to the point of claiming the Holocaust was completely fabricated for no other reason than to discredit Hitler.
But this is so far out in left field that I can't even identify enough to get upset. I can't see a single shred of logic, reason or sanity in any of it. I just can't.
Here's what other people had to say about it though:
So according to Byron Katie, Nazi's mass murdering Jewish women's babies by burning them to death alive while the mothers watch, is the loving work of God.
As a matter of fact, Byron Katie says that baby killers are "higher" than the illusion of mommy.
There is something very seriously wrong with this very sick person, who is now hiding her true beliefs behind whitewashed manuscripts.
Whenever someone blames the victims of genocide and war, that lack of compassion upsets me. What you've quoted here makes me feel ill. It's not just a red flag-- it's a big, honkin' neon red banner.
What I've noticed about the New Age/New Thought movements is that many of its advocates can't comprehend the reality of human evil. They want to think the victims attracted the cruelty, that it's somehow predestined instead of facing the sad fact that humans have free will and can choose to do evil. The Holocaust atrocities happened because people chose to support Hitler and carry out his ideas. It had nothing to do with love and everything to do with fear and hatred of other people.
As a former New Ager, I heartily concur. Byron Katie has made such inroads with the New Age crowd because she gives them what they desperately want... a universe where all is "love and light".
But it ain't. Unfortunately. And Byron Katie exploits the heck out of this.
Byron Katie literally says its the hand of her "God" literally creating child-rape, and the Nazi mass murder of Jewish babies by being burned alive in firepits at a train station at the end of WWII.
(So the orders of Hitler at the end of the war to murder those children, according to Byron Katie, are literally the work of the "God" of Byron Katie. Its right there in the text...which is why the text has been suppressed).
The material in "Losing The Moon" was pulled from the market and suppressed to save those type of extreme beliefs for deep initiates only. She changed to the "Bait and Switch" method.
They serve a similar purpose to the "lighter" Byron Katie metaphors like being robbed by gun and enjoying it.
Byron Katie does not believe that for herself, its only for you.
This is all a type of dark, twisted deep persuasion of the highest order.
Its meant to be close to the final step, where she sweeps away your entire sense of reality and identity, and replaces it with her own.
Just reading the book "Losing The Moon" will put you flat on your back, it will knock you out, which was clearly its intent. That is why they pulled it off the market. They probably deliver the same material now only in more "advanced" seminars, and don't write it down so they can't get in trouble.
But the intent is clear, its meant to be close to the last step in the process, where Byron Katie takes over, by sweeping away even your most cherished beliefs. Knowing most of her followers are women, she aims to even sweep away the instinct for motherhood, to destabilize your entire identity and personality, so then you only have Byron Katie left to grasp onto.
The text in that book actually needs to be reported to antisemitism authorities and Holocaust Denial and genocide reporters.
And here's what some people had to say about the rather disturbing way in which Katie "counsels"victims of childhood molestation and rape.
I was muddling through the book and wondering when I'd get to something helpful when I read her exchange with a woman who was repeatedly raped as a child (around age 8 or 9) by her stepfather. Then the author, through a series of questions, ended up turning the blame for the rapes around on the victim, culminating in the idea that rape was the woman's way of receiving love. All this was done in front of an audience. Brainwashing and abuse in the guise of therapy. Ghastly.
I have a HUGE problem, when in her audio book: "Loving What Is", CD #6, an incest survivor is crying and telling the terrible details of her sexual abuse. I was heart-broken. I was SHOCKED that BK coached her in the "turn-around", to say that she, the ONCE INNOCENT CHILD did "it" for love!!! That she abused herself - AND HER MALE PERPETRATOR/STEP FATHER!!!
I listened to this book on CD and tried very hard to keep an open mind...that is, until I came to the part where this woman who had been sexually molested as an 8 year old child by her father spoke with the author. If I had been in the audience, they would have thrown me out, because I would not have sat there and permitted this woman to say and totally accept (as she went through "The Work/Inquiry") that SHE had ABUSED her father, and that SHE was WRONG since she never lied for her stepmother about this abuse (when asked to do so in a court hearing at 14 years of age), yet elected to tell the truth, resulting in her stepmother putting her out and alienating her from the family.
Perhaps the entire point of "The Work/Inquiry" is forgiveness...forgiveness of self and others. Forgiveness is important to one's health, as is self-love and gaining inner peace; however, so is validation. Validation is not about assigning blame or being right; validation is all about (as the author puts it) WHAT IS, without clouding WHAT IS with unjust self-doubt/blame, for doing so is yet ANOTHER FORM OF ABUSE! You HAVE to experience your stories in your OWN way, in your own TIME, and if need be, seek PROFESSIONAL help. You need validation in order to pursue closure. [...]
To apologize to your abusers (as the author suggests) for what they had done (the acts) is a bit sadistic. Give me a break! I can see the health benefit in offering forgiveness/acceptance only for the abuser, the person, but never for the ACT...the vicious act of child abuse.
An interesting read; however, potential for harm is quite evident in "my projection" of what this book teaches. And, this all comes from the heart of a child...a child who has grown and survived child abuse herself.
I won't respond again on this thread. It's up to each individual to make up their own mind. (unquote)
and in an earlier thread from that forum, 'Disengaged wrote:
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject:
Katie talks about global problems like pollution and war, saying that there SHOULD be pollution and wars ... because there are. I mean really, how can you argue with that?
Oh I can argue with that all right, because all Katie is engaging in what is called a "circular agument" which is a completely invalid form of reasoning. Her intended argument doesn't prove anything, it simply repeats itself. Also known as "begging the question" or "the fallacy of presumption"...
(Disengaged then quotes from a source describing circular arguments)
This is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption, because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a “Circular Argument” - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.
A good argument in support of a claim will offer independent evidence or reasons to believe that claim. However, if you are assuming the truth of some portion of your conclusion, then your reasons are no longer independent: your reasons have become dependent upon the very point which is contested. The basic structure looks like this:
1. A is true because A is true.
Circular arguments prove absolutely nothing because they do not contain the necessary criteria required to support a logical argument, rendering them invalid. Actually proving an argument requires: True Premises + valid argument = true conclusion.
Just because something IS, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is how it SHOULD be--change occurs constantly!
Just because there are terminal diseases in this world all in itself does not constitute proof that there SHOULD be, or that that we should or even WILL die from them, because new cures are developed--all the time! AIDS is still terminal, and yet there are survivors still living who have now made it past the 20 year mark. Lance Armstrong was diagnosed with terminal cancer and given literally WEEKS to live. He refused to accept that diagnosis, fought, and not only survived, but went on to make history! I guarantee you he didn't accomplish all that by conning himself into believing, "I DON'T want my cancer to stop growing!"Quote:
Can you stop cancer
I personally may not be able to stop cancer, however there are researchers and scientists out there who are trying their hardest, and I am fairly confident that one day they will suceed. Just because something's not possible today, doesn't mean it won't be accomplished--tomorrow!Quote:
That's the only world we get, and it's our choice to be pained by how we think it should be instead, or we can love life, even surrounded by bottom-feeders. Because those are the only legitimate choices we have.
And who made that rule? This is like attempting to limit everything to black and white, denying that the rest of the entire color spectrum even exists. This isn't necessarily an "either or" choice. There's a whole range of emotions out there, a myriad of choices, all kinds of different ways for different people to view the world. If I don't elect to view it Katie's way, I'm choosing to be unhappy? Says who, Katie? Since when did she become the ultimate authority (ie., God)?Quote:
Can you somehow make them stop being scumbags, or eliminate them all?
Well, of course not. I can't possibly expect to even meet them all, but I also don't have to just accept it either. I can do something about at least SOME of them, and I DO! I expose them, and actually, I'm pretty good at it. No, I don't think I'm God, I think I'm a forensic accountant/fraud auditor and exposing scum is part of my job description. It's my passion, how do you think I developed it? There's no pain in this for me, I've turned it into a career from which I derive a great deal of satisfaction, and best of all, get paid pretty well to boot!
Now, I want scum to go away, but being as that's not going to happen, I work my hardest on taking as many down as possible, while others work on curing cancer, and together we're all doing our part to at least attempt to make this world a better place in which to live.Quote:
Anything else is arguing with god, the universe, tilting at windmills.
Who exactly is it that's claiming to be the authority on either God or the universe here? I'm not arguing with God or the universe because I don't believe either one has anything whatsoever to do with pollution, war, or the "evil that mankind inflicts on one another."
Now, hurricanes, earthquakes, and plagues of locusts, well, that's entirely different.Quote:
This is total psychobabble
(Disenaged replied) It's not psychobabble because Katie is not a psychiatrist, so to me her assertions do not even qualify as "psychobabble." She's not an authority on anything or anyone, well, other than possibly Katie. Just because Katie says something doesn't make it so.
My problem with Katie is the exact same as I have with anyone who takes their own personal philosophies, speculations and conjectures and attempts to convince others that they are somehow "proven fact" using nothing more than the "smoke and mirrors" of known logical fallacies, such as; engaging in circular arguments, denying the antecedent, confirming the consequent, or entertaining paradoxes, ie., "doublethink". I simply do not trust anyone who has to resort to utilizing these types of tactics, and I can go through her book and point these out in almost every argument she makes. I also don't believe that a "one size fits all" blanket solution exists that covers everyone and all situations. Not everyone is going to become skinny by hopping on the Jared train to Subway.
But that said, so what? I have my own path which I know full well is based on nothing more than my own personal "faith"--I don't have anything that remotely resembles "proof positive" either!
Even unproven theories are often subsequently proven correct, so if Katie has found way to ease her own mental anguish and suffering, and developed it into a method to share with others in the hope that it may do the same for them--great!
Even if I argued that I don't feel her methods have a solid basis that has been generally accepted by the psychiatric profession as a whole, it also doesn't necessarily follow that she's wrong either. Giving her method a shot seems certainly preferable to continuing to suffer without even trying to do anything about it, so why not?
If it doesn't work for you, well then you can always try something else, right?
Hugs! (end of 'Disenaged's quote)
(though at the end, Dis weakened it a bit, saying BK's approach might someday be shown to be effective. Disengaged didnt think to ask, straight out, 'Where are the studies, where is the evidence in peer reviewed journals?' Yet despite Dis' polite concession at the very end of this share, it still brought out a typical pattern of invalidation from a BK'r. C)
And note the boiler plate response to 'Disengaged's robust application of critical thinking, by 'NancyCT' on July Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject'
"Gee Dis, I certainly didn't mean to touch on a nerve here.(pathologizes the person who has effectively used critical thinking to point out BK not having a clinical licenseC)
I have no intention of arguing that Byron Katie is right. I was only saying it worked for me.
(Typical. And not that SYDA yoga devotees used a similar pattern of invalidating rhetoric when told in detail about the corruption and abuses in their organization--they would bleat 'Well that wasnt my experience'--as if the human cost inflicted on others counted for nothing. C)
The book was a positive influence in my life. By changing my thought patterns the way she described, I was able to view my situation in a whole new light, and was able to leave a long-term relationship in which I was being physically as well as emotionally abused. Getting out was the most difficult thing I've ever done in my life, and I needed all the help I could get. That little book may very well have saved my life.
(She's transitioned into using a method marketed by someone who has no training to be clincian, and who has people sign away their rights to sue for compensation if damaged by participaton in one of the workshops--someone who tells us to be responsible for our lives, but who works without the normal legal accountability humbly accepted by thousands of psychotherapists--who by the way also are legally required to keep complete records and safeguard patient/client confidentialityC)
Of course it wouldn't work for everyone. I've tried plenty of things that didn't work for me, even though other people thought it was wonderful. I wasn't trying to tell you that your view was wrong, I was only trying to explain why it worked for me. Sorry if I caused an emotionally-charged reaction. I really didn't mean to offend in any way..'(again, dismissing 'Disengaged' as merely generating an emotionaly charged reaction, when what she did was use critical thinking. C)