| Author | Message | ||
     Anonymous |
Beware. Arnold Siegel is an evil con man. His devotees are completely bamboozled. Many are chronically ill because their unconscious mind knows this guy is bad to the bone. | ||
| Anonymous |
Arnold Siegel was the CEO for Werner Erhard and Associates, a.k.a. EST later known as THE FORUM - a large group awareness training cult which began in the 1970's and continues to suck people in to this day. EST and THE FORUM can best be understood with a reading of "Outrageous Betrayal" by Steven Pressman. Arnold Siegel spun off his "class" THE CONVERSATION a.k.a. THE CONVERSATION TOWARDS AUTONOMY after a two year internship at EST, during which he gained great insight as to how Werner Erhard had so successfully gained control of so many people. While he adopted much of Erhard's format and "ideology," Siegel also made many changes to Erhard's formula. These changes, including narrower guidelines for accepting "students" and steeper "tuitions," have made it easier for him to avoid the kind of exposure that ended up driving the incestual Erhard underground. | ||
| Anonymous |
the Skeptic's Dictionary on Large Group Awareness Training programs | ||
| Interested (152.163.252.129) |
I am familiar with the Conversation and it does not appear to be of the same manipulative and confrontational character as EST did. In fact, it seems to be a rather high level intellectual/philosophical discourse. What are the specific reasons one should consider it in the same company as EST and other such organizations? Thanks | ||
| Anonymous (67.164.176.148) |
If Siegel is not manipulating his "students" please tell me why it is that none of them ever "graduate"? Isn't Siegel offering a path to autonomy? And doesn't autonomy imply that his followers would become less dependent on him, not increasingly more dependent? Ask the original students how long they've been on this road. Their answer will indicate that something is not right. Press on with your questioning (which will not be easy as it will be squelched as antagonism or dismissed as doubt) and you will find that there is a collosal bait and switch going on, disguised as high level intellectual/philosophical discourse. | ||
| Interested (205.188.209.40) |
Thanks for your response. It occurs to me that one doesn't necessarily "graduate" if one is engaged in intellectual/philosophical discourse in a way the is both pragmatic and engaged in ongoing inquiry. Whether it is worth the time and money that this group is asking is, of course, a question one needs to answer for oneself. Do you have any other specific information that indicates this Mr Siegel and his group are misrepresenting themselves and their practice besides this idea that people don't graduate. I ask this with a sincere not a contentious attitude. Thanks | ||
| Anonymous (67.164.176.148) |
You say: "It occurs to me that one doesn't necessarily graduate if one is engaged in intellectual/philosophical discourse in a way the is both pragmatic and engaged in ongoing inquiry." I must ask you to cite any other examples wherein a course of study does not reach a conclusion. Furthermore, if studying with Arnold does not have an standardized endpoint, what exactly IS it? | ||
| Interested (64.12.117.21) |
My understanding is that his students are engaged in an ongoing existential inquiry as well as learning skills of critical thinking, time management etc. I can easily understand how engaging in existential inquiry does not have a "standarized endpoint" (though time management and critical thinking may). But regardless of whether it is a good use of ones time or money to engage in such an ongoing inquiry with him or anyone else my fundamental question is: Why would anyone consider The Conversation a dangerous cult? What is the evidence that would lead one to such a conclusion? Are there numerous credible testimonies, pieces of writing etc that indicate the Mr Siegel is somehow duplicitous and nefarious? If so where can these testimonies and reference be found? Thank you | ||
| Anonymous (67.164.176.148) |
"Inquire" as to the circumstances of the mass exodus of 1993. (sex, death, and damage control) | ||
| Interested (152.163.241.66) |
Could you please write some more info about this exodus and give some references if any are available on or offline? thanks | ||
| Interested (152.163.252.129) |
Wanted to reask this question: Can anyone give some more info on the "exodus" of '93 the last poster mentioned and any references to it that might exist on or offline? thanks | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.39) |
Mr. Siegel teaches his students to think for themselves. Since our culture has taught us not to do so, his teaching is freedom giving. Many students leave for a time and come back for time just as someone might study art with a brilliant painter. Mr. Siegel will go down in history ultimately for carving out a pedagogy that is free from the antagonism and pettiness that is inherent in our society as well as many of the postings on this site. He teaches an ongoing study and people have the freedom to study or not study. In fact, one can only study with him by referral, he does not advertise his coursework and is not looking to teach the entire world. It seems that only the sincerest of people who are honest and forthcoming have the opportunity to study with him. For those of you who genuinely wish to inquire about the nature of his work, you might do some extensive philosophical reading yourself for you can likely learn what he has learned. It will just take about 50 years of your life. | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.39) |
The exodus was via several people who were baited and switched, if you want to say that, by someone other than Mr. Siegel. That person is deeply troubled and apparently hasn't been able to develop a happy life for themselves. It is sad to think that anyone would ever attempt to do damage to anyone, much less someone who has given so much to others. Alas, this is the world we live in. Just trust that when people attempt to undermine someone, they are the only ones who end up truly suffering. | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.39) |
Additionally, do you think Plato's students ever graduated. Yes of course, if they wanted to. But, sometimes it is hard for anyone to conceive that someone could be so creative in their thinking that they would actually have enough to say to last a lifetime. Look at Nietsche, look at Kierkegaard, see if they were well received by the public in their day. It takes tremendous guts to create and teach something that is so far ahead of its time that the public is not mature enough to listen. Something to think about. | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.39) |
Actually, Mr. Siegel did not "spin off" of W.E. Whoever said that was clearly not around at the time. Siegel recognized that what he was writing was not the same as what est was teaching. He went on to create yet another business endeavor as a result of the demand that people around him had and who were asking him to teach. All of his success has come as a result of his sincere engagement with his students. It is the opposite of what the earliest poster said. The people that are in his classes are solid, successful or learning to be successful and are happy and have great integrity. Mr. Siegel is not a therapist so he actually does not offer nor can he teach someone who is not emotionally balanced to a point to be able to actually do critical thinking. Anyone with any level of intelligence and sincerity knows this as a result of being around any of his students. So, if you have questions, talk to one of his current students or even the ones who are not studying but who have actually sincerely learned from him. They will tell you what's really going on because they have been around enough to get out of their own immaturity and tell it like it really is. It just isn't useful to converse with people who are looking to be malicious. I personally just don't have people like that in my own life. What a waste of time. Though I have compassion for them and I hope they do better in life, it is their choice to live a life without sincerity or ethics. No one can make someone behave in a subhuman manner. By the way, does anyone know what they are really talking about at the forum these days? Actually, some of that work was taken from Mr. Siegel's writing. It's funny how someone on here has the entire story backwards. Oh well, guess you had to be there. | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.39) |
Actually, Mr. Siegel did not "spin off" of W.E. Whoever said that was clearly not around at the time. Siegel recognized that what he was writing was not the same as what est was teaching. He went on to create yet another business endeavor as a result of the demand that people around him had and who were asking him to teach. All of his success has come as a result of his sincere engagement with his students. It is the opposite of what the earliest poster said. The people that are in his classes are solid, successful or learning to be successful and are happy and have great integrity. Mr. Siegel is not a therapist so he actually does not offer nor can he teach someone who is not emotionally balanced to a point to be able to actually do critical thinking. Anyone with any level of intelligence and sincerity knows this as a result of being around any of his students. So, if you have questions, talk to one of his current students or even the ones who are not studying but who have actually sincerely learned from him. They will tell you what's really going on because they have been around enough to get out of their own immaturity and tell it like it really is. It just isn't useful to converse with people who are looking to be malicious. I personally just don't have people like that in my own life. What a waste of time. Though I have compassion for them and I hope they do better in life, it is their choice to live a life without sincerity or ethics. No one can make someone behave in a subhuman manner. By the way, does anyone know what they are really talking about at the forum these days? Actually, some of that work was taken from Mr. Siegel's writing. It's funny how someone on here has the entire story backwards. Oh well, guess you had to be there. | ||
| Interested (152.163.252.129) |
"The exodus was via several people who were baited and switched, if you want to say that, by someone other than Mr. Siegel." What specifically does this mean? Thanks | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.18) |
what it means is that sometimes people can be learning from someone and it could be Mr. Siegel, or Anthony Robbins, or Werner Erhard (who as I'm sure everyone knows is hiding out in Europe to avoid the IRS or at least that was the original reason he left the U.S.) and the teachers themselves have little choice about who takes the courses. If someone gets into the coursework and is deceitful and is not interested and unable to be honest then it is highly likely and in fact, happens all the time if you read up on this sort of thing, to then try to undermine the very teacher that they went to in order to become a better person. If those people studied long enough and learned to "mimic" the teacher, then many students could get the distinct impression, if they had not sufficiently learned to figure this out themselves, that the student was sincere. So, there are many students who though they "appeared sincere" were actually insincere. And apparently thought it would be a great opportunity to take advantage of a successful person and try to gain money or prestige or what-have-you. For myself and many many many of the people that I have observed for the last 25 years across the nation and in some cases, in other countries, the truth is clear and always surfaces. Mr S., continues to teach to a group of professional people who have developed themselves slowly over time in a very real way. Mr. W. is hiding out but still consults his company via telephone and whatever other means he chooses. Of course, Mr.W. is still in charge, but it looks like he is not. Landmark is an enormous enterprise and is making so much money that it's almost amazing and insane at the same time. Mr. R., is making tons of money also and is probably international though I don't spend much time researching all this as I have far better things to do. Mr. S keeps his classes small so that he can be in contact with all of his students personally and so that he can be sure of their progress unlike most other disciplines that I have been made aware of. Most of the others are making so much money that if Werner were so very committed to ending hunger - he would send over some of his own cash. Perhaps that is too harsh but something seems to be off if creating world peace and the end of hunger is the plan but then there is so much anger and animosity within the organization itself. That just doesn't make sense to my thinking. So goes the circle of life, I suppose. Mr. S has said many times over the course of his career that what he is teaching is where civilization is headed ANYWAY, but for those who would like to take the short cut, he would be happy to give them the benefit of all the years he has spent studying the human condition. He is sincere, he is for real and his students are the proof in the pudding. Even the ones who are no longer in class - if they engaged the civilized perspective sincerely. If they didn't then of course they can only whine and complain because I suspect their lives are not so wonderful. It takes many years to develop thoughtfulness, wholesomeness, and the kind of integrity where the only time you would compromise it is if a gun was put to your head. This is the kind of character that Mr. S's students achieve. And perhaps there are other disciplines that accomplish the same result. I just have not seen it or observed it myself. Have you personally studied with Mr. S or are you just listening to people who have? You don't have to respond, but it's good to know the real story and not be subject to the gossip from years and years ago about something that is such old news. Good luck with your own thinking process. Like some people go to a dance teacher to learn from a master, Mr. S's students go to learning how to think from a master thinker and it's as simple as that. Truly! | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.18) |
An additional note on chronically ill students. As everyone knows, the world is filled with pollution and disease and poor nutrition etc. Mr. Siegel is not a doctor or therapist and never claimed to be. A few of the people who intially began to study with him apparently had illnesses that had yet to show themselves because sometimes you have to get a little older before these things "arrive" so to speak. Since Mr. S is not doctor and is not claiming to do anything but teach someone to build their character and their ability to manage themselves, then if a student became ill, they could not likely have the attention span to study. Well, that is unfortunate but Mr. S has everyone sign applications so as to make that plainly clear. He cannot determine what condition someone is in when they decide to study with him. There are people who have studied with him who became ill with cancer and other illnesses during their course of study and many of those people are either on their way to recovery or have fully recovered and gone into remission. If you ask them how this happened, they will credit their ability to "think their way through the problem in a pragmatic way" that enabled them to choose the right doctors, to discipline themselves nutritionally and to step back from their busy lives and get themselves well. It would wonderful if everyone could do that. But if a person becomes sick and doesn't take any responsibility for their own lifestyle, their own habits their own genetics etc., then how can they possibly get better? Many many people are ill in our nation and around the world. It is a distinct problem. We need more strong-minded people who can help in figuring out this problem. It's happening but very slowly. Very very slowly. Mr. S encourages his students from Day 1 to learn about nutrition for themselves and to discover what was more healtful for them. He couldn't do much more than that unless he went to get his M.D. Instead, it seems to be more useful that he has doctors in his class - some of which have been working on a cure for aids and many other diseases. The more people that are in positions to impact our nation and our land that learn how to think critically and for themselves in a sincere manner, the more chance our nation has to be healthy and we'd better hurry up because Osama Bin Laden is still at large and still out to destroy us. Think about that for a moment. Wouldn't it be more useful to bring some joy and life into this world and some healing and some nurturing rather than to spend time trying to do damage to someone who's only sincere mission is to bring about individual change so that those people can go on to make their own contribution to their own lives, their families and their country before they die? Personally, I think it's pretty darned noble. | ||
| Interested (64.12.116.66) |
Thank you for your response. I'll post in a day or so. I just got back from a business trip/vacation. | ||
| Anonymous (207.55.99.28) |
Wow. It was interesting to discover this site after "googling" Arnold Siegel. I took one of the last est trainings in LA at a critical time in my life and was so profoundly and positively impacted by the results that I researched everything I could find out about the origins of "the work" and have become a life long student of transformation. I remember seeing Siegel in a satellite conference with Werner Erhard and had wondered what had happened to him. I know that his work, and that of Fernando Flores, was critical to the development of The Forum. Most of Flores contribution had to do with speech acts theory -- which comes from Heiddeger and later work done at Berkley. I've spent a lot of time around Landmark over the years and my sense is that there continue to be clashing ideologies internally regarding the process of enrollment. They've certainly come a LONG way and I think overall their intentions are sincere. I think people that have weak identities have to exercise caution. These organization's have a business model that makes them dependent on volunteers. If you're not careful you can find yourself spending most of your time supporting the organization, rather than enhancing and living your life, which is what you came there to do. Does anyone know where Siegel is today? Does he have a website? | ||
| Anonymous (67.164.176.148) |
Yes he has a website but remember, you can't join up unless a current student refers you. Somebody who can vouch for your "weak identity". It's truly unbelieveable but even if you are the head of psychiatry at a major metropolitan hospital or have devoted your life to the AIDS crisis, you can be manipulated (over time) by this man to think that you can't think. It's not necessarily a weak identity that Siegel is looking for in his prospective students. Just a soft spot where he can insert his stinger and time release a slow poison that will eventually anesthetize and mesmerize even the best and the brightest. And with regard to the finances of Mr. S, let's do some math. Once fully sucked in, which usually takes a few years and only a thousand dollars or so, being a "sincere student" of Arnold's costs roughly $10,000 per year, most of which Mr. Siegel can count as revenue. If the guys has only 200 students, they provide him with nearly $2,000,000 a year. He pays a small staff who work out of their apartments, and, well...it's a bit staggering. Maybe you should inquire of Mr S if he has any designs on world hunger. He certainly has enough money to end it in at least one country, dontcha think? Not to mention the brainpower. And the love for his fellow man? (I fear you've been bamboozled on this point too.) I implore you, Anon 66, read up on what a cult is. What a cultic relationship is. You are in one, my friend. While you are at it, read up on how sociopaths are able to appear more knowledgable than they are. (50 years at Harvard was it?) And good luck to you. | ||
| Interested (64.12.116.66) |
"It's not necessarily a weak identity that Siegel is looking for in his prospective students. Just a soft spot where he can insert his stinger and time release a slow poison that will eventually anesthetize and mesmerize even the best and the brightest." Are there any sources or references you can use to back these assertions? If not on what basis should they be taken seriously? Thanks | ||
| Interested (152.163.252.129) |
"Have you personally studied with Mr. S or are you just listening to people who have? I did take numerous classes with him over the course of 5 years (85-90) from the three hour dialoges to the weekend in Napa. I found his philosophical synthesis to be utterly profound intellecutally and applicable in very practical ways in my personal, profession and social life. I consider him one of THE major influences in my life and am considering studying with him again. I also felt there was a bit of aloofness, grandiosity and arrogance in his character and a strong element of class exclusivism and elitism in the selection/makeup of the student body. This will not stop me from further pursuing my interest and possible involvement in his work. Though I feel a authentic dialog about such concerns is not possible within the framework of his classes. "You don't have to respond, but it's good to know the real story and not be subject to the gossip from years and years ago about something that is such old news." The "real story"? From this dialog so far no one has said specifically anything about what the real or unreal story is. What are the specific versions pro and con of this story that seemed to have occured in the early 90's? Neither the pro or con anonymous posters have said anything specific nor has anyone given any references or information to back up their pro or con claims. So wha up? word (please  | ||
| Anonymous (67.164.176.148) |
A very simple Google search will turn up more information at The Awareness Page. I guess it's not the type of proof that you are looking for but ~somebody~ in the decade-long pathetic scenario described there is very hopelessly screwed up. Siegel's camp has written into its party line that the sicko is the young aide. Even if you believe that, watch very, very carefully as you flirt with the dangerous prospect of joining up: This ~is~ the way it is. Just a couple layers down, you have a very, very cynical master on your hands. While the assertions contained in the document are shocking, if you read up on the subject of cults, cultic relationships, and cult leaders, it is certainly nothing new. The revelations from this period in the history of "The Conversation" produced an exodus of easily 25% of Siegel's class membership. These were the students who had enough self left to imagine a life without their teacher. The others stayed, too dependent by this time, or else eventually killed themselves. Their world was shattered. You can say that I am a liar. But that doesn't make me one. Wake up, my friend. After a bit of grieving for your mangled innocence, you can resume your inauthentic life with all the joy and gratitude of a freed slave. Granted you will have to make your own decisions for the rest of your life. But they'll be yours. And that is as it should be in America. Good luck to you. | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.104.125) |
Perhaps you are the aide. Hmmmm? You clearly were not there. If you are intelligent then you realize not everything on the Internet is valid. I won't say you are a liar. You seem to be taking this extremely personally. Mr. Siegel is completely honorable. Not perfect. But, honorable. You must be the aide or someone who worked there because how would you have any idea about percentages. You sound like someone who has 2% of what Mr. S is teaching and about 98% of some other religion or psychiatric info. What do you do for a living if I may ask? Are you successful and honest? Are you good natured and kind? Are you looking to better the world or are you trying to vent your anger from something that happened so long ago and yet gosh...are you wanted by the law? If you are honorable then you can recognize honorable people. If you are not honorable then you cannot. Only you know the truth for yourself. And I'm sure that the way you see it is real. Mr. S. doesn't have a party line...the people that I have spoken to say that they go to class when they want or not. They come and go as they please. There is no coercion. You know, I'm sorry maybe you are thinking of someone else. Yes, that must be it. There are several thousand people who have studied but Mr. S clearly is not trying to do what other people have done. He is just doing what he does that assists those who are mature enough to learn it. However, I am interested if someone's life was shattered. That seems odd, if you say that people left and they were making their own decisions for themselves then...gosh...how could they be shattered? Something just doesn't make logical sense here. Or did someone tell you this? I suppose that someone told you something like that. Well, just consider the source. All you have to do is view how someone lives and then you will know. Are you okay? I'm starting to think that perhaps you are not. If not, I hope you become okay but only you can do that for yourself. Teachers come and go but can only provide insight and input. It's up to each one of us to choose our path. I have chosen mine and it is free from any teacher. I am able to make my own decisions and fortunately so far, they have been good, for the most part and life is really amazing. I'm sorry for you if this is not the case. Have you tried other disciplines? | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.104.125) |
To the poster who wanted to know about Siegel. Use your own judgment. Mr. S does not use volunteers because of what was said above. He gives people who have a low income the chance to learn from him and gain valuable skills that enable them to increase their earning capacity to the point that they can afford to study with him. It clearly is not for everyone. It is by referral because he won't teach anyone who he cannot be successful with. I think he realizes that he cannot be successful with people who a) cannot afford it (whereas Werner Erhard would take your last dime if you woud give it to him and did) b) who say they are interested and being referred means that the friends knows that they are genuinely interested and c) gosh I don't know I will say that anyone reading the news can see the world is about to blow up. Like hello? What are you going to be doing when it does? Are you going to be loving life or hating life? Truly a lot of people have weak minds. Does George Bush have a strong mind? Does Osama bin Laden have a weak mind? Who's to say? Can you say? For anyone who is interested in any discipline, all you have to do is call their office, check out their web-site and see if they have something to offer. Hey it's a free country. If anyone can make anyone else do anything - then they do have a weak mind. I guess I'm lucky. I'm glad I can see things clearly for myself. The only people who seem to resonate with Mr. S are people who are not looking to be famous but who want to be happy and lead productive lives. For the person who is saying all the hateful things about someone they may not even know. Well, gee...maybe that seminar is not for you. Why waste any further time with it? Anyone who found that they resonated with Mr. S back when he worked with W.E. will find that they are likely to completely resonate with the what he is doing now. Do you feel me? It's all good. Go out and have a happy day! | ||
| Interested (205.188.117.20) |
I just found the document online being referred to. I am startled by it. The person writing it seems to be a bit disturbed (at least when he wrote it). Yet, it also seems too well informed and detailed to simply dismiss as the product of a disturbed mind. I'll write more after I consider it in light of my own experiences with the Conversation and Arnold Siegal. This is an strange twist in the turn of my inquiry. | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.65) |
The person who wrote that was way beyond disturbed. Who said that a disturbed mind could not be detailed. Look at Picasso, look at Van Gogh, go and READ all about Jackson Pollock. All brilliant and all very disturbed. Mr. S seems to have figured out how to take ones intelligence and put it into the world in a productive way and not on some mountain top. There are some pretty amazing people with great genius who were deeply disturbed. A person who is ill will likely need medical and psychiatric intervention. I hope they get it as they will ultimately only destroy themselves for not finding their own vision. I find that sad. Plus a disturbed mind can steal, copy, cheat, invade undermine and use all their intelligence to be bad. My own rule of thumb is that if someone is taking the time to blatantly speak in a way that undermines another then I question the person who is doing the undermining. Though I find many organizations to be far less than ethical and are completely, in my own opinion, hippocritical, I think that everyone must make up their own mind. It's a free country and that is the beauty of democracy. You can study or not study or learn or not learn or paint or not paint by your own choice. The high road has great merit and even provides the most incredible experiences. Did the last person actually take Mr. S's seminar? | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.65) |
One more thing....by the time the person or persons who are up to more no good via this web-site get themselves sorted out...which they may never do, Osama is likely to destroy the world they live in anyway. So, I suggest you either get real about getting what you want out of life or you might as well kiss yourself goodbye. Things are not looking pretty in the world today if you are watching the news. It's time to reconcile your past and your differences and move on to a better place so that when your time comes you won't be a bitter and miserable human being. It starts with each person in their daily habits and who they deal with each and every day. It's sort of like that old saying from childhood, if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say anything at all. Have a great weekend everyone! | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.65) |
Sorry one more thing. The great exodus...was that somebody was engaging in behavior that any employer would have fired them for on the spot. The employee had done several things that were let's say, a tad outside of the law and way outside of the job description that they had been given. The employee was given several opportunities to come clean and work everything out. This employee apparently had never told the complete truth or perhaps did not know the truth about their genetic mental and physical condition and unfortunately for them, they appeared to lose a grip on reality. It was horrific and sad to observe but many students in and out of the class later expressed that they could see that something was off in this person and just couldn't really put their finger on what it was. Many people in our country are mentally unwell, but if you check their history, their background, their family genetics and what may have occurred to them in childhood, you can get plenty of answers as to why they would be living such a hateful life today. I think a good doctor, the right medication and some love and care from family and friends can work wonders. I do hope they get it, for themselves and for everyone who comes in contact with them. For it is people like this who become the next Saddam Hussein if they don't get nurtured. I think our country needs to set up a system to take care of people who have mental conditions. My God, look at the homeless situation. Does anyone have any comment on that? Where is the government support to help these people who are unable to help themselves because they are chemically unbalanced. Modern medication has so many wonderful cures for many of these dreaded illnesses. Where are the honorable people who can step up to the plate politically and bring some real reform into the world. Everyone should have access to medical care, everyone should be able to afford housing and food and everyone in our country as well as others should have the right to have a good and happy life. I think government and politics is a place where we can make a difference if we are sincere with ourselves. Again, I reiterate, it is proposition for all of us to work together as a team. Not one person against the other. We have to get along and cooperate and be kind and be patient. We all make mistakes. We need to be forgiving and gracious and helpful to our elders and to those who are sick. Let's end this chat and go out and do something loving for someone today. Again, have a great weekend everyone. | ||
| Anonymous (66.82.9.65) |
For the person who asked wha up? I'll say this. Some things do not need to be known by the entire world. That does not make them bad or inappropriate. Everyone has a right to some privacy. If you weren't involved in the incidents that happened at that time, then it really has no bearing or relevance to your own life. If you are interested in W.E.'s (Landmark's Forum) then you can call them and go to one of their guest seminars. I volunteered in that organization and when I had things thrown at me by one of W.E.s relatives, I realized that was not exactly a pleasant environment. I don't know all the details of Werner's life but just didn't care for what I saw. Maybe he's a saint, but it does not seem that way. Mr. S is particular about who he teaches but it really is so he can keep his promise. No point in spending money if you cannot get your money's worth. However, if one is really interested in learning, then it would be obvious to his staff that they were so anyone can always call and inquire about learning. Sincerity can pretty much be recognized by the staff. I once had the unfortunate experience to be "set-up" at the celebrity center in los angeles and what was supposed to be a business lunch turned into "them" trying to get "me" to take their courses. Now THAT WAS FREAKIN' WEIRD. So, everyone should make their own decision. Everyone has their own path. You just gotta choose one and go with your homeys, ya know? The best place is the place that seems to ring true for you. If it don't ring true then go elsewhere even it's on a mountaintop. Life is amazing, nature is amazing, their is so much wonder to experience in the world. If taking a seminar makes you upset then don't take it. Ride your bike instead, or go see a happy movie. Do what works. Read poetry. It's all good brotha. | ||
| Interested (205.188.117.20) |
It will take me a day or so to appropriately respond to the above comments and my own views on what I read in the document I referred to. But for the moment I will answer yes I did study with Mr. Siegal for 5 years and was thinking about doing so again. That's how I ended up here after doing a search for his website. The document referred to above seems to be an affidavit involved with someone else's law suit so there was more than one person involved with the allegations of inappropriate behavior. And of course the person who wrote the document was (unless he is misrepresenting himself) Mr. Siegals personal assistant for many years and gave a lot of detailed information ( I'm pretty sure I remember who he was). I can't vouch for the veracity of that information but some of the names and dynamics are known to me which is why I have the sense that, even though I think the author was/is disturbed, that there may be some important and disturbing insights concerning Mr. Siegal. But I acknowledge that these are complex, delicate and difficult issues. I don't wish to rush to rash judgments or opinions. That is why I am attempting to explore these issues with as much circumspection and good will as I can. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.189) |
Arnold Siegel is a charlatan. You are wise to think long and hard about renewing your energy in this direction. There is no way that the document above was fabricated by a disturbed mind. It was probably very helpful to the young man to purge all that from his memories though wouldn't you think? To have worked so long and hard for a man who you think is so good just to find out he's the devil's brother... | ||
| Interested (205.188.117.20) |
If what is in that document is more or less true than I don't think it reveals a charlatan much less the hyperbolic turn of being the "devils brother". It doesn't negate the profound philosophical synthesis, individual insights, and clarity in articulating them, that the Conversation allows for practical application in intellectual inquiry and dynamic engagement with the world. But it does reveal (again if this document is more or less true) that Mr Siegal is a kind of sociopath afflicted with grandiosity, ego inflation, misanthropy, fear and anger. All covered over by both a mask and an authentic attempt at balance and equanimity. Which is what makes this issue so distressing to me. He is a deep and moving thinker and presence. Yet if he has disembled so egreciously and so harmfully then it does damage his profound understanding and possible legacy. If what was written is true I wish he would wrestle with his demons in a public way and use the breadth, depth, clarity and insicive discernment of his intelligence to get beyond this pathology. I don't have much hope for this. But then again I don't know how much of what was written was true. Though again I'll say it seem to well informed and insightful to simply be dismissed without profound consideration and questions being raised. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.185) |
Arnold Siegel has sex with his students. He seduces young women to become dependent upon him and then uses his power to secure sex and adoration. All the while draining the pocketbook of the women involved. And if you aren't pretty, and young, and female, well you will be seduced too. In other ways. You might call this "wrestling with demons" but I call it illegal, immoral, and unethical. What do you think of David Koresh? And the leader of the Heaven's Gate? Did they wrestle with demons? Or did they systematically break down human beings and mold them into what they wanted? What do you think of rapists? Pedophiles? Child abusers? Therapists who take advantage of their patients? Are they wrestling with demons too? In my mind, someone who wants to do it and DOESN'T DO IT wrestles with demons. Someone who DOES do these things should be in jail, including Arnold Siegel, if what the document said is true. | ||
| Interested (152.163.253.102) |
The behavior indicated is certainly immoral and unethical (if true) but it is not illegal. It is between consenting adults. This does not make it any better nor does it deny the aspect of the power relationship involved. Yet making a connection to rapists, pedophiles, child abusers, David Koresh and Heavens Gate is way off the charts. Nothing in this document (whose veracity we have yet to confirm) points to those extremes. Making exagerrated claims and metaphors only muddies clear thinking. It could also play into the hands of those who would like to dismiss an authentic inquiry into this matter. They could claim, with some justification, that people are engaging in hyperbole and slander without basis. The truth is powerful and engaging enough. It doesn't need to be dressed up with overblown caricatures. | ||
| Anonymous (24.10.122.69) |
I hope I'm not too late to get in on this conversation about the conversation. It is such a rarity. You'd think there'd be so much more of it...since dialogue is supposedly such a basic element of Arnold's worldview. I tend to agree with those who have indicated that Siegel is a tad sociopathic and that his sweet defender speaking here is more than a tad duped. There are ground rules in his courses that put the kabash on talking with outsiders about what goes on there. And he does not allow anyone from the media inside. No Conversation about The Conversation. Besides being ironic, don't you think this is cultish? | ||
| Interested (205.188.117.20) |
"I tend to agree with those who have indicated that Siegel is a tad sociopathic and that his sweet defender speaking here is more than a tad duped." Indeed, this may be true. But I believe I was the one who used the word sociopath. And I am neither a detractor (yet) nor a defender. I am wishing for firm, clear and passionate discourse about this. I suspect that the last poster has some experience with The Conversation as I do. I found it to be a profound intellectual and pratical engagement but I also question the character of Mr Siegal and am interested in the credibility of the documents posted on the web which make serious and scandalous accusations. I would greatly appreciate any input you or anyone has on this matter. (Interested) wiseaction@aol.com | ||
| Anonymous (24.10.122.69) |
You are not alone in your view of Siegel as a sociopath. There are others posting here who think he's pretty twisted. And with regard to firm, clear, passionate discourse, do you have any comment on the stark lack of conversation about The Conversation? Do you think it's a cult? | ||
| Interested (64.12.117.20) |
I didn't actually say Mr. Siegal is a sociopath. I said that if the allegations in the affidavit available online are true then this indicates sociopathic behavior. The writer of this affidavit (or, perhaps more accurately, statement in support of the plaintif in an insurance case)seems to be well informed and sincere though perhaps at bit unbalanced himself at least when he wrote it.) I am a bit chagrined that the ideas and discourse of the Conversation are kept within his seminars; that Mr Siegal doesn't publish or lecture. Is it a cult? It is certainly not a cult in any usual sense of the word except perhaps for the small circle of people that surrond him. They don't seem to engage in high pressure tactics to draw people in and keeping them in unless such people are strongly motivated to study with him. | ||
| Anonymous (24.10.122.69) |
I don't think the tactics need be ~high~ pressure to qualify. Look here: What is a Cult? "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." (West & Langone, 1986) What Are Some Characteristics of a Cult? 1. Authoritarian in their power structure 2. Totalitarian in their control of the behavior of their members 3. Pyramidal structure 4. Uses thought reform techniques 5. Isolation of members (physical and/or psychological isolation) from society 6. Uses deception in recruiting and/or fund raising 7. Promotes dependence of the members on the group 8. Totalitarian in their world view 9. Uses mind altering techniques (chanting, meditation, hypnosis and various forms of repetitive actions) to stop normal critical thinking 10. Appear exclusive and innovative 11. Charismatic or messianic leader who is self-appointed and has a special mission in life 12. Controls the flow of information 13. Instills a fear of leaving the group I think it qualifies on every one of these characteristics. Are there any for which you cannot see relevance? The young man's affidavit looks not to be regarding an "insurance case" as you put it but rather a case against Siegel brought by a former student for negligence, fraud, sexual harassment, battery, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. | ||
| Interested (205.188.117.20) |
I'll get back to you early next week. I have little to no time to respond till then. wisaction@aol.com | ||
| Anonymous (66.214.71.44) |
Anonymous -- are you or have you been a student in this class? You say that each of the definitions of a "cult" apply. I'm asking because I'm not sure if one could know if something were cult or cultish unless they understood the workings, restrictions, doctrine, and so forth of the cult. So have you participated? Thanks, Curious | ||
| Interested (152.163.253.102) |
I wonder the same too Curious. I will have more directly to say in his response to my last post but perhaps not till Friday. wiseaction@aol.com | ||
| Student R (24.225.140.49) |
I have been a student of Arnold's for many years. The teaching is unconventional, but does not violate any civilized standard you could think of. In fact there is no more civilized gathering on the face of the earth than one of Arnold's classes, I'm sure (and I have been to Quaker meeting). Maybe that's why a lot of us don't care to "graduate". | ||
| Interested (205.188.117.20) |
Student R, I too have studied with Arnold and know what you mean. His broad understanding and ability to articulate it in speech, dialog and writing was both profound and practical. However, it seems that allegations have been made by people in his former inner circle which call into question his integrity. This is one of the things I am exploring here. Especially since I was considering studying with him again. Perhaps you have some insight into what appeared to be somewhat of a scandal in The Conversation in the early 90's? (To others: My work load has finally dimminished and I will address the documents available online which were being discussed earlier) wiseaction@aol.com | ||
| Student R (24.225.140.49) |
Interested: I don't have any "insight" into the "scandal" really. False accusations are a fact of life, even outlandish ones (ever been involved in a custody battle, for instance?). I never saw any reason to make it my business to try to sort it all out. Apparently others did, and did not like what they thought they saw, and dropped out. You have to go with your own judgement in cases like this. Judging from the calm that has prevailed ever since that episode, it's pretty evident to me that I made the correct call. Hope this helps. | ||
| Interested (205.188.117.20) |
Student R, I can't in good conscience not try to sort it out. The allegations are too serious. It's true that false accusations are a fact of life. But so are true or partially true accusations. In this case they seem to come from people who were quite close to him including his personal assistant, his "right hand man". I'm not simply going to accept that what has been written is true. But neither can I write it off without serious inquiry. wiseaction@aol.com | ||
| Anonymous (68.83.253.119) |
I have been in the class, I have read the deposition. From what I know about Mr. S. and how he runs his organization there are elements of the deposition that I find believable. Some people left as a result of the "scandal." Others decided to stay on because the value they got from the training outweighed the disturbance of the allegations against him. I received something of value from Arnold's classes. At the same time, there were elements of the work that I found disturbing and sometimes just plain boring so I decided not to continue. It is also very expensive. Others I've met credit Arnold with turning their lives around and gladly pony up the thousands year after year. So be it. Arnold has a crack sales team and uses tactics that can be very convincing when trying to leave the class or when one is "on the fence" about joining up. I would not call it coercion unless you call your local Lexus dealer coercive. That said, Arnold is a human being like the rest of us. He has an ego but is not sociable, he has a wit but often at the expense of others (his students), he is fallible but demonstrates enough intellect to (hopefully) learn from his mistakes. What he teaches and how he teaches it is not for everyone. It is up to the individual to decide for themselves. (BTW He has a website with an 800 number. Referrals are not necessarily required.) | ||
| Skeptic (171.161.96.10) |
Be aware that it is likely that Anonymous 66.82.104.125 - and likely anything starting from 66.82 is from our friend Arnold himself or directed by him through one of his assistants. On another website that provides a link to this - a place here where he could "anonymously" defend himself - there is a single message that states: "Anyone know the history of Arnold Siegel and his Conversation? There are some people who want to know at: http://factnet.org/discus/ Look under: Religious Cults and Sects: Conversation, The" The message suggests it was posted by someone with the e-mail address "arnoldsiegel@" and the time stamp is around the same time that 66.82.104.125 posted. (website at the bottom of this message). And as of today, when you google "Arnold" "Siegel" "Conversation", this message is the first choice. After all, who else would know whether someone had committed illegal acts - see April 30, 2004 at 10:43 PM message - that any employer would have fired them for? How convenient there is no further elaboration as to what these terminable illegal acts were. And notice how much time Anonymous 66.82. has spent trying to convince us? It feels a little like a commercial for the Conversation. I wonder if Mr. Siegel is feeling pressure from folks finding out about the deposition - it had been on the web for some time, however, quite buried. This is the first time I've done a search for Arnold and seen so much. Apparently someone else found the deposition earlier when it was about the only thing one could find. Other than his website. Why would someone so at peace with the world take so much time to talk about demented people and how we should not be petty, while, um, being petty? If it is a "Conversation" I have always wondered, than why is it that students can only talk with Arnold and not with themselves? Apparently folks have kept their pact since not much of the Conversation itself has found its way into this dialog. Arnold claims to teach "autonomy" but when students try to leave, there is no support for their attempts to try to actually be "autonomous". To my knowledge, they are ostracized, and other students are encouraged to ostracize the one who is leaving. Even if the only reason is that they cannot afford the high annual tuition. I like the one who calculated out the annual income near $2 million. His pedagogy is such that he sits in front of the room at a level above everyone else (good to see the students), but the "Conversation" only takes place between Arnold and an individual student. There are no break out sessions for other students to engage and think with each other, or even with Arnold's staff. This is not just limited to the classroom setting where at least others might gain insight from HIS dialog to the student, but he also requires quite a volume of writing assignments, including, as mentioned in the deposition, weekly "Dear Arnold" letters. It is Arnold, and Arnold only. What happens when he dies? I pray that those autonomous people are really autonomous. Don't answer whether or not you've been to his classes if you don't want to. They have a database. They have your writing. They'll figure out who you are. And if I'm right, it is Arnold asking. I don't question that Arnold has a good handle on relatively mainstream philosophy from great thinkers, and that if you attend one of his seminars you will really think about your life. He has a lot of good information and ideas to teach. For "Interested" perhaps you may gain value by looking back at your writing assignments while you were in class (did you have copies, or were you handwriting originals to him?) or your notes, and think about the ideas. Perhaps sign up for a seminar for a refresher. I think there is value there. But I would be careful about the whole package. I think this mimics what the poster above me said with "I received something of value from Arnold's classes. At the same time, there were elements of the work I found disturbing. . . " For those who find value studying with Arnold, I do wish you well, and I do agree that there is value. http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.ex-cult/messages/36623.html | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.153) |
I really don't think Arnold Siegel knows how to use a computer so I really doubt he's lurking on this site much less posting anonymous messages. To Student R who said: "I have been a student of Arnold's for many years. The teaching is unconventional, but does not violate any civilized standard you could think of. In fact there is no more civilized gathering on the face of the earth than one of Arnold's classes, I'm sure (and I have been to Quaker meeting). Maybe that's why a lot of us don't care to "graduate". The reason you haven't graduated is because Arnold has no intentions of you ever being autonomous. You are hooked. If you left you would be completely ostracized by all your Conversation buddies. You can't leave. The people who left when it became clear Arnold was having sex with his students is because it suddenly became clear that the teacher of sincerity was duplictious. The teacher of wholesomeness was tainted. The teacher of One Voice had a big secret. Just as did Gary Hart, the very person he used to hold up as the example of someone who would have avoided problems if he wasn't a liar. Siegel is a scammer. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.156) |
Yes he is a scammer. And the people who didn't leave couldn't leave. These are ADULTS who ask "Arnold" for guidance on whether or not they should take a job offer, move to another city, get married, get divorced, have a baby... (The answer, by the way, is dependent upon whether it will help or hinder your ability to pay for more classes or bring another poor sucker in.) If they allowed themselves to see how duplicitous and power-hungry and sociopathic the teacher is, they'd be forced to go it alone after having relinquished their ability to MAKE DECISIONS a long time ago. Not likely. The human capacity for denial is the cult leader's ace in the hole. Siegel counts on this denial and, given that he's still in buiness, it appears to be his WILD CARD. Rewarding him with an annual winning hand of $2,000,000. FINAL THOUGHT: Even though he chuckles all the way to the bank, he knows he is a great big lonely loser. And I'd bet, if you've got any of the aforementioned denial at work in your own life, underneath it, you know he's a lonely loser too. | ||
| Anonymous (65.65.220.77) |
I worked for the guy for 8 years and in some roles, directly. I know alot. Who really cares, though? Its funny that the people defending him on this site know so little about him. They also don't know what he does or does not do in the background. On the mass exodus issue in 1993-1994: just because some of the students were dealing with issues of mental and emotional stability (lets see, who doesn't) doesn't mean that they guy didn't do some pretty bad stuff. On the who cares about this guy issue: this guy is much smarter than someone like Werner Erhard and has taken and continues to take significant steps to protect himself. Doesn't everyone know that he gets his students to write him letters (if he still does this) where they tell him very specific and potentially damaging things about themselves. When confronted with legal threats, he often uses those letters against someone in order to get them to settle. He often does this indirectly by having one of his staff do the dirty work. | ||
| Anonymous (24.10.99.84) |
Mental stability has a lot to do with who the most important person in one's life is. If the most important person in your life is using mind control techniques to systmatically make you dependent upon him, and then pushes you away after you are hooked, well, then, you've got a big stability problem. The victim either kills herself or heals with time. The sociopath looks for fresh blood. Life goes on. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.150) |
I agree with Skeptic, those who are defending him sound a lot like Siegel's registrars. Ladies, you have turned over to Him your young adulthood. Now middle-aged, you have given up your potential children for Him. You have sacrificed unknown numbers of deep lifelong friendships for Him. You have let go of wonderful, good men for Him. You have lost your parents, your brothers, your sisters in service to Him. Do you actually think that this man cares about you? You have witnessed firsthand his capacity for atrocity, for inflicting immeasurable harm to students who ~you~ thought he loved. Devastating messages from teacher to student have passed through your own lips, crushing spirit, how did you do it? Do you think ultimately he will do any different for you just because you have a higher aptitude for jumping through hoops? Or, do you think maybe he privately harbors distain for what ~he~ might call your toy breed characteristics? How will the cynical man repay you for the sacrifices you made when his need for your services draws to a close? Will you be remembered? What do you think? No need to post your public answers. We know what they would be. Sit down with a blank sheet of paper that no one will see but yourself...(or is that even possible?) Think. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.150) |
To Anonymous 65.65.220.77 and the Other Ex-Students wondering Who Cares: There are people who care about what you know. They may not even know that they want to know but they find themselves compelled to come to this site and read these words. For years, Siegel has been operating from the top of an authoritarian power structure. His staff and students never hear any criticism of The Conversation, its methods, or its founder. Dissent has been weeded out. Opposition to Arnold Siegel has been effectively silenced. Until now. His students think they are living a radical and privileged life while the hordes of humanity drift in inauthenticity. But this is really Cult Characteristic #10: "Appears exclusive and innovative." (see list above or below) Do you remember how bad it felt to realize the extent to which you had been conned? Remember the Class Action Suit? For reasons both good and bad (a debate for another time) the law is on the side of the cult leader. The internet, however, gives the other guy power. This funny little website has the power to change minds. So here's the homework assignment :-))) Feel free to pick and choose or respond with an assignment of your own... After all, we are truly free now. A. Read up on the subject of cults. B. Choose any one of the following 13 Cult Characteristics and write an essay that makes the case for how The Conversation with Arnold Siegel qualifies. C. Donate a few bucks to FactNet for setting up such a fabulous site. I look forward to reading your essays! What is a Cult? "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community." (West & Langone, 1986) What Are Some Characteristics of a Cult? 1. Authoritarian in their power structure 2. Totalitarian in their control of the behavior of their members 3. Pyramidal structure 4. Uses thought reform techniques 5. Isolation of members (physical and/or psychological isolation) from society 6. Uses deception in recruiting and/or fund raising 7. Promotes dependence of the members on the group 8. Totalitarian in their world view 9. Uses mind altering techniques (chanting, meditation, hypnosis and various forms of repetitive actions) to stop normal critical thinking 10. Appear exclusive and innovative 11. Charismatic or messianic leader who is self-appointed and has a special mission in life 12. Controls the flow of information 13. Instills a fear of leaving the group | ||
| Anonymous (65.65.220.77) |
To the author of the last message. I like the part about the homework assignments. You MUST have been in class. Its ironic but after many years what I have found is that the people who really want to know about this guy and who care about the important link between his ideas and his character end up leaving him. After all, the basis of his whole teaching was that he "embodied" it. He never claimed to invent the philosophy of the marketplace, or the idea that we should manage our time, strategically plan, behave better, be authentic, etc. His invention was One Voice, the teaching, the pedagogy. And that was about one thing and one thing only -- embodiment. Once people realized he was not such an advanced human being (there really is no such thing, its a fabrication of a certain west coast madness, after all, remember est?), why would they stay? Thats the real question. If they didn't leave once they found out about the women, what would make them leave now? These people don't care about his character or the fact that he doesn't embody the "most civilized standards" (he cursed worse than a sailor behind the curtain, so to speak), they care about what they get from him. Clearly a form of denial. After all, his students end up looking better, sounding better, etc. | ||
| Anonymous (66.193.92.55) |
I am so glad to have found this discussion. If I can contribute to helping potential victims to stear clear of Arnold, then it would be a true joy. The brilliant innovation by Arnold is that his formulation is able to sucker more sophisticated seakers -- people too intelligent or worldly to fall for regular LGATs. Make no mistake, all ye who have abandoned est, The Forum, Lifespring, etc. This is more of the same, only run by an 'evil genius' the likes of which you never imagined. More to come... | ||
| Bamboozled (64.12.117.20) |
What's the big deal about graduation? I've graduated from several educational institutions. I simply got a better value for my hard earned dollar in the Conversation. I spent less money and time overall there than I did in the other educational institutions I attended. The Conversation course of study was much more practical, and applicable to life management. And, as an added bonus, since I did not graduate from the Conversation, I never had to wear an idiotic cap and gown, or attend a tedious ceremony with a keynote speaker, the likes of Hillary Clinton, or Bill Cosby. | ||
| Anonymous (65.65.220.77) |
To those who understand: isn't it fascinating how the people who are "believers" can completely avoid the real topic? This guy or gal "bamboozled" for instance starts writing about graduating from college vs. graduating from The Conversation. The real question is the connection between Siegel's teaching and actions. Thats the only question. | ||
| Anonymous (66.193.92.55) |
Agreed. Arnold used to say that it takes about 5 years to graduate. Then you could be like him -- equanimous and whatnot. But that was well over 10 years ago. I guess now he doesn't give a graduation estimate, since students might start to wonder what in the hell is wrong with the grizzled veterans in the class. Can you be like Arnold? Can you master what he is teaching? Can you become a master of manipulation and subtle mind-control? Not on your life. He's training you not to be like him, but to be under his thumb. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.13) |
The paradox that I find interesting is that there seems to be credible claims that Arnold Siegel doesn't embody what he teaches but in fact may profoundly contradict it. Yet, from my experience, this doesn't negate his profound intelligence and ability to articulate a practical and sophisticated philosophy that does indeed empower people. I still feel that he made a significant contribution to my ability to think clearly, engage in measured inquiry and embody a growing equanimity. That's what makes him and the Conversation a poignant tragedy if indeed these negative claims are true. He has such a profound pedagogy and ability to articulate it that it is a shame that what appears to be his dissembling and possible sociopathic behavior (again if the negative claims are true) undercut his broad and deep vision and its practical application. | ||
| Anonymous (66.193.92.55) |
Interested, I can fully appreciate what you are saying. Arnold is a really smart guy, and imparts a lot of worthwhile information. It's too bad that you have to endure the class in order to get the value. In my opinion the value is more than negated by the potential damage. Question of the day: Why is Arnold's "book" protected under such strict security? | ||
| Anonymous (65.65.220.77) |
Publication means open for criticism. Not here, thanks. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.150) |
Criticism is verboten! Interested: Another way to sort through this sad dilemma is by asking the question is "At What Cost?" You need to answer for yourself if your increased "ability to think clearly, engage in measured inquiry and embody a growing equanimity" was worth what was sacrificed for it. To do that, you must first ascertain where you stand on the harm he has inflicted on others if you personally have not suffered. Then, if you decide you believe what has been said, you need to weigh it against your personal gains. It’s rather difficult to do since one is usually so much more acquainted with one’s own experiences that others’ pain tends to be rather unreal and, sad to say, irrelevant. If, however, you like to think of yourself as principled or even pragmatic, it’s a worthwhile exercise. Easier perhaps if you use analogies that take yourself out of the equation. Think of Germany in the thirties. Along comes the Fuhrer and gives the country an identity and a national pride that does wonders for the German people. He even puts an end to the devastating economic problems. But all those dead Jews! | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.150) |
Interested: Here's another way to look at it. Perhaps you are so still measuring the world (and therefore Arnold) by standards that Arnold himself laid out for you--standards by which he was bound to be the winner. I'll use Student R as an example. Student R says: "I have been a student of Arnold's for many years. The teaching is unconventional, but does not violate any civilized standard you could think of. In fact there is no more civilized gathering on the face of the earth than one of Arnold's classes, I'm sure (and I have been to Quaker meeting). Maybe that's why a lot of us don't care to "graduate". Where else have you ever heard anyone talk like this? This is Arnoldspeak. One technique Siegel uses for getting his students to stay for decades is to suggest the standards against which to measure worthwhileness and then be the only game in town that fits within the standard. Tell me, did you ever think of equanimity as a necessary aspect of life before your first encounter with Arnold Siegel? | ||
| Anonymous (66.108.203.198) |
As for the secrecy of the book, I'm not even talking about publication. I'm talking about the sign-in/sign-out procedures for numbered books, etc. I remember an incident when a student inadvertently walked out of class one night with a volume of the book. An employee was dispatched with incredible haste to retrieve it at the student's home. It's more about getting Arnold's information in an uncontrolled setting. He won't allow you to examine his teachings and his "pedagogy" at your leisure. He tells you what portion to read, and when, in the classroom. If you are in the classroom, and it's not a specific reading time, you can't even open the book. That brings us back to the criticism part. You can't criticize in the class. He quashes all critique, of course. You can't read the book outside the class, show it to others, discuss it amongst your friends, compare it to anything, nada. I once asked my controller (registrar) why the book was so protected. She said that if it got out into the world, people wouldn't know how to interpret it or understand it or use it or some nonsense. One of the many alarm bells I failed to heed. Cult characteristic #12: Controls the flow of information. | ||
| wambamthankyoumaamboozled (205.188.117.20) |
You know, Mr/Ms Anonymous, for an individual who claims that "The real question is the connection between Siegel's teaching and actions. That's the only question..." - you ask a LOT of questions. Last I checked, this was a free society. People, even the hypnotized, stay, or leave the course of study because they can, and want to. It has nothing to do with anything else so elaborate and sinister, so Manchurian Candidate-ish. The Conversation is just another product for a self-absorbed society with too much time on its hands. People have followed their celebrity idols down the road of self-improvement, and that can be a good thing, because, last I checked, humans needed a lot of improving. Like shaving cream, or deodorant, you can buy it and use it, or not, and wind up like William Lee Golden. | ||
| Anonymous (24.10.99.84) |
And he is...whom? | ||
| interested (152.163.101.13) |
"You need to answer for yourself if your increased "ability to think clearly, engage in measured inquiry and embody a growing equanimity" was worth what was sacrificed for it." All I sacrificed was time and money. And that was well worth it. If others have been harmed by him then that is an issue outside of what I benefited from spending time and money. However, if indeed the claims of harm that people are making are true then it is worth making them known so that others won't be harmed. "Think of Germany in the thirties. Along comes the Fuhrer and gives the country an identity and a national pride that does wonders for the German people. He even puts an end to the devastating economic problems. But all those dead Jews!" But really this is so over the top as analogies to the Nazi's usually are. Even if all the negative claims concerning Arnold are true -which would mean he is a hypocrit and sociopath who should be exposed as such (and while I take these claims very seriously, because they have the "ring of truth to them', they also have not been established as true to my satisfaction yet)-his actions still would not even approach those of the Nazi's The problem with using such hyperbole is that it undercuts the credible claims by allowing those who support Mr Siegel to claim that his critics are engaging in irrational exageration. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.13) |
Tell me, did you ever think of equanimity as a necessary aspect of life before your first encounter with Arnold Siegel?" Yes. Equanimity is one of the most profound qualities we can cultivate. I was already involved with Buddhist practice before encountering the Conversation. Most Buddhist practices are concerned with cultivating equanimity along with kindness and clarity. Of course the claims being made here concerning Mr. Siegel and The Conversation seem to indicate that the equanimity is an illusion and the kindness a facade. Again if this claims are true. | ||
| Agamemnonymous (207.69.137.140) |
Arnold Siegel is no more an evil con man than is Mr. Whipple. Siegel is a businessman marketing a product, a methodology, which happens to be a good, timely and useful one. Whether he uses his own product, ALL the time, or not, is irrelevant. We are all, after all is said and done, only human, even those of us further along the evolutionary continuim... | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.13) |
Agamenonymous, The issue isn't whether Mr Siegel is perfect. We all fall short of our ideals. However, the allegations against him are that he has engaged in profoundly unethical behaviors that are quite at odds with what he proports to teach. He is more than marketing a product. He is claiming to have mastered a way of being that he can teach to others. Whether the allegations are true are of course the crux of the issue. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.150) |
Anon 66: Yes, #12 (Controls the flow of information) applies so many ways it's mind-boggling. If you took his book out of the context of the retreat, and the mind control, it would look like he lifted chapters of textbooks for Philosophy 101, Child Development 101, and Biology 101, bound them into a book and put his name on it. If Siegel didn't control the flow of information, and if he didn't control who gets to read it, I think the marketplace would have taken a pass. Interested: I appreciate that you think my analogy to Germany in the thirties was overblown. I think it is apt. So we disagree on that. I also appreciate that you have been a student of equanimity longer than I'd assumed. Sorry for being so presumptuous. But even so, I still think that Siegel alters people's expectations of the world to his advantage. Have you drawn a conclusion? Do you think the allegations are true? Are you going to go back? Would you send your 25-year old daughter if you had one? | ||
| Interested (205.188.117.20) |
"Have you drawn a conclusion? Do you think the allegations are true? Are you going to go back? Would you send your 25-year old daughter if you had one?" I'm circumpect about the allegations but they have stopped me from considering studying with him until I have more clarity about these claims. I was circumspect anyway given what I experienced as a certain arrogance, elitism and authoritarianim that characterized the Conversation. But the clarity and depth of the inquiry I still found and find amazing. Which again is why I find it tragic that even if these allegations aren't true Mr. Siegel keeps his intellectual synthesis so underwraps in the circle he has created. For all the talk of the market place he hasn't engaged the public market place of ideas. | ||
| Anon 66 (66.193.92.55) |
Another thought on Arnold and the marketplace: Arnold doesn't engage the marketplace in any way, shape or form, that I can think of. His class is rigidly walled off from the greater marketplace of ideas, and is, in the intellectual sense, a 'command economy.' Only the ideas he disseminates or approves get an airing. Students are instructed not to contradict or question Arnold's teachings within the context of the classroom. Such contradiction or questioning is considered to be ritualistically antagonistic. If you are questioning, then you are not listening. And if you don't listen, you can't learn what Arnold has to teach you. It's a one-way flow (of ideas -- money flows the other way). There is no competition. There is no market. It's just another contradiction between what Arnold tells you is important and what he does in reality. | ||
| Anon 66 (66.193.92.55) |
Agememnonamous, I wanted to address your last comments. You said: "Arnold Siegel is no more an evil con man than is Mr. Whipple. Siegel is a businessman marketing a product, a methodology, which happens to be a good, timely and useful one. Whether he uses his own product, ALL the time, or not, is irrelevant. We are all, after all is said and done, only human, even those of us further along the evolutionary continuim... " Arnold isn't just a user (or not) of the product. He IS the product. His premise is not oly that HE thought up the methodology, but that HE and HIS WAY OF LIFE are the living proof that it works. He EMBODIES it. Now, if that's not true, don't you think that it has implications toward the truth of his claims for this product? He's the one saying that he personally is the evidence for his claims. If he is really someone consistently abusive toward his employees, screaming at them and humiliating them for petty mistakes (or for nothing at all), making them work a schedule that allows for no life outside of work, having them dump his girlfriends, then he does NOT embody equanimity, as he defines it. Exhibit A, Arnold, is a fraud. It doesn't bode well for product quality. Now, did Mr. Whipple do all that? | ||
| Anonymous (168.143.113.138) |
A brief note on Chris Laehy's "deposition": If you look at Laehy's deposition you will see a case number and a jurisdiction, the Los Angeles Superior Court. If you go to the Los Angeles Superior Court's website at: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil and perform a case search using Laehy's case number, you will see that the case number refers not to Arnold Siegel, but rather to a medical malpractice case. One therefore has to question the veracity of Laehy's "deposition". | ||
| Anonymous (66.141.170.154) |
On Siegel and the marketplace. Siegel is in the marketplace. He makes money. He sells, he markets, he delivers something. People pay. What else is the marketplace about? Those who question him on this one are going to lose. In fact, I often think that if he marketed professional development instead of this One Voice thing he probably could have avoided alot of problems for himself. He doesn't publish so is not opening himself up to that kind of criticism and there is no criticism allowed in class or from staff. Yes, he has closed himself off to the marketplace of ideas. Nothing illegal there, just a fact. On the questioning of Laehy's deposition, you have no idea what you are talking about. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.150) |
You're right, Anon 168. It appears that something is amiss in the recording of this case on the Superior Court's website, at least using the address you posted. But at least one of the plaintiffs is the same plaintiff listed on Laehy's "declaration". The attorney, Paul Morantz, to whom Laehy refers in his declaration is also named on the site. Perhaps two different cases were listed under one case number. Is such a thing possible? Paul Morantz's phone number is listed on Laehy's declaration. Perhaps you could call Morantz and get some clarity on the lawsuit, if you are really interested. (Or some legal advice if you're in the market. Heh heh.) Also, if one Googles further on Siegel's name and game, one uncovers more documents about the lawsuit for which Laehy wrote his declaration. It appears the suit ~would~ have been for medical malpractice if only Siegel had bothered to get properly degreed before he took on his patients. Heh, heh. As to the "veracity" question, it sure doesn't sound to me like Laehy made it all up. Besides the credible tone and detail to the charges, there are quite a lot of people posting here who are saying that Siegel's alleged hypocrisy and cynicism sound probable based on their own experiences with the man. And, to Anon 66: Don't you think it sounds like a cult? Do you think cults should be allowed to function in the marketplace, even a free marketplace? Think of Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, Moonies, etc. | ||
| Interested (64.12.117.20) |
"you will see that the case number refers not to Arnold Siegel, but rather to a medical malpractice case. One therefore has to question the veracity of Laehy's "deposition"." I don't believe it was characterized as a deposition in any kind of criminal case. The case appears to be a civil case by a former member of Mr Siegels staff who is suing for damages for alledged psychological and sexual abuse. Laehy's declaration seems to be a document submitted as evidence in that case. The important question is whether the allegations are backed up by other peoples experience and observations Veryinterested@aol.com | ||
| Interested (64.12.117.20) |
"Don't you think it sounds like a cult? Do you think cults should be allowed to function in the marketplace, even a free marketplace? Think of Jim Jones, Heaven's Gate, Moonies, etc." Even with my reservations about the Conversation it seems far from Jim Jones, Heavens Gate etc. And I think that "cults" should be able to function in the market place unless they are breaking the law. Because without the rule of law then just who or what is to decide what constitutes a cult? Veryinterested@aol.com | ||
| Agememnonymous (207.69.137.135) |
Anon66 states: "Arnold isn't just a user (or not) of the product. He IS the product. His premise is not oly that HE thought up the methodology, but that HE and HIS WAY OF LIFE are the living proof that it works. He EMBODIES it." I disagree. Better to lower your expectations. No one can be the perfect embodiment of anything, we're human. Some of us are more practiced at being decent, civil, productive, compassionate and thoughtful...but it still takes practice, and underneath it all, we're simply animals, with all that entails. Our "civilized" culture has more holes in its mask of civility than an online dating service. The premise IS that the more you practice paying attention to what you control (yourself), the less time you'll have to be the aimless animal you are. There are no claims in the methodology of perfect results. You fail, you learn, you move on. Mel Brooks, as the King in "history of the world, part 1 or 2" gets into it with a fair maiden he is trying to bed. Fair Maiden: "but your Highness, I don't do that sort of thing..." The King: " you don't do it? of course you do it...everybody does it" everbody. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
"The premise IS that the more you practice paying attention to what you control (yourself), the less time you'll have to be the aimless animal you are. There are no claims in the methodology of perfect results. You fail, you learn, you move on." This is of course true. But in the case of the Conversation the question is: Has Mr Siegel engaged in behavior which indicates profound hypocricy and sociopathology? Veryinterested@aol.com | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
Oops, My email is actually Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Anonymous (66.193.92.55) |
Agamemnonomous, You said: "I disagree. Better to lower your expectations. No one can be the perfect embodiment of anything, we're human. Some of us are more practiced at being decent, civil, productive, compassionate and thoughtful...but it still takes practice, and underneath it all, we're simply animals, with all that entails. ..." I don't disagree with this, but it doesn't address my criticism. I said that Arnold is selling himself as the embodiment of what he teaches, and in that he is a fraud. It's not that he's not perfect, but that his life is a direct contradiction to what he is selling it as. | ||
| Agememnonymous (207.69.136.202) |
Anonymous 66 states: "I said that Arnold is selling himself as the embodiment of what he teaches, and in that he is a fraud. It's not that he's not perfect, but that his life is a direct contradiction to what he is selling it as." I have to disagree on this point. I do not get the impression that Siegel is selling himself as anything other than the author of an interesting inquiry into the human condition. That inquiry begins with the obvious premise that humans are imperfect. Siegel is a human. Siegel is therefore not the perfect embodiment of anything other than an imperfect human. To put it very simply, he's bound to make some mistakes, however evolved his line of inquiry has rendered him. Is it fraud? I don't believe it is, if you listen up, and think for yourself. If you're looking for another little tin god, then it may be again that the original expectations were too high. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
"Is it fraud? I don't believe it is, if you listen up, and think for yourself. If you're looking for another little tin god, then it may be again that the original expectations were too high." If the allegations made by former staff members are true then it is fraud and hypocricy. There is also the question of whether the process of The Conversation is so insular and authoritarian that it does not truly engage the inquiry it espouses. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Anon66 (66.193.92.55) |
Agamemnonomous, You keep bringing up the perfection thing, as if it's relevant to my point. It isn't. If Arnold is not selling himself as the embodiment of what he's teaching, then he's changed his spiel very significantly since I was in the class. | ||
| Agememnonymous (207.69.137.204) |
Anon66 states: "If Arnold is not selling himself as the embodiment of what he's teaching, then he's changed his spiel very significantly since I was in the class." I repeat, that it is my opinion that: "I do not get the impression that Siegel is selling himself as anything other than the author of an interesting inquiry into the human condition." In my opinion, A66, you seem be of the opinion that the Conversation is a cult, and Siegel is a fraud. OK I think we disagree. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
Agememnonymous writes: "In my opinion, A66, you seem be of the opinion that the Conversation is a cult, and Siegel is a fraud. OK I think we disagree" What do make of and how do you contextualize the claims made by former staff members concerning his behavior? thanks, Interested Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Agememnonymous (4.250.96.112) |
"What do make of and how do you contextualize the claims made by former staff members concerning his behavior?" These claims have more or less weight depending on your point of view. If you paint Siegel as the embodiment of his teachings, you may take the allegations to heart, as another of life's MANY disappointments. If your picture of Siegel is that of the author of an intelligent and interesting inquiry into the human condition, then it is another matter entirely. Of the two former staff members who have gone on the record in writing against Siegel, one seems to be wrapped a little too tightly, while the other appears to be a jilted admirer. Perhaps both were victims of their own devices, that of self-inflated expectations. Take any of Siegel's comments out of context, and like a good trial lawyer, you can twist them into whatever shape you want. Watch Senator Edwards tonight for several examples of same. And if it's all true, so be it. It still takes two to tango. It appears as if no one was forced into anything. There is still great value in the depth and direction of the inquiry. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
I agree there is great value in the depth and direction of his inquiry. Which is why I think it is tragic if The Conversation and his behavior doesn't actually embody the stated fruits of that inquiry. There are at least two issues at stake here. One is the veracity of the claims of unethical and sociopathic behavior on his part. If they are true then it is not simply a matter of in your words " if it's all true, so be it. It still takes two to tango. It appears as if no one was forced into anything." If it's all true it indicates profound disembling and the opposite of true autonomy. The other issue is whether the framework of the Conversation is really a conversation. Or is it a closed system of inquiry centered around Mr Siegal which doesn't really participate in the market place of ideas. I was seriously considering studying with him again. I found this discussion and the documents which call into question his behavior while looking for the official website of the Conversation. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.152) |
Maybe Arnold IS teaching his students to be like him after all... Gag sounds almost as cold, as cynical, and as creepy. I remember when I was a student, I got progressively more cold, more calculating, more right-wing, more intolerant, and more manachean, all the while sure that I was embodying a more fully human way to be. I would have told you that I was becoming more compassionate, more ethical, and a better thinker while in fact, the EXACT opposite was true. This I see thanks to the perspective that many years of freedom has given me. Maybe Siegel should call it: The Conversation Towards Sociopathy. "It takes two to tango?" Don't tell me, let me guess: You feel this way not only about victims of cult leaders but also victims of wife-beaters, rapists, pedophile priests, and therapists who take advantage of their patients? And the comment about the debate tonight is so telling. Here is a guy engaged in an inquiry! Gag, we don't need Arnold. I hereby deem you finally automatonous. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
"I remember when I was a student, I got progressively more cold, more calculating, more right-wing, more intolerant, and more manachean, all the while sure that I was embodying a more fully human way to be. I would have told you that I was becoming more compassionate, more ethical, and a better thinker while in fact, the EXACT opposite was true." While I am quite circumspect about Mr Siegel and the Conversation given what I've read here and on a related site (and appalled if it's true) my experience doesn't correspond to what is written above. I was involved with The Conversation from 85-91. I found it did help clarify my thinking and lead to a deeper, more compassionate and practical inquiry. It even empowered my ability to question certain aspects of The Conversation. Such questioning did not seem to be welcomed by Mr Siegel and The Conversation even if it was done sincerely and without antagonism. That seems to contradict its stated aims. | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (207.69.136.204) |
"If it's all true it indicates profound disembling and the opposite of true autonomy. " Agreed, on the part of the teacher AND the student. "is it a closed system of inquiry centered around Mr Siegal which doesn't really participate in the market place of ideas." Agreed. The ideas are coming from Siegel, who claims a legitimate inquiry into the human condition. The students are paying for that input, because the students seek a benefit from same. It is up to the individual to take or leave the whole or parts of the whole. The students get to vote with their wallets, unless they're choosing to be hypnotized. "Maybe Arnold IS teaching his students to be like him after all... Gag sounds almost as cold, as cynical, and as creepy." Ouch. With Halloween upon us, though, maybe that's a good thing. ""It takes two to tango?" Don't tell me, let me guess: You feel this way not only about victims of cult leaders but also victims of wife-beaters, rapists, pedophile priests, and therapists who take advantage of their patients? " Here's what I think: 1. Americans belong as a group to the Great Cult of Victimology, which relieves them of personal responsiblity for anything and everything, and which promises a pill or therapeutic solution for all maladies, real, and or imaginary. 2. If your wife/husband/lover/significant other/life partner/soul mate beats you at the drop of a hat, press charges. 3. If you are a rape victim or a victim of a serious criminal act, press charges. Do not let the criminal off the hook. You had the misfortune of running into one of the 5 or 6 billion wild animals roaming the earth, disguised as humans. They're out there, and living among them involves risk. 4. If your priest is a little too touchy feely, become a Baptist. While you're at it, consider that the concept of God belonging to or favoring any one particular group does not hold either ashes or dust. 5. If you are in therapy, get out right away. Immediately stop doing whatever it is you're doing that makes you miserable. Find a mirror, look into it and declare, "I have met the enemy, and he is me, and I am my choices, past, present and future." Unless there is a gun to our heads, we all have choices. Studying with Siegel involves a choice. Nobody holds a gun to your head. You sign up, you pay up and you shut up and listen. Or, you don't. | ||
| Anonymous (66.193.92.55) |
Gag said: "Unless there is a gun to our heads, we all have choices. Studying with Siegel involves a choice. Nobody holds a gun to your head. You sign up, you pay up and you shut up and listen. Or, you don't." And one more thing: If you think that studying with Arnold is a bad choice, you can speak up and warn others. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
Mr Siegel has a right to teach and behave in any way he wishes (within limits of the law of course). And people can choose to participate with him or not. No one is being forced to. But for those of us who have studied with him or who are contemplating studing with him, the issue of whether The Conversation and Mr Siegel have integrity and are engaging in and living out the stated aims of its inquiry to the best of its/his ability, is an essential question which is worth examining throughly. Especially given some of the claims made by former members and staff members. Hence, the ongoing conversation on this board. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
-"is it a closed system of inquiry centered around Mr Siegal which doesn't really participate in the market place of ideas." -Agreed. The ideas are coming from Siegel, who claims a legitimate inquiry into the human condition The paticular synthesis of The Conversation comes from Mr Siegel based on the many ideas and intellectual synthesis of others. To choose to keep his own synthesis tightly held within the insular circle of The Conversation (a right he certainly has) is to most assuredly not allow them to be evaluated and enriched by the larger intellectual market place of ideas. | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (4.250.42.220) |
A_mous66 says: "And one more thing: If you think that studying with Arnold is a bad choice, you can speak up and warn others. " There are a lot more terrifying things in the world to warn people about, things beyond our individual control. Why not station yourself at a local seaport, and keep an eye out for suspicious containers? As far as Siegel being in the "marketplace of ideas,", here's how that works. Siegel puts out his ideas, his students listen and then vote with their wallets. There is plenty of competition for the self-improvement, personal evolvement dollar in the Great Cult of Victimology in America. Inter_152 says: "the issue of whether The Conversation and Mr Siegel have integrity and are engaging in and living out the stated aims of its inquiry to the best of its/his ability, is an essential question which is worth examining throughly." I just don't see people lining up bearing witness to all these purported monkeyshines & hanky-panky. There is one deposition written by an obviously unhinged individual, to an attorney, who has specialized in cult and brainwashing cases for 20 years ( a match made in heaven ), and, one lawsuit by what appears to be a jilted admirer. I've been sued, for actually adhereing to the terms of a contract. Once the plaintiff's attorney got through with it, I sounded like Colonel Kaddafi. I was accused of doing things with no basis in fact, which were unsupportable in the face of the available evidence. THe attorney wasn't chastised for trying. As Bill & Hillary proved, the truth, which used to be "just the facts, ma'am, just the facts," is now subject to personal review and individual interpretation. "I smoked marijuana, but never actually inhaled..." "I did not have sex with that woman..." Although Bill was no doubt referring to Hillary, not Monica, and thus, in hie own mind, telling the truth, riddle me this: Where are all the hypnotized dupes who were screwed, parlayed and galvanized by Mr. S.? If this were so, wouldn't Mr. S be overwhelmed by lawsuits? This all sounds like there is a highly personal agenda behind it, resulting in an unwarranted attack. | ||
| Anonymous (66.193.92.55) |
Gag says: "There are a lot more terrifying things in the world to warn people about, things beyond our individual control. Why not station yourself at a local seaport, and keep an eye out for suspicious containers?" Why do you keep trying to change the subject? I warn people about Arnold because I can. I can because I know about the danger, and this forum exists so that people can discuss these things openly. Having experienced this particular cult personally, I find it well worth warning prospects about. If you're so hot on freedom, then I have to wonder what makes you keep trying to get me to keep my mouth shut. | ||
| Anonymous (66.193.92.55) |
Gag says: "As far as Siegel being in the "marketplace of ideas,", here's how that works. Siegel puts out his ideas, his students listen and then vote with their wallets. There is plenty of competition for the self-improvement, personal evolvement dollar in the Great Cult of Victimology in America." Let me give you an example of the free "marketplace of ideas:" this forum. Unfortunately, while we sit at our computers typing these messages, we don't have the benefit of Arnold's written instruction materials for reference. That is because he excludes the 'book' from the free marketplace of ideas. Instead, it is only accessible within the strictly controlled environment of his classroom. | ||
| Anonymous (66.193.92.55) |
Gag says: "There is one deposition written by an obviously unhinged individual, to an attorney, who has specialized in cult and brainwashing cases for 20 years ( a match made in heaven ), and, one lawsuit by what appears to be a jilted admirer." This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a smear campaign looks like. Are you Karl Rove, by any chance? | ||
| Anonymous (69.244.166.98) |
Dear Gag 220 "Where are all the hypnotized dupes who were screwed, parlayed and galvanized by Mr. S.?" Why have you chosen to remain anonymous? I was unable to email you directly. Maybe the same reason people like me do not come forth with the goods on Siegel so easily. Some of his students go out into the world use what he teaches and accumulate wealth (something that they wanted to do all along). And, some people, the more sensitive ones, are used by Siegel to run his organization (some are paid and some are not paid). I was not paid and it took more than 10 years to see him for who he really is. Talk about a lot of conflict and confusion. I have names, dates and activities, too. In fact, I am named on the deposition you mention. Simply put, Siegel is an evil con man as the first email states. However, I believe the information you learn in The Conversation is useful and often times valid and should be taught, but not by Siegel. He does not embody what he preaches but instead leads a double life. | ||
| Interested (152.163.100.74) |
Anonymous (69.244.166.98) could you write some more about your specific experiences that causes you to say the he is an "evil con man" and "leads a double life". Thanks Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Interested (152.163.100.74) |
Gag writes: "As far as Siegel being in the "marketplace of ideas,", here's how that works. Siegel puts out his ideas, his students listen and then vote with their wallets" That may be in part how it works but it also works out that those of us who have studied with him or are contemplating studying with him discuss The Conversation and Mr Siegel in the marketplace of ideas that this forum is part of. Perhaps you, like The Conversation, don't like to have it evaluated in the marketplace of ideas. This would seem to be the antithesis of authentic inquiry. Gag: "There is plenty of competition for the self-improvement, personal evolvement dollar in the Great Cult of Victimology in America." Sarcastic comments such as these have nothing to do with the content or context of my remarks. You are free, of course, to write what you wish. But such a tone and manner of writing is a far cry from the true insights of The Conversation. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.200) |
Any theories as to why some people respond so venomously to victims that actually do speak up, expose the predator, sue for damages, kill in self-defense, etc. They seem driven to say whatever they can to distance the victim from themselves. It is kind of a fascinating phenomenon. Is there any explanation for the amount of disdain this guy has for people who have endured the unfortunate or dire consequences of having crossed paths with one of "wild animals roaming the earth, disguised as humans?" So Gag... Let me get this straight. The victim ~does~ get points in your world for speaking up but only ~after~ you berate them for being a whining victim? You fallaciously conclude that someone who SPEAKS UP TO WARN OTHERS about the activities of a pedophile priest -- or a therapist who proposes sex with his patient as the cure for her depression, an incestuous parent, a minister who bilks his congregation -- is abdicating their responsibility. The EXACT OPPOSITE is the case. You should actually try going after the next guy who fucks you. When you win, I predict you will feel very differently about your fellow victims. I'm curious. What did your friend say that got you to come check out Siegel’s scam? Any guesses as to why you were accepted as a "student?" | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
Anon 216, While I am very circumspect about The Conversation and Mr Siegel since I have found this board I also have to say that no one here has given much information at all to back up what was written in the one online document that accuses Mr Siegel of hypocricy and sociopathology. Could you give some specfic examples from your experience of why we should believe that Mr Siegel is dissembling and unethical? Thanks, Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (207.69.137.205) |
A-mous66 says: "Having experienced this particular cult personally, I find it well worth warning prospects about. If you're so hot on freedom, then I have to wonder what makes you keep trying to get me to keep my mouth shut." I'm not. You're free to sound the alarm, based on your eperiences, and I'm free to disagree, based on mine. I disagree with your description of Siegel's class, and, I think shipping containers have more potential for causing damage to humans. With Siegel, you can choose to study, or not to study. If a shipping container were misused by a fanatic hell bent on causing destruction, the individuals effected would have had little choice. Hopefully, this won't happen. | ||
| Muhammed_gagamemnonymous (207.69.137.205) |
A_mous66 says: "...we don't have the benefit of Arnold's written instruction materials for reference. That is because he excludes the 'book' from the free marketplace of ideas. Instead, it is only accessible within the strictly controlled environment of his classroom. " Based upon my experiences, this is true, and is so stated on the Siegel's website. So, this is another consideration to take into account when making the choice to study, or not to study. In my opinion, free thinkers should not need a "Siegelian Koran". It's nice to have bit of input or guidance, ( and that is the ongoing dynamic the classes provide ) but constant referral to a manual, which becomes outdated over time, would inhibit creativity, in my opinion. 700 years ago, it may have been custom to cut off a theif's hand. Today, that notion seems harsh, and the recent slew of decapitations speak for themselves as cruel examples of individuals blindly following a "black & white", manichean manual. | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (207.69.138.201) |
A_mous69 says: "I was not paid and it took more than 10 years to see him for who he really is. Talk about a lot of conflict and confusion." Why did you accept no payment for your time and efforts? Did you have another source of income, or were you "sleeping under a bus?" Were you coerced in any way to do so? Did you feel that the value of the teaching was your compensation? | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (207.69.137.138) |
Inter_152 says: {"Gag: "There is plenty of competition for the self-improvement, personal evolvement dollar in the Great Cult of Victimology in America.") "Sarcastic comments such as these have nothing to do with the content or context of my remarks." I was not being sarcastic. I was being serious. There is plenty of competition for the self-improvement, personal evolvement dollar in the Great Cult of Victimology in America. Competition is everywhere. By accepting students, Siegel invites competition. What he releases to the non-paying public is his business. What the market accepts is the market's business. Isn't Victimology prevalent here in America? Isn't it usually someone else's fault? | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (152.163.101.12) |
A_mous216 says: "So Gag... Let me get this straight. The victim ~does~ get points in your world for speaking up but only ~after~ you berate them for being a whining victim?" I think you need to re-evaluate what I said. There is a lot of whining and whimpering going on, and being encouraged, in our culture. "You fallaciously conclude that someone who SPEAKS UP TO WARN OTHERS about the activities of a pedophile priest -- or a therapist who proposes sex with his patient as the cure for her depression, an incestuous parent, a minister who bilks his congregation -- is abdicating their responsibility. The EXACT OPPOSITE is the case." I don't believe I wrote anything to that effect. A lot of the examples you're citing have to do with children, and abused children pose a particularly sad side of life and the human condition. Kids can be victimized because they have less choices than adults. What I was saying is, that unless there is a gun to your head, you, an adult, have choices. If there's a gun to your head, you have only life or death. | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (152.163.101.12) |
A_mous69 says; "You should actually try going after the next guy who fucks you. When you win, I predict you will feel very differently about your fellow victims." I defend myself when I need to. You win some, you lose some. But, unless there is a gun to my head, I retain the power to choose wisely. I avoid weird priests, erotically oriented therapists, and modern day Elmer Gantry's like the plague I pray doesn't get set loose in this country by some religious fanatic...I'll have no choices in that case. "I'm curious. What did your friend say that got you to come check out Siegel’s scam? Any guesses as to why you were accepted as a "student?" I was not referred. I happened upon an evening class at a hotel I was staying at, read the literature available there, called up the office, and decided to give 'er a go. I had interest, $$$$$$ and the time. "Why have you chosen to remain anonymous?" You mean, gagamemnonymous... | ||
| Anonymous (24.10.99.84) |
Are you drinking tonight, Gaggy? | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
Gag: "There is plenty of competition for the self-improvement, personal evolvement dollar in the Great Cult of Victimology in America.") Int:"Sarcastic comments such as these have nothing to do with the content or context of my remarks." Gag:I was not being sarcastic. I was being serious. There is plenty of competition for the self-improvement, personal evolvement dollar in the Great Cult of Victimology in America. Perhaps, what appears to me to be, your cynicism and reticence to consider another point of view blinds you to the fact that as I wrote "...comments such as these have nothing to do with the content or context of my remarks" Of course there is competition for self improvement programs and people do indeed get caught up in seeing themselves as victims and not taking responsibility for their choices. But this has nothing to do with the points I have raised about The Conversation. The two fundamental issues I see are: 1. Are the allegations concerning Mr. Siegel's supposed sociopathic behavior and hypocrisy true? 2. Does The Conversation really involve an authentic inquiry into being human and becoming autonomous Or is it a closed and insular system revolving around Mr Siegel (as opposed to revolving around the primacy of the inquiry)? In asking the latter I do not in any way deny the right of Mr Siegel to teach and restrict admission to his class in any way he chooses. There is no question about that right. There is a question about whether the policies of The Conversation violate it's purported aim and spirit. That is an important and valid question for those of us who have found it valuable and those who contemplate engaging in its Coursework. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
The tone of this discussion is beginning to sound at least a bit immature and inane. I ask again if those who are alleging rude, hypocritical or unethical behavior on Mr. Siegel's part would please give some examples from their own experience. I have read the 2 documents available online and found them disturbing. But I am also disturbed that people on this board seem to be making statements disparaging his character and not offering any specific and personal accounts as to why. Thank you. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (205.188.117.20) |
A_mous24: "Are you drinking tonight, Gaggy?" 1. Only my friends get to call me that. 2. You must be psychic - I will be drinking tonight. I'm hosting an an old fashioned beer drinking contest to raise money for victims of life's circumstances. 3. Please excuse the non-serious subject matter. Gagamemnonymous@aol.com | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (205.188.117.20) |
Int_152: "There is a question about whether the policies of The Conversation violate it's purported aim and spirit. " I think this is a question for the market to decide. The students, past, present and prospective, will make choices for themselves. Int_152: "Of course there is competition for self improvement programs and people do indeed get caught up in seeing themselves as victims and not taking responsibility for their choices. But this has nothing to do with the points I have raised about The Conversation." I think in a way that it does, due to the fact that the allegations made here, real or not, involve purported victims of a supposed cult mentality. My point being that unless you remove the power of choice, which the Conversation does not, can't a reasonable, observant adult see it coming? IF whomever it is (priests, therapists, techers, doctors, etc.) are doing one thing and saying another, doesn't the red flag go up? mailto:Gagamemnonymous@aol.com | ||
| Interested (64.12.112.39) |
Gag: "My point being that unless you remove the power of choice, which the Conversation does not, can't a reasonable, observant adult see it coming?" The more important point and the point of this forum is whether or not The Conversation and Mr Siegel have integrity as a course and teacher. My concern is that there may be an "it" that observant adults need to see and be aware of in regard to The Conversation. If the allegations made here and elsewhere are true than I'm not so concerned about whether and in what way people may or may not be victims but rather that The Conversation is a fraud (again if the allegations are real). Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Interested (64.12.112.39) |
Gag: "I think this is a question for the market to decide. The students, past, present and prospective, will make choices for themselves." This is part of the market manifesting its decision making process. I am a past student who thought about being a student again. The conversations in this forum have affected my choice and may be affecting others choices. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Interested (64.12.112.39) |
Anon 24.10 "Are you drinking tonight, Gaggy?" Gag:"You must be psychic - I will be drinking tonight. I'm hosting an an old fashioned beer drinking contest to raise money for victims of life's circumstances." I intend to be a victim of a fine bottle of cabernet tonight (And I'll toast Arnold's best side and the weekend I spent with him in Napa Valley ;) Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.200) |
"The tone of this discussion is beginning to sound at least a bit immature and inane. " Scuse me, Fully Int, but do realize that you yourself have been addressing someone here on this board as Gag, an nickname that reflects one's bodily reaction when one reads his posts? That's pretty innane, don't you think? And what about the rastafarian ranting earlier this year? That was pretty innane, don't you think? In other words, Flint, sometimes innane things are posted. Some things that you think are innane are poetic to others. It's the internet. Come on. Flint: "The more important point and the point of this forum is whether or not The Conversation and Mr Siegel have integrity as a course and teacher." No, Fully Interested. You do not own this forum. You are free to state your supposed agenda but you are not free to state mine or the other fifteen or twenty people whose opinions about Arnold Siegels's con job and whose agendas in posting here are just as valid as yours. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.200) |
"I was not paid and it took more than 10 years to see him for who he really is. Talk about a lot of conflict and confusion." Hi there, First I want to apologize that you must endure the insensitivity of Gag as well as the indifference of Fully Interested while you attempt to say as much as you are comfortable saying about your mistreatment by the duplicitous teacher, Arnold Siegel. I want to commend you for your courageousness. Nothing that the callous say will change the fact that you survived, became wise, and are now finding your voice that can warn others. Stay strong. | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.200) |
Gag: "...unless there is a gun to my head, I retain the power to choose wisely. I avoid weird priests, erotically oriented therapists, and modern day Elmer Gantry's like the plague...." It's a $10,000 a year con job, Gag. And he's got you convinced that since you see no gun you can walk away tomorrow. But the years keep going by, don't they, and you just aren't quite fully human yet, are you, Gag? In my opinion, which is diametrically opposed to yours, Gag, Arnold Siegel is cut from the same cloth as the pedophile priest, the immoral therapist, the wife-beating tyrant, the incestuous parent, the duplicitous minister bilking his flock, the murderous cult leader, the sleazy con artist, the totalitarian dictator, etc. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
216.190: "Arnold Siegel is cut from the same cloth as the pedophile priest, the immoral therapist, the wife-beating tyrant, the incestuous parent, the duplicitous minister bilking his flock, the murderous cult leader, the sleazy con artist, the totalitarian dictator, etc." Do you have any personal experiences to relate as evidence of this or is this assesment based on the 2 documents which have been referred to? Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
152.163:"First I want to apologize that you must endure the insensitivity of Gag as well as the indifference of Fully Interested while you attempt to say as much as you are comfortable saying about your mistreatment by the duplicitous teacher, Arnold Siegel." I'm not aware that he (or she)or anyone on this board has said anything specific about being mistreated by Mr Siegel or about his being duplicitious. BTW, I am not indifferent to claims of his hypocricy or sociopathic behavior. My point to Gag was that my posts were not making claims about mine or anyone elses alledged victimhood. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Gagamemnoonymous (64.12.112.177) |
A_mous216 says: "It's a $10,000 a year con job, Gag." That'a your opinion. Nobody extracted $$$ from my wallet. You can pay and study, or not. "And he's got you convinced that since you see no gun you can walk away tomorrow." I've exercised my choices several times. I have never been coerced to do one thing or another. "But the years keep going by, don't they, and you just aren't quite fully human yet, are you, Gag?" That would seem to be your opinion, since I disagree with some of your other opinions. Can anyone really say what it means to be fully human, anyway? mailto:gagamemnonymous@aol.com | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
I have just reread this whole conversation about The Conversation and a number of things strike me. There seem to be numerous posts by people who are relatively well informed about the basics of The Conversation. Some of them have defended it some of them have attacked it. But no one, not even those who have said they have worked for Mr Siegel, have related any direct, personal knowledge that backs up the allegations in the 2 documents available at other sites. Can anyone here actually give some examples of what they, or someone they have met, have experienced that can back up the allegations about Mr Siegel made in those documents? My intuition tells me that in this case "where there is smoke there may be fire" could be accurate. But I also must note that no one here has talked about any actual fire they have seen. They only seem to speak about the smoke of those 2 documents (one being a third hand report in the form of an analysis of a conflict among insurers) Where is the fire producing the smoke? And what may be dust being kicked up that just looks like smoke? Thanks Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.200) |
Now who is the only person in the world who would be interested in putting out this fire? Hmmmm... Getting back into the damage control business, Arnie? | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.200) |
TEN WARNING SIGNS OF A POTENTIALLY UNSAFE GROUP/LEADER 1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. 2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. 3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement. 4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. 5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil. 6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. 7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. 8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough". 9. The group/leader is always right. 10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible. TEN WARNING SIGNS REGARDING PEOPLE INVOLVED IN/WITH A POTENTIALLY UNSAFE GROUP/LEADER 1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration. 2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens. 3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution". 4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior. 5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement. 6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests. 7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor. 8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader. 9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful. 10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided. TEN SIGNS OF A SAFE GROUP/LEADER 1. A safe group/leader will answer your questions without becoming judgmental and punitive. 2. A safe group/leader will disclose information such as finances and often offer an independently audited financial statement regarding budget and expenses. Safe groups and leaders will tell you more than you want to know. 3. A safe group/leader is often democratic, sharing decision making and encouraging accountability and oversight. 4. A safe group/leader may have disgruntled former followers, but will not vilify, excommunicate and forbid others from associating with them. 5. A safe group/leader will not have a paper trail of overwhelmingly negative records, books, articles and statements about them. 6. A safe group/leader will encourage family communication, community interaction and existing friendships and not feel threatened. 7. A safe group/leader will recognize reasonable boundaries and limitations when dealing with others. 8. A safe group/leader will encourage critical thinking, individual autonomy and feelings of self-esteem. (ARNOLD SIEGEL CONVINCES HIS FOLLOWERS THAT HE IS HELPING THEM BECOME BETTER THINKERS AND MORE AUTONOMOUS WHEN IN FACT THEY BECOME INCREASINGLY DEPENDENT UPON SIEGEL AS YEARS GO BY.) 9. A safe group/leader will admit failings and mistakes and accept constructive criticism and advice. 10. A safe group/leader will not be the only source of knowledge and learning excluding everyone else, but value dialogue and the free exchange of ideas. (CHECK THAT DIALOGUE IS TRULY VALUED BY THE LEADER'S POSITION ON CRITICISM.) | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.200) |
Quote of a Former Staff Member about the Leader of The Conversation, Arnold Siegel: Mr. Siegel demanded that members of The Conversation conduct themselves in a submissive manner at all times and maintain an attitude of awe and reverence when addressing him personally and when speaking about him to others, in essence to worship his perfection. Staff and "students" were never allowed to "argue or disagree" with Mr. Siegel. Members who disagreed with Mr. Siegel would be accused of being ''naively antagonistic" "lacking critical thinking" and/or "mentally unstable." In private Mr. Siegel would berate the person in question to his Staff, by referring I them as a "fucking idiot" "crazy " and other vulgar terms. Often the person in question was threatened with dismissal forcefully if necessary, from working with Mr. Siegel if they did not conform. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
"Now who is the only person in the world who would be interested in putting out this fire? Hmmmm... Getting back into the damage control business, Arnie?" But since I most assuredly not Arnold (and I assert that anyone who reads my posts could easily determine that)this only underscores your seeming inability to consider views other than your own. And once again no evidence is being offered. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
"Quote of a Former Staff Member about the Leader of The Conversation, Arnold Siegel:......." This is once again a reference to one of the two documents available at other sites. Once again no personal experiences are being offered nor that of any account beyond those 2 documents. I reiterate: I think this may very well be a case where the smoke is indicating fire. But I am very bewildered that no one is offering any personal accounts or evidence beyond those documents. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
BTW if one of the posters here is the author of the document which makes the serious allegations about Mr. Siegel I want to let him know I take those allegations seriously. I don't discount them at all. That document is powerful smoke indicating a real fire. But this does not negate the fact that it seems to be the only direct account I'm aware of anywhere that is making these sorts of specific allegations. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (207.69.137.136) |
Inter152: "Can anyone here actually give some examples of what they, or someone they have met, have experienced that can back up the allegations about Mr Siegel made in those documents? " Apparantly not. We do, however, have a new cult, about cults. This cult utilizes a dogmatic approach and the caps-lock key to warn the world about bad stuff: "TEN WARNING SIGNS OF A POTENTIALLY UNSAFE GROUP/LEADER" "TEN WARNING SIGNS REGARDING PEOPLE INVOLVED IN/WITH A POTENTIALLY UNSAFE GROUP/LEADER" "TEN SIGNS OF A SAFE GROUP/LEADER" Based on these criteria, which appear not to be subject to individual interpretation, Pope John Paul looks like an evil con man. I'm excommunicating myself, as a precaution. But wait, there's more: "Quote of a Former Staff Member..." This a reference from the online documents previously mentioned, from a former staff member, given to an attorney who specializes in cult-related cases. There is the possibility that this individual actually believed he had been in a cult, and went to an attorney specializing in same. "Often the person in question was threatened with dismissal forcefully if necessary..." I missed the muscle aspect of the course. I don't remember seeing any bouncers in class. It was much scarier walking the streets of New York or LA, trying to get to class. mailto:Gagamemnonymous@aol.com | ||
| Interested (64.12.117.11) |
Gag: "This a reference from the online documents previously mentioned, from a former staff member, given to an attorney who specializes in cult-related cases. There is the possibility that this individual actually believed he had been in a cult, and went to an attorney specializing in same." If 1/4 of what he wrote is true then it would qualify as being in the range of what is conventionally called a cult. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.200) |
An apologist is someone who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution. A cult apologist is someone who consistently or primarily defends the teachings and/or actions of one or more movements considered to be cults - as defined sociologically and/or theologically. Alternative terms used include "cult defenders" and "cult sympathizers." Cult apologists generally defend their views by claiming to champion religious freedom and religious tolerance. However, they tend to be particularly intolerant toward those who question and critique the movements they defend. Basically, there are two kinds of cult apologists: Those who themselves belong to a cult (and who promote their group's teachings and practices, while defending them against outside criticism) and Those who do not belong to any of the groups they defend. For more information go to http://www.apologeticsindex.org | ||
| Anonymous (216.190.22.200) |
An excerpt from the May 1997 APA Monitor By Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D. What was so appealing about this group that so many people were recruited/seduced into joining it voluntarily?" We want to know also, "What needs was this group fulfilling that were not being met by "traditional society?" Such alternative framings shift the analytical focus from condemning the actors, mindlessly blaming the victims, defining them as different from us, to searching for a common ground in the forces that shape all human behavior. By acknowledging our own vulnerability to the operation of the powerful, often subtle situational forces that controlled their actions, we can begin to find ways to prevent or combat that power from exerting its similar, sometimes sinister, influence on us and our kin. ...They represented a wide range of demographic backgrounds, ages, talents, interests and careers prior to committing themselves to a new ideology embodied in the totally regimented, obedient lifestyle that would end with an eternal transformation. Comparable individual diversity has been evident among the members of many different cult groups I've studied over the past several decades. What is common are the recruiting promises, influence agendas and group's coercive influence power that compromise the personal exercise of free will and critical thinking. On the basis of my investigations and the psychological research of colleagues, we can argue the following propositions, some of which will be elaborated: - No one ever joins a "cult." People join interesting groups that promise to fulfill their pressing needs. They become "cults" when they are seen as deceptive, defective, dangerous, or as opposing basic values of their society. - Cults represent each society's "default values," filling in its missing functions. The cult epidemic is diagnostic of where and how society is failing its citizens. - If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. As basic human values are being strained, distorted and lost in our rapidly evolving culture, illusions and promissory notes are too readily believed and bought--without reality validation or credit checks. - Whatever any member of a cult has done, you and I could be recruited or seduced into doing--under the right or wrong conditions. The majority of "normal, average, intelligent" individuals can be led to engage in immoral, illegal, irrational, aggressive and self destructive actions that are contrary to their values or personality--when manipulated situational conditions exert their power over individual dispositions. - Cult methods of recruiting, indoctrinating and influencing their members are not exotic forms of mind control, but only more intensely applied mundane tactics of social influence practiced daily by all compliance professionals and societal agents of influence. | ||
| Interested (152.163.101.12) |
Anonymous (216.190.22.200) continues to reprint general essays about cults but does not refer to any specific experiences he/she has had concerning The Conversation. As I have written it disturbs me that people are making accusations without backing them up. However, the Chris Fahey (sp?) document is powerful, compelling and presents a coherent and informed picture that, for me at least, does call into question the integrity of The Conversation. But if this document is the only evidence that can be offered; if no one on this board or on some other board or in some other piece of writing can offer specific experiences that call Mr. Siegel's integrity into question, then it seems to me that one (this one at least) most be at least somewhat circumspect about uncritically accepting such claims. Fullyinterested@aol.com | ||
| Anonymous (66.193.92.55) |
I have gotten my information about Arnold's duplicity from more sources than the documents online. I will not reveal details because I do not want to expose my own identity by association with the people identifiable in the tales I could tell, or reveal their identities either. The reason for this is that Arnold has on file extremely personal musings from all his students, and I believe the threat of using this information against his opponents to be very real. The danger: Arnold has his students write a "good night" letter to him at the of each day's class. He assures students that these are read by nobody but him, and hence much of the most intimate material is contained in these letters. I happen to know that he is NOT the only person to read these letters. If you think I'm going to tell you how I know that, you're crazy. But, be warned. This is in addition to the numerous other letters written to Arnold every day in class, all of which are on file and available for his use against you if ever necessary. Interested, I don't know if you're a plant trying to elicit a "damage report" for the master, or not. But assuming you are not, I can tell you that "Gag" is a Conversation staff member or otherwise an agent of Arnold. Notice how his "no one is holding a gun to your head" and similar lines fit the apologetics description above, and are also dissonant with the spirit of generosity allegedly supported by Arnold. This dissonance is key to being a student of Arnold. Up is down, etc. | ||
| Gagamemnonymous (207.69.136.202) |
As a closet cult apologist, I want to thank the members of the "cult about cults" for outing me. I plan to march in the next cult apologist pride parade. My opinions, and observations, based on my own experiences, differ from the agenda here. I have reported positive experiences, and I do not come to the same conclusions as those promoting the board's agenda. Now it appears that I did not come to those same conclusions because I did not know I was a cult apologist. Wow. I apologize. I disagree with the agenda here. I report again, positive experiences as a student, and paying customer of the Conversation, and, as neither staff member, nor agent. | ||
|
