Dear Andrew and Rosan,

Andrew, we both agree that organizations and processes are open to inquiry and critique. Journals and journal publishers are organizations. Had you chosen to critique GK's ideas and language, I would have said nothing more than what I wrote in my first note. I did not respond to your original post challenging GK, and I did not notice the rhetorical ploy in your passing comment on cultic language. It was only when Rosan took this on and made too much of it that I responded.

In paragraph eight of my post yesterday, I referred to Lifton's eight mechanisms of thought control and coercive language. Had you been trained as a psychiatrist or psychologist, or had you taken common courses with psychologists and psychiatrists in training for your doctoral work as I did, you would know that one must identify a reasonable and related series of symptoms to make a diagnosis. Lifton's work on cults does not apply to Humantific. In using a  word such as "silly" with respect to Rosan's repetition of your post, I am saying, "Friends, If anyone reasonably wanted me to analyze Humantific with respect to Lifton's work on cults, I could do so. A careful reading of Lifton demonstrates that writing such an analysis would be mashing potatoes with a sledgehammer. One does that kind of analysis in class for undergraduates to show point by point what works and what doesn't. An analysis of this kind doesn't make sense on a list where most subscribers can read Lifton responsibly and draw the same conclusion." So now I've articulated my argument, and I hope it explains why I called Rosan's post silly rather than simply describing it as a flawed argument. 

Let's get to the apparent differences between your position on all this and mine: as I see it, there are only two of any weight. We agree on several important issues. All things are subject to analysis and critique. We agree. Language can be dangerous. We agree. GK wrote a sharp reply -- we agree that his language was forceful and we agree that some may reasonably contest his assertions. If you or anyone had chosen to contest his assertions, I'd likely have let it be. Only when Rosan made too much of your passing comment on cultic language did I rejoin this debate. 

The second disagreement is minor -- in reading your comments on Rosan, I may have drawn incorrect inferences on what you saw as her intentions. Her argument was nevertheless invalid. There is a qualitative difference between a speculative "if x then y" when it is framed carefully, and an innuendo-laden "if x then y" proposition when the "if x" part of the argument is libelous and false. In this case, what follows from the "if x" proposition is not simply invalid: it has consequences. One may hide from the legal consequences of a libelous and false proposition by arguing that one never actually made such a claim or by stating that one does not actually believe the claim. It remains possible to call such a proposition what it is. When someone makes a libelous and false assertion disguised as a speculative proposition, one's intentions are open to question. I will agree that I may have misread your view of the intentions behind Rosan's post, but the critique of Rosan's post remains valid.

Rosan, I have neither neglected nor avoided the three substantive questions that you finally got around to asking. My reply yesterday specifically addressed the thread on "cults and endorsements." In paragraph seven of my reply, I stated that I would return later to address the three serious questions you ask on the appropriate relations between universities, business, and industry. 

Had you not made libelous assertions against GK and Humantific -- not even by innuendo -- I would not have written these past few posts. If you had simply addressed the issues by raising questions in a responsible way, it's likely that several people might have taken up the thread. As I wrote yesterday, I will post my view of the answers to your three questions later. I wanted to address the silly parts of your commentary first.

You missed a crucial point in your analysis, if one may call it that. The final paragraph of my post was indeed an attempt to charm the readers, but it had a serious and valid argumentative purpose. It demonstrated how with a few sly twists, one could use a number of misstated truths and plausible half-truths to reach a patently false speculative conclusion. I used the examples of Pythagoras, Socrates, and Keith Russell to show how one can tarnish even the great and the good with these kinds of statements, knowing that readers would see this as the rhetorical stratagem it was rather than misreading it as an attack on Keith.

As noted yesterday, I will return to respond to the three reasonable questions you asked. I am not avoiding your serious questions. I wanted to get your specious issues out of the way first. All of this has been a response to speculations that should never have been put forward. If you had not dragged an incorrect but passing thought out of Andrew's post, making too much of it while claiming to be troubled over the possible consequences, we'd have moved straight to your three questions on the relations between universities, business, and industry.

Ken

Sent from my iPad