quote--------
"Do you mean to tell me that all I had to do was raise my hand and say some thing like
I disagree with the policy that only allows me to use the bathroom once or twice a day?
Your statement flies in the face of whole druggie-rehab control philosphy."
---------------
All excellent points, anon. You seem to be pointing to the authoritarian structure of the Seed. It was not a democracy where anyone could even bitch, whine or complain much less actually make constructive suggestions or try to change things. The authoritarian heirarchy was similar to that of the catholic church. A lowly church member can't make any meaningful suggestions or critique. Even priests or theologians that dare to question the party line are often dealt with harshly. All authority flows downward from the vatican. At the Seed, all authority flowed downward from Art. (not picking on catholicism here, just an example...the same is true for many religious organizations)
There are "positive" aspects to dictatorships. The famous quip about Mussolini making the trains run on time comes to mind. Hitler reduced unemployment and raised living standards (unless you were jewish). Stalin turned the USSR from a backward agrarian nation into a modern industrial state. I suppose any of these guys or their underlings could complain that the world keeps focusing on the negative aspects of their legacy. "You killed millions of people." "Well, yeah. But what about all the positive things we accomplished?"
In a newspaper article from way back, a seedling tells a reporter; "We talk alot about our beliefs." I chuckled when I read that. We didn't discuss our beliefs or exchange honest opinions there. We imbibed and regurgitated the beliefs we were fed on cue. Imagine a room full of random people actually 'talking about their beliefs' and compare that with what actually went on at the Seed. We were told what to believe just like any religious sect trains it's adherents. No dissent, no criticism, no suggestions. "This is the Truth" & you must believe it.
One problem with a top-down authoritarian organization is that any blind-spots or short-comings at the very top infect the rest of the group. Since no-one could honestly confront or criticize Art, any fault he had was glossed-over and passed down to staff and on to group. Smoking is a good example of this. Art was addicted and unable to quit smoking. Therefore, all sorts of justifications were acceptable in that regard. I remember people saying; ' Well, we've given up so many addictions, we have to keep just one.' The whole addiction to tobacco issue was never even questioned simply because our leader was addicted. As far as I know, no-one dared confront Art any time his own ego was out of whack. Art's blind spots were passed down to staff and then to group. Any screwy idea he harbored was acceptable for the group to hold. To question / confront him would have been seen as being ungrateful and f.o.s. Not only is this all harmful to the whole group, it wasn't even fair to Art himself. It allowed him to develop a grossly exagerated sense of his own importance and infallibility leading to a disconnect with reality on some level. This is common with any revered preacher or cult guru.
When I began to question the Seed and became disillusioned, I would sometimes sit in group and fantasize about what the Seed might be like if it were real. What if everything were honestly questioned and examined?What if we really did talk about our beliefs? What if we were really honest? It was years later when I began to understand that this 'ideal' seed could never exist. The very premise is wrong. I came to the view that truth...the truth about myself, my relationship to others, the world, etc. could never be the product of simply accepting beliefs or conclusions from someone else.
Peer pressure / brainwashing can only substitute one form of conditioning for another. It isn't capable of uncovering the very nature of conditioning itself. You can't brow-beat anyone into real honesty or integrity. Real honesty, to me, meant questioning not only all the things the Seed advocated concerning my druggie past, but questioning the beliefs and conclusions of Art and the Seed as well. A real rap session...as opposed to the indoctrination we recieved at the seed....would fearlessly examine any and all beliefs and conclusions in an attempt to uncover what is true and real. Not according to Art or staff or xyz. A real rap would be a dialogue, not a monologue featuring people talking at one another. It would be an environment that attempted to be free of peer-pressure to conform, not one that encouraged it and tried to use fear, insecurity and guilt to mold the ideal ubermensh....homo seedlingus. In that imaginary place, any suggestions or criticism would certainly have been welcomed and we could then perhaps be held accountable for not trying to make improvements.
