![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On personality?
May. 6th, 2011 11:33 amI recently met a cult leader. I didn't know it at the time, I just thought he was an ignorant, slightly jerkish blowhard. He doesn't know he's a cult leader. Would resist the idea heartily, vehemently, and pointlessly.
I didn't realise until later that 1: he really believed all the claptrap he was spouting and that 2: given the nonsensical nature of it) that people pay him a lot of money to spout same.
I'm being a tad coy because he has followers. Devoted followers. The sort who might be prone to swarming a critic. The part that bothers me is that what he's saying (on the three fields he is passionate about) is nonsense. Unsupported nonsense.
That, in and of itself, isn't so bad. It happens all the time. It's that the fellow has no idea how to argue his points. I mean really, no idea. He has no grasp of the basic principles of logic. He seems to think that making a declarative statement, "there is not an underground civilisation at the very center of the earth." is, "proving a negative."
He equivocates. He doesn't think using words in the way they are defined matters, it was; at times, like arguing with Humpty-Dumpty. His model for living seems to be a sort of solipsistic Benthamism, coupled with a sincere belief that he is brilliant, rational and his life's work is to bring mankind to it's full potential, even if that potential should wipe out mankind.
And that the fate of the universe depends on him.
This all seemed a bit much, in the course of the few hours I spent in his company. It seemed, actually a bit hard to believe. I took him to be, at most, in his late twenties (he's in his early 30s). My first take, from the general tenor of his conversation (absurdist, sort of shallow) was that he was a grad student. Nope, early 30s, and an autodidact. He elected to forego higher education because his life's work was so important, the timeline so short that the distractions education might prevent him from achieving his desired goals (i.e. seeing to it mankind doesn't manage to wipe itself out).
But a bit of time on the web, looking at his works, and the attitudes of his followers; and some contact with others who have some knowledge of him.... I don't really know what else to say.
He's daft. Delusions of grandeur, living in Pascal's wager. I suspect he is, at root, terrified of dying, and sees no way out of it; which is what drives him. I don't know that an education would have helped with that. Some people find religion, he founded one.
I didn't realise until later that 1: he really believed all the claptrap he was spouting and that 2: given the nonsensical nature of it) that people pay him a lot of money to spout same.
I'm being a tad coy because he has followers. Devoted followers. The sort who might be prone to swarming a critic. The part that bothers me is that what he's saying (on the three fields he is passionate about) is nonsense. Unsupported nonsense.
That, in and of itself, isn't so bad. It happens all the time. It's that the fellow has no idea how to argue his points. I mean really, no idea. He has no grasp of the basic principles of logic. He seems to think that making a declarative statement, "there is not an underground civilisation at the very center of the earth." is, "proving a negative."
He equivocates. He doesn't think using words in the way they are defined matters, it was; at times, like arguing with Humpty-Dumpty. His model for living seems to be a sort of solipsistic Benthamism, coupled with a sincere belief that he is brilliant, rational and his life's work is to bring mankind to it's full potential, even if that potential should wipe out mankind.
And that the fate of the universe depends on him.
This all seemed a bit much, in the course of the few hours I spent in his company. It seemed, actually a bit hard to believe. I took him to be, at most, in his late twenties (he's in his early 30s). My first take, from the general tenor of his conversation (absurdist, sort of shallow) was that he was a grad student. Nope, early 30s, and an autodidact. He elected to forego higher education because his life's work was so important, the timeline so short that the distractions education might prevent him from achieving his desired goals (i.e. seeing to it mankind doesn't manage to wipe itself out).
But a bit of time on the web, looking at his works, and the attitudes of his followers; and some contact with others who have some knowledge of him.... I don't really know what else to say.
He's daft. Delusions of grandeur, living in Pascal's wager. I suspect he is, at root, terrified of dying, and sees no way out of it; which is what drives him. I don't know that an education would have helped with that. Some people find religion, he founded one.
