@suenam,

DWB is an organisation, a concept, it doesn't exist apart from the humans beings who collectively call themselves DWB.
An organisation, being simply a mental construct that does not exist except as a mental (and sometimes legal) construct, cannot relate to anything, let alone itself.

Human beings relate to one another, or not, as the case may be.

'Considering how DWB relates to itself' is a complete nonsense.

Perhaps you are using the term DWB interchangeably with the person Nydahl?

Quote
Stoic
@suenam,

DWB is an organisation, a concept, it doesn't exist apart from the humans beings who collectively call themselves DWB.
An organisation, being simply a mental construct that does not exist except as a mental (and sometimes legal) construct, cannot relate to anything, let alone itself.

Human beings relate to one another, or not, as the case may be.

'Considering how DWB relates to itself' is a complete nonsense.

Perhaps you are using the term DWB interchangeably with the person Nydahl?

No, I was referring to the group identity constituted by the collection of individuals whose identification with the group constitutes the concept of the organisation, based upon the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Are you suggesting that whereas one person may possess self-consciousness, a group of people somehow cannot?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2010 05:10AM by suenam.

No, I am pointing out that whilst each individual undoubtedly possesses self-conciousness there is no such entity as a group mind.

And I would definitely contest, in the case of conceptual organisations, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts--in fact I would suggest that that particular fallacy, whilst a useful concept to present when attempting to mould disparate individuals into an obedient and cohesive group, is never anything more than a manipulative concept.

I think that Nydahl would very much like to make his followers into an obedient and cohesive group mind, which is why it is important to examine these concepts for validity.
When it is accepted that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, concern for the welfare of the individual person--one of the parts-- is subordinate to keeping the whole--the conceptual organisation--growing in power.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2010 06:28AM by Stoic.

Quote
Stoic
No, I am pointing out that whilst each individual undoubtedly possesses self-conciousness there is no such entity as a group mind.

And I would definitely contest, in the case of conceptual organisations, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts--in fact I would suggest that that particular fallacy, whilst a useful concept to present when attempting to mould disparate individuals into an obedient and cohesive group, is never anything more than a manipulative concept.

I think that Nydahl would very much like to make his followers into an obedient and cohesive group mind, which is why it is important to examine these concepts for validity.
When it is accepted that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, concern for the welfare of the individual person--one of the parts-- is subordinate to keeping the whole--the conceptual organisation--growing in power.

I was considering the idea of the group dynamic rather than that of a "group mind" in the instance of an organisation that owns property, generates income and has it's own agenda which would in my mind suggest that it has moved beyond the stage of simply being conceptual.

You seem to have quite an individualistic viewpoint, to which you are entiled, but which I do not share, however I don't really see the point of discussing it here or what benefit it might be to this thread. My concern in this matter is to provide some insight into the ideology at work in the group as a whole. Should your involvement in and viewpoint on DWB provide support to individuals who are seeking such concern then all the better.

It would seem to me that lauching attacks against Ole Nydahl without fully comprehending or expounding the belief system at work in the organisation would only serve to reinforce group cohesion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2010 07:11AM by suenam.

'It would seem to me that lauching attacks against Ole Nydahl without fully comprehending or expounding the belief system at work in the organisation would only serve to reinforce group cohesion.'

I find this comment over-emotive. I have launched no attacks against Nydahl, I have attempted to examine the dynamic of his group, how he has personally influenced that dynamic and how that impacts on the individuals that make up that group.

I dont see that the belief system needs full comprehension or expounding in order to do that.

Group dynamics follow similar patterns in all groups, regardless of belief systems, since human beings, allowing for conditioned cultural differences, are driven and function in remarkably similar ways. A belief system is a system of thought, a theoretical mental construct while group dynamics is concerned with human behaviour in a group setting, a far more fundamental, truthful and realistic measure of activity.

For example, that Nydahl has framed himself as a protector of Buddhism and lineage and convinced some of his followers that this is true is a belief that he has instilled in his followers. How he and his followers behave as a result of that belief contributes to the group dynamic but is far more a function of instinctual human drives for power, dominion and personal survival than directly arising from the belief.

Human beings congregate in groups primarily because we are social animals and depend for survival on the existence of the group. Belief systems, imposed from above in the hierarchy of the group, are later additions to this primary need. People change and modify their belief systems constantly, depending on circumstances. Instinctual human drives rarely change or modify--although they can be channeled into different enterprises.

An organisation remains conceptual regardless of owning property or generating income. Property and income does not make a mental construct any more than what it is, a construct that can be dissolved at any time by another mental construct--a decision to do just that.
An organisation cannot have its own agenda--a product of thought and decision-- since it is not a thinking organism.

Who sets and controls the agenda for Diamond Way?

Stoic,

As I wrote before, you seem to have an certain view of society and the individual which is one of many viewpoints. To me your viewpoint seems quite individualstic and in contradiction to the Buddhist notion of interdependence.

It is easy to take an external stance and criticise from there, making Ole Nydahl responsible for everything as if he is some sort of "puppet master". My view of the relationship between Nydahl and his followers is that of a two-way interaction, with issues of transference and projection from both sides.

I have put forward a different viewpoint from my own understanding of Buddhism and society, to which your reply seems to be "that's rubbish" - my understanding of the ideas found in DWB has developed thanks to the contributors to this thread, and I hoped to share that in order that others wrestling with these ideas may also find some clarity there.

It is my view that identity, values, and beliefs influence behaviour, and obviously find it less easy than you do to view these particular aspects in isolation.
If you find it useful to hold one man responsible for the behaviour of 70,000 people, target blame at him for that and dismiss the beliefs of the rest as those of gullible fools then that's fine with me. Personally I don't feel that invalidates others' contributions from different perspectives.

The agenda is set by the group, or to be really precise, individuals put forward ideas which are then discussed in a group setting and decisions are agreed upon, with certain individuals' opinions carrying more weight than others.

Social psychologists have demonstrated that in groups, the sense of personal responsibility tends to diminish and that in groups people do things they often might not do if by themselves.

Irving Janis, one of the early social psychologists came up with term, 'groupthink'

The term used by social psychologists studying groups is 'diffusion of responsibility'--as in when you are part of a group, it is easy to make the assumption that if something seems wrong, someone else will take care of it. This was vividly demonstrated when Miss Kitty Genovese screamed for help while being murdered and none of the many persons in nearby buildings who heard her screams failed to call 911. These persons each assumed someone else would make the call and the result was--no one did.

And groups also exhibit a tendency called 'risky shift'--as in a group is more likely to do something risky that each person would, by his or herself refrain from doing.

So groupmind can have its dangers and a group, listening to an aggressive leader, could well do things that a person by him or herself would refuse to do.

So group mind, far from being enlightened, can have its dangers.

It is much too easy for a troubled and aggressive leader to turn a group into a mob.







And Buddhist groups can be just as vulnerable to group think as any other group if

Quote
corboy
Social psychologists have demonstrated that in groups, the sense of personal responsibility tends to diminish and that in groups people do things they often might not do if by themselves.

Irving Janis, one of the early social psychologists came up with term, 'groupthink'

The term used by social psychologists studying groups is 'diffusion of responsibility'--as in when you are part of a group, it is easy to make the assumption that if something seems wrong, someone else will take care of it. This was vividly demonstrated when Miss Kitty Genovese screamed for help while being murdered and none of the many persons in nearby buildings who heard her screams failed to call 911. These persons each assumed someone else would make the call and the result was--no one did.

And groups also exhibit a tendency called 'risky shift'--as in a group is more likely to do something risky that each person would, by his or herself refrain from doing.

So groupmind can have its dangers and a group, listening to an aggressive leader, could well do things that a person by him or herself would refuse to do.

So group mind, far from being enlightened, can have its dangers.

It is much too easy for a troubled and aggressive leader to turn a group into a mob.







And Buddhist groups can be just as vulnerable to group think as any other group if

Thanks Corboy, I think that this debate has struck at the heart of questions about what constitutes a cult. Of course once a malleable group has formed it is possible for it to be manipulated into a mob mentality, but I don't believe that DWB has yet reached that stage, and I like to think that Ole Nydahl is at least genuine, albeit misguided.

Of course there will be instances of cults being formed deliberately by individuals with ulterior motives, but my experience of DWB is that cult like behaviour has emerged despite the good intentions of those in control.

What interests me in this situation is the emergent behaviour of the group;

Water is made up of H2O, and yet neither hydrogen nor oxygen have the properties of wetness...

Equally in DWB, there are elements of Buddhism and elements of thuggery and prejudice, and yet it is only when they are bound together by the belief system that they become dangerous and cult-like.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2010 07:47AM by suenam.

Quote
suenam
Stoic,

As I wrote before, you seem to have an certain view of society and the individual which is one of many viewpoints. To me your viewpoint seems quite individualstic and in contradiction to the Buddhist notion of interdependence.

It is easy to take an external stance and criticise from there, making Ole Nydahl responsible for everything as if he is some sort of "puppet master". My view of the relationship between Nydahl and his followers is that of a two-way interaction, with issues of transference and projection from both sides.

I have put forward a different viewpoint from my own understanding of Buddhism and society, to which your reply seems to be "that's rubbish" - my understanding of the ideas found in DWB has developed thanks to the contributors to this thread, and I hoped to share that in order that others wrestling with these ideas may also find some clarity there.

It is my view that identity, values, and beliefs influence behaviour, and obviously find it less easy than you do to view these particular aspects in isolation.
If you find it useful to hold one man responsible for the behaviour of 70,000 people, target blame at him for that and dismiss the beliefs of the rest as those of gullible fools then that's fine with me. Personally I don't feel that invalidates others' contributions from different perspectives.

The agenda is set by the group, or to be really precise, individuals put forward ideas which are then discussed in a group setting and decisions are agreed upon, with certain individuals' opinions carrying more weight than others.

For the sake of brevity I will gloss over the erroneous assumptions that you make regarding my viewpoint, except to agree that it is individualistic and point out that it is not in conflict with notions of interdependence.
I find that I can recognise my interdependence with all things and still retain an ability to think independently. For me interdependence and subservient thinking are not synonymous.

Regarding the decisions that direct the group agenda, who directs the discussion, which individuals opinions carry most weight, who has the deciding vote, who has the last word?

I am thinking again of the document mentioned earlier in this thread that posits three persons as controlling directors of Diamond Way, two of whom are completely subordinate to the decision of Nydahl.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2010 03:00PM by Stoic.

'My view of the relationship between Nydahl and his followers is that of a two-way interaction, with issues of transference and projection from both sides.'

My point is that despite the existence of an undoubted two-way interaction, there is a very obvious power differential between Nydahl and his followers, which you seem to be dismissing as either irrelevant or negated in some way by the shared belief system.
Nydahl and his followers are not on an equal footing in the group, that is of massive importance when considering the workings of any group dynamic and the resulting changes in behaviour of the followers.