I have not been involved for 15 years and neither saw any sign of mind control then or can see it now. Your argument that "Alas, that is the nature of good, covert mind control: you do not know that it's happening", of course, suggests that because I do not see it, that my mind is still controlled. But there is another equally valid explanation: that you are seeing demons where there are none.

What we are trying to do is determine which explanation fits best.

You assert that Context is a LGAT but provide only the assertion...with no specifics such as evidence or argument.

Yes, omissions and mistakes on a website might be evidence but only if they were part of a discernable pattern of deception, and from what you've provided so far (and my knowledge of the individuals) it looks more like mistakes and omissions on a website.

I admit that I haven't bothered to locate the particular and careful measures by which this site (or you in particular) determines the difference between a harmless personal growth program and the more insidious "LGATs" that you apparently find everywhere. But the burden of proof, if you want to sustain credibility here, is on you.

And as far as I can see that proof is nowhere to be seen.

The common sense definition is that there are primary symptoms: a LGAT attempts a) to control its participants for its own purposes--often one at odds with society's normal values, and (b) coerces those people into remaining within its grasp.

For the life of me, I cannot recall Context having any agenda other than to "make the planet a better place" (you may gag, I did too, but this isn't the devil's cauldron here). How it became a better place was up to me, and I didn't have my arm twisted either to follow their agenda or to remain with Context.

The only potentially suspicious activity was "the selling the product" thing. But that could be entirely legitimate and there were none of the telltale signs of cult activity that would make it otherwise. Randy was comfortable but he didn't have a dozen Rolls Royces and nobody else was making big money; in fact the organization struggled to make ends meet constantly. Besides, I and hundreds of others that I knew simply said "no thanks" to the sales thing and Context never bugged me or them about it.

So what exactly are you suggesting the Context was controlling my/your mind for? And what is your "proof"? And is this personal opinion based on a single personal experience or is it substantiated by widespread evidence from elsewhere?

I have no vested interest in this. Context is dead. I split with Context over an unrelated spat that was minor and had nothing to do with mind control (and nobody chased after me). But I don't like seeing a decent person and a decent organization besmirched by a single individual in a public forum. If you have substantial proof, spit it out. Otherwise at least fess up to the fact publicly that you have no proof and this is just a personal opinion.

You wrote: "What we are trying to do is determine which explanation fits best."

Not "we". After much examination, I have made my determination.

Correct, I did not provide evidence or argument for my claim. I have decided that that's not something I'm going to do with people who are certain that the wolf in sheep's clothing is really a sheep. I know, through experience, that such an effort is utterly futile.

To clarify, it is not "omissions" or "mistakes" on the webpage that inform me that CONtxt is (was) a con. If it seems that that's the basis of my argument, it's not.

You wrote: "I admit that I haven't bothered to locate the particular and careful measures by which this site (or you in particular) determines the difference between a harmless personal growth program and the more insidious "LGATs" that you apparently find everywhere. But the burden of proof, if you want to sustain credibility here, is on you."

I spent a few years reading about LGATs and reflecting on the CONtxt "courses". It was truly a journey - of my own discovery and insight. I'm not going to spend the time it would take to encapsulate that journey; if you are so motivated you will undertake the task yourself. My participation on this site is restricted only to discussing the topic of mind control with people who have experienced it, and venting about it, although I don't post much anymore. I have no interest at all in proving anything to anyone, on this site or anywhere else. You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink, is how past attempts to 'prove' have gone. So, I don't do it.

I was lead to water when, after describing some things about CONtxt to a therapist, the word "cult" was offered. I went straight home and started searching for any information I could find. (A couple years earlier another therapist used "cult" in connection with my descriptions of CONtxt but I didn't take it seriously at that time. Also, when I was first involved with CONtxt, one participant quit and called to warn me that CONtxt was a cult, but I totally disagreed.)

You wrote: "And as far as I can see that proof is nowhere to be seen."

You note that you haven't done any looking.

You wrote: "But I don't like seeing a decent person and a decent organization besmirched by a single individual in a public forum. If you have substantial proof, spit it out. Otherwise at least fess up to the fact publicly that you have no proof and this is just a personal opinion."

I know that on the surface things looked decent; for the six years I was involved, I thought so. I no longer think so.

Do some reading, if you're so inclined. But be prepared to change your opinion of CONtxt. I struggled with that quite a bit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2008 12:06PM by skeptic.

To whom it may concern:

jobowo has been banned from this message board.

Flaming and troll-like activity is grounds for banning according to the rules.

How were you damaged by Context Associated? What harm was done to you? What proof of mind-control do you have?

I'm very curious how you know so much.

How do I know so much? I did my homework, which it sounds like you need to do.

I went through the Context trainings in the mid nineties, while Randy Revell was still alive. I went to the "Mastery II" seminar while it was still called "A Conversation at the Revell's" -- it was literally held in their house. I mostly agree with what jowobo said (and don't see why he was banned -- what did he say that was combative or confrontational?). There are are a lot of aspects of the Context training that were intended to get people who were in it to sell the Context training. On that level, it was very cult-like. On the other hand, I'd say in their favor that they "walked their talk" -- when I used their techniques to try to get them to change how they treated people in therapy who wanted to come to their seminars, they changed the requirements. They were more respectful and receptive than I would have expected a cult to be. I took their classes, and I've never tried to sell their product. They still seemed to like having me around.

I didn't buy the "sell our product" message they were putting forth. I got some good results out of what they taught. I'd only recommend their teachings to a small number of my friends: those seeking a useful way to transition from one place in their lives to another, with a fairly large amount of ego-strength.

The course struck me as being a series of initiations (and if you want to look at the Western secular initiatory tradition, start looking at the line of simple connections between the Order of the Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley's OTO, L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics -> Scientology, Werner Ehrhard's est, and Revell's Lifespring and Context -- the connections on each level are very easy to document). The first seminar (The Pursuit of Excellence) is about making the commitment to a particular form of self-study. The second (The Wall) is about following through on that self-study for 5 days. The third is about seeing how that works in practice. The fourth (Mastery) was about learning how to use that experience of practice; and the fifth (the really badly named "Mastery II") was about how to tell other people who I'd learned that I was.

Yes, it was expensive. I'm not sure that the money was really worth it. On the other hand, the experience was different from others I've had. Is a $100 sushi dinner worth 20 times a $5 MacDonald's hamburger? Sometimes I'll say yes, sometimes I'll say no.

I will say this for Context: they haven't tried to keep selling me new seminars, products, or approaches. They're a lot more willing to let people go than Scientology seems to be.