ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Keeping Scientology Working and OTIII Evaluations

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by lionheart, Jul 29, 2009.

  1. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    To me, the real debate is not about matter versus spirit.

    Both matter and spirit spring forth from the same source. Matter is quite likely a gradual solidification of spirit. Matter and spirit are the two ends of the same pole.

    To, me the real debate is about the processes that make the journey from spirit to matter and back possible.

  2. Pepin

    Pepin Patron with Honors

    You presume there is a journey??

    Spirit is not even in time so therefore cannot ever be matter.
  3. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron

    Lower levels are all inclusive of things to look at and talk about: matter, energy, space, time, specific people, places, things, also general types of people and places, even time parsed as future, present, and past. Hence lower level processing is highly flexible in that it can be custom tailored to the pc. As practiced, there is a rigidity in the lower levels. It is expressed as that sequence of processes laid out by the Bridge. This forms the fundamental case supervisor set of instructions. Nevertheless, there is relatively wide latitude in what a pc will be run on. Every pc has commonalities with every other pc; every pc has differences. To further parse the individualities, only reading items are run.

    The upper levels are specific esoterica which may or may not fit the individual's needs or desires. Any auditing at any level that doesn't help the pc get what he wants or get rid of what he doesn't want, well, that auditing is worthless at best; at worse it is implanting. Can you say, "Six-month security check"? :omg:

    Two of the best rundowns in scientology were Life Repair and the Wants Handled Rundown of XDn.
  4. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    From the viewpoint of mental and spiritual approach, the handling of body belongs to the upper levels.

    From the viewpoint of a physical approach, there are the medical sciences.

    Where the medical sciences fail, one is left with the mental and spiritual approach. One cannot erase the body, but one can definitely separate from it. That is the upper level approach.

    But it requires the destimulation done at lower levels first.

    This is what I seem to understand.

    Idenics takes all this naturally in its stride.

  5. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I agree. While you don't seem to do it, many people DO becomes victims of their mental world of ideas, concepts and especially beliefs. These take the place of valid unbiased observations, whether of things "out there" or things "in here". Hubbard's theory of the Fixed Idea, to me, well explains how and why so many people are unable to calmly observe and benefit from the fruits of their observation. Thinkingness interferes with observation, in many ways and on many levels. While "conceptual thought" has enabled great advances for Mankind and enabled communication, it has a major unrecognized downside. The created mental universe of ideas and concepts tends to "take over" for most people and comes to act senior to observation. Hubbard stated it well in this quote, and this also relates to the Know to Mystery Scale (which I find some usefulness in):


    I tend to go with the Buddhist approach towards discovering truth. The thinking mind is a hindrance. Let it go. Only then can one ever get near any sense of what he or she truly is, as pure awareness. I AM using words and ideas here, BUT I am trying to point towards an experience. In fact, ALL words and ideas should get a person to LOOK at the things, situations, realities that the words and ideas describe. That is how I read or study anything.

    I treat Hubbard, and pretty much all else as a "black box". I have no idea what his concerns or intentions were. I simply observe the results of his creations or his behavior. I am aware that Hubbard recommends looking and accepting whatever one chooses (i.e. HCO PL on Personal Integrity), and I align strongly with THOSE recommendations of his, but it is an observable fact that he also created an organization and system that makes doing that largely impossible. It is almost as if he intentionally created contradictions and dissonance - but there I go, trying to second guess what is in the black box.

    I agree entirely. I have stated before that as far as I am concerned everyone can and should be able believe whatever he or she chooses. Yes, the problem begins when the intolerant evangelizing and proselytizing begin, where the believer cannot see outside of his or her belief system, and desires (through some tremendous sense of DUTY) to deliver this "wonderful" truth to all others - or else.

    I LOVE the diversity of all that is! I have always been very interested in people and what goes on in their heads. I still do. What I found is this, and treat it as a theory.

    There is the invisible source of it all - call it theta, Brahma, pure awareness, or whatever you want. From THAT comes all else. At this stage in human evolution, the "mental thinking apparatus" enjoys a certain use and importance. But, as I said above it has a very tremendous downside. While, theoretically, it should be used as you described in the first paragraph, it often is not. People are often and largely victims of their own considerations; I agree with Hubbard on that. Many people are victims of their own poorly defined, largely unexamined belief systems. Buddha said the same thing, and I agree that ALL suffering, pain, and even death is the result of creating, allowing to exist, and using this mental arbitrary. The Buddhist "ego" is part of it, but not all of it.

    But, I also very much enjoy the amazing diversity of music, art, dance, movies, writing and all of the positive aspects of the creative nature of people.

    I read a book a few months ago by Richard Dawkins, called The God Delusion. He well delineates how religion, and especially the BELIEF in certain aspects of various religions creates the stage for and enables hate, prejudice, harm and intolerance towards others. In its own way Scientology does exactly the same, because it is also a religion based on DOGMA, and requires accepting and applying exact statements from religious texts. THAT is what causes all fanaticism. Just as any fundamentalist version of Christianity, it also requires the total application of some idea from a book, despite and regardless of common sense, or observations to the contrary.

    Fundamentalism, by definition, involves accepting the words of some book (Bible, Koran, KSW) exactly, without any interpretation. Hubbard was very careful to ensure that first, his writings were never altered (not that they aren't), and second, that the writings are applied without change due to reading into them by way of analogy, metaphor or symbolism (as is done with so many modern tempered versions of Christianity or Islam).

    I appreciate and admire the wonder and diversity of nature and people, but I do not admire or appreciate the results of fanatics with rigid beliefs - suicide bombers, 9/11, the Crusades, witch-hunts, Serb/Croation/Muslim massacres, honor killings in the Arab world, public beheading of blasphemers, OSA noisy investigations, OSA actions to fabricate phony crimes with which to frame "enemies", and so forth.

    There is much value in some of Hubbard's data. I am not and have never been one to suggest that "it is all a waste". Of course, while in the strict all-or-none Church environment, which is typical of any fundamentalist group, picking and choosing is not possible. But, any intelligent and honestly aware person MUST pick and choose to make legitimate sense of such a wide variety of good AND bad as exists in the subject of Scientology and in the organizational operation of Scientology.

    Ah, I must be careful here. I will give two quotes:

    People "unconsciously observe society's convention that we must be especially polite and respectful to faith". Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

    "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion".

    -Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

    First, I do NOT agree with or abide by the oversensitive liberal attitude that all ideas and viewpoints are valid and equal, just because they exist. When any person or group HARMS others in the name of some belief, then you VERY MUCH have a right to question those beliefs. This whole view of "it's our religion, and you can't say anything about it because we have freedom of speech" is a ruse. It is a tactic, used by the Church of Scientology (and others), to try to prevent others from LOOKING at the horrendous things some do in the name of those beliefs. Sorry, I don't buy it. People DO have a right to question the beliefs of others. Modern "liberal" society has gone along with this notion that "faith and belief" are off-limits. They shouldn't be.

    Second, as regards your statement about people whose "identity might be unmocked and they have the right to stand up and fight for it." FUCK THEM! The assumption of identity is the whole problem. It is the VIRUS that is destroying planet Earth. I again agree with Buddha, identification and attachment to IDEAS and BELIEFS is the whole problem. This place is largely a spiritual sewer. The three major religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are largely a joke, based on nothing more than extensive fairy tales, not unlike the Easter Bunny. Oh, there is some truth in the Bible and the Koran, BUT it is largely covered up with endless garbage and complete nonsense. National pride? That went a long way in Germany. Identifying with ANYTHING is a primary error of any conscious being. The entire sorry history of Mankind over the past 4000 years could be examined and explained in terms of "identifying with various belief systems" and "enacting force to coerce othjers to agree with those beliefs". I suspect that some sociologist has already done it. Also, the best that can be said for any "belief system" is that it gives top-level manipulators a very useful tool of control (sarcasm).

    I don't care that it is "usual" or par for the course here on current Earth. Identifying with some set of beliefs, some book claimed to be from God (or Ron), some culture or some "anything" sets the stage for the intolerance. Why? Because of ego attachment. "My group is better". "My ideas are better". "My holy book is better". "My country is better". These are all FALSE distinctions and aspects of (spiritual) separation that are CREATED by identification and ego attachment to these identifications.

    I respect the flame of spirit in everyone. I do not admire or respect anyone who enacts harm on others through any belief, cultural idea or ideology.

    I maintain that the majority of beliefs are not only incorrect and inaccurate as far as "truth" goes, but also worthless, and actually serve NO value to any person truly trying to advance on a legitimate path of spiritual expansion - again, I agree with Buddha on that. If you want to know, stop thinking and believing; that is just the first step. And in this, I am betraying part of my philosophy. But I won't shoot anyone who disagrees. I won't execute someone who disrespects my "faith". I won't whip the woman who accidentally allows her bare skin to be seen. I won't bomb abortion clinics. I won't send lawyers after them to file brutal lawsuits (OSA, the C of S).

    Well, there is MUCH good in the good. There is much WONDER in the positive. There is a never-ending universe of beauty and things to look at in awe. I get lost in it at times (really, not figuratively).

    And there ARE the idiots, fanatics, fools and all sorts of imbeciles who make Earth a living Hell. There is no shortage of them. You would think that Darwinian adaptation and natural selection would somehow cause them to become extinct - but apparently such idiocy has a "survival value".

    I will leave with a quote that expresses my lack of affinity for the close-minded types of all ilk:

    "Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrownout, not the book." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

    This is a board about Scientology (mostly). The above quote applies directly to Scientology because it is entirely fundamentalist. "What would Ron do?" "If it isn't written (by Ron) it isn't true". "Ron is the sole discoverer of Scientology and Scientology IS THE TRUTH". On and on and on. Members are indoctrinated to accept anything Hubbard says as "gospel". Other religions became mildler and softer as they moved through the Age of Enlightenment, because they had to CHANGE or they would fade out and die. They HAD to adapt. Many aspects of Christianity or Islam that were previously interpreted literally now are interpreted symbolically or metaphorically. That can't happen in Scientology because Hubbard set it up to be unalterable.

    The next 50 years will be interesting for Scientology, because it is so easy to spot the rampant fundamentalism inherent in some of the beliefs and practices. And, that is noit to say that there is not some brilliant "truths" to be found within the overall subject. But, one MUST be a good miner, able to separate out the real gold from the iron pyrite (fool's gold).
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  6. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    The truth is: WE ALL DO! :omg:

    The only difference lies in the degree. Reduction & elimination of this tendency is the basis of Buddhist thought and practice. It is also something that auditing can be very effective at assisting. Although, as yet. no one's made it "all the way". :no:

    Mark A. Baker
  7. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    Assuming that that is possible may be erroneous. Or what it means to make it "all the way" may be subtley or not so subtely loaded with an idea that inhibits the achievement of it.
    There could be different ways for that to happen. One of them could be making it "all the way" and not recognising it.
    "all the way" could have a "hidden standard" which is completely contradictory to what it really means to make it all the way.
    And just starting to sort of free asscociate a bit....trying to fight goals of the body or the "genetic entity" (if there is such a thing) or "life force" or "The Spirit". Maybe all of those things WANT to be in a mind, with a mind, part of a mind-body relationship. People assume they are the boss-man of the spirit and boss-man as the spirit. Maybe that boss-man is an imposter and if they ever get to drop the boss-man, and all the other "imposters" who are back-seat drivers to the spirit or life force, then the life force or spirit might say: "well I ain't got no problem, I'm just happy right here where I am and doing what I'm doing"
    Scientology encourages a very boss-man view of things.

    Just rambling.........
  8. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    The handful of Scientology PR people on this thread are promoting Scientology, not auditing.

    Scientology comes (misleadingly) wrapped in auditing, and "auditing," itself, is a word that has multiple meanings. Auditing at an introductory level, is not auditing at a more "advanced" level.

    Early on, the emphasis is on primarily "asking the person," later it becomes primarily "telling the person."

    Early on, the person is expected not to have his attention on the e-meter; later on, (on the confidential levels), the person watches his meter closely, and is thrilled by its reactions, as he reads the secrets of universe (for which he has been psychologically "preloaded," and "set up") from the "materials" of his guide and guru L. Ron Hubbard.

    The benign parts of auditing are only a portion of what is called - in Scientology - "auditing," and what is called "auditing," overall, is only a portion of Scientology, and even Scientology, with its many shadowy layers and compartments, is - in its visible, publicized form - only a fraction of the total (secretive and manipulative) subject.
  9. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    Thank you for this beautiful write-up expressing some well thought of points. I'll adress it with some snips, not that I disregard all what you wrote, but mainly to highlight some points.

    Well, fine. But is that bad? or when is that bad?

    Yes, I find some usefullness in the Know to Mystery Scale. The Know to Mystery Scale parallels other scales, like the Tone Scale or the scale of the Chakras. In Indian Music the Player hits the points of the Chakras while developping the Raga, starting with free from rhytm alap then when the tablas join in gets it all into motion. So that a s the end when the Crown Chakra is hit, the public is woken up and "aware".

    The tone scale parallels the K to M Scale. It's said that to get someone up that scale one should communicate to him with the emotion, tone, 1/2 a tone higher... but it's only a scale. Like the C D E F G A B C scale in music. It would be so boring to have all melodies or solos going just up and down a scale, wouldn't it? What about leaps, jumping intervals, what about chords? Look at Actors, the great ones, it's not just one emotion they display - it's a whole cocktail. With maybe one main emotion and a lot of harmonics around it. And then it's fun to play, lol. I like subtle colors one can hardly put a name on. Is it grey? Blue... no, it's green. Same with music, going in and out of the harmony of the moment with chords. And if you pick up 3, 5 or 7 tones frome that emotional scale and play it like music in social gatherings, then move those as you wish, you might have a lot of fun!

    BUT - studying such things and practicing them might be usefull. It often is. There is some thinking involved, assembling abstracts, without looking at what is. Sometimes I record my guitar playing on stage and then I analyse it to find out what progress I could make. BUT - in real life, on stage the thinkng process is a hindrance - you play the tune, and if you have to think even for a nano second, it's too late, you lose the tempo, you're out of tune.

    Great! that makes sense.

    Yep. If the intolerant evangelizing and proselytizing would attempt to put me inside of his box, he might have my attention. And then I would be looking at how he applies what he preaches to himself. And how the whole group has fun doing that. When I left the CofS I openly stated I leave because it doesn't apply the wondefull wisdom they claim they have and want to share with others on... themselves. I was very specific then.

    I agree. To me nothing in the Tech should go unisnspected, otherwise it would become a rote ritual. Not even the slightest tiny piece of Tech - from the can squeeze to taking the deep breath. What happens there? Why? Why does one need to run an incident several times through? Why cannot the person just look at it and voice the postulate/decision straight away? Why repetitive processes? Why the person doesn't say the full cognition, which is his own personal viewpoint from which the person looks at life, straight away after receiving the question? Where do the prior answers come from? What is it the person is consulting? why the communication lag? - a simple generic answer like "it's from an engram" doesn't do. Too superficial.

    We agree on this last paragraph completely. As to the one above - I don't question someone's interpretation of what's in a book or his right to use it. Unless he asks for it or attempts to use it on me, or others dear ones close to me.

    It's not that I disagree with what you write here. I simply cannot use it.

    Every being or a community has a right to his own personal identity. The assumption of such an identity is really up to them or each one of them. And their evolution changing that identity to another should be not tampered with by another, exterior, faction. Take as an exemple Africa - the White dominant identity was forced on them, that induces a huge leap from their hunting/agricultural society into our modern paradigm, without allowing them to go through some intermediary phases, like industrial etc. That leaves them at the mercy of those that pushed such a change.

    To each community to sort out their own problems. One can point out abuses, show them openly so they can evaluate and make any change on a self determined basis. And if one insists, well, then that society who claims to have a better way should position itself as a good exemple.

    FUCK THEM, you say. I cannot use that, I prefer "Make Love". If I validate their effort to harm I will carry on with me the opposite vector to that. That means I will attract opponents, I might then have to elaborate a whole system of justifications, and will be prone to ... thinkingness. Which as you said - it's a hindrance.

    And I'm not advocating a passive non-violent attitude either.

    From Koichi Tohei's book on "Aikido"

    "It is because you are following Nature's laws that you are able to throw your opponent. If you do not follow them, you will probably fail in your attempts to move him. The antagonists are not wary ennemies fighting one another: each one is a mirror in which he can see which one is right and which one is wrong. Together they serve as a whetstone for mutual self-improvement. (...) Uyeshiba said "The martial arts are based on love".

    We search for Nature's truths; we discover them and by using the basic principles realise the steady advancement of civilization. Yet perversely we abuse the blessings of Nature and plot our own destruction. It s largely because we allowed Nature's truths to guide us that we were able to make inventions and discoveries for our own betterment. Why then use them to destroy ourselves? The answer is, man's inorrigible leaning toward conflict. In all Nature there is no conflict. Only in man's competitive world is there conflict. If we sincerely seek the secrets of Nature and strive to understand her, we must understand not only the little bits and pieces of truth but the fundamental principles of truth, and put the lessons we learn to practical use."

    "He who seeks true peace must first understand and endeavor to cultivate the spirit of non-resistance."

    Ai Ki is about the Harmony of the Spirit. Ai Ki is a better way to Do.

    Ah ! that's interesting. The Tech was positionned in the 50s as being 50 years in advance. What I'm looking for when analysing this subject is what will that be 50years in the future too
  10. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    (a) At lower levels one is going for separation from the "composite case" (see "Nature of a Being") through release and erasure.

    Then, up to III which includes NOTs, one adresses the ridges that act as a via while looking at the world. Those ridges are like "prints" coming from the interaction of the being with the universe. They contain conclusions, percepticss, wavelengths - the viewpoint of the moment and the points to view. When done with that level one looks at the world directly without any vias.

    (b) upper levels are about connections and permeation. Upper levels are about Affinity.
  11. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    Huh? :confused2:

    This ^^^^^^^^^ :thumbsup:

    This ^^^^^^^^^^^^

    The lower levels are about asking and listening to answers. With some fairly strict guidance over what to ask about. But the questions are still fairly open and general, for example "How could Lionheart be a problem to you?"

    See, there is some evaluation in that, although an assessment will have been done first to detect "charge" on Lionheart. And a negative answer would be accepted. So the PC is being consulted.

    The lower levels are concerned with release generally, with only Dn being concerned with erasure.

    The upper levels (implantology levels) are about telling the person what is there on their case. With very strict literal guidance over what to tell the pre-OT and the entities.

    Volcanoes, explosions, electronic ribbons, implants with specific content, etc.

    In my opinion the upper levels are concerned with sticking the person to dogma.
  12. The implanting starts right from the minute you walk in the door. It is just much more subtle at first. Any time the raw meat picks up on it, the standard "what is true for you is true for you" bullshit is fed to them. In other words, you are supposed to ignore any implants which you are not brainwashed enough to handle just yet. Soon enough though you will be living the mantra of "what is true for Ron is true for you or you will cost you. Surrendering your capcity for critical and objective thought starts from day one, it just happens on a subtle gradient depending on your comfort level, but don't worry you will surrender your capacity for critical and objective thought, or you will never become a full blown Scientologists. It is not negotiable. It is not relative, but absolute, it is mandatory or it does not work.
  13. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    and: you are a thetan = ------good afternoon mr Doe here is your identity.
  14. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    And even that is often only partial erasure. Is there anyone reading here who has had extensive Dianetic auditing who has not had the same incident crop up more than once? Hubbard's excuse for this is that the same incident can lie on more than one chain.

    The real reason is that Dianetics as it currently exists, Book One or R3R or R3RA, is pretty rudimentary as a tech, and misses stuff. This is brought to light by using a better tech and running incidents that have been "erased" with Dianetics, discovering they are still charged, and discharging them further till they are all played out.

    Will there still be charge left that one's state-of-the-art tech hasn't been able to find? I would say, "probably." I've "flattened" the same thing several times over the years, approached it later with better tech, and got more charge off it. Certainly not all the time, but it has happened. It would be arrogant to assume I've got it all now!

  15. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Well, I don't know if a "every being or a community has a right to his own personal identity", but that is just the way it WORKS. People identify with things. It is part of getting immersed (and stuck) in life. Identifies are DYNAMIC. Forces act constantly to affect and change any person's adoption or acceptance of an identity. In a very real sense, that is a primary goal of advertising and all behavioral control (manipulation). These folks want you to accept their concept of some identity so that you will buy a product or adhere to some belief.

    I fully agree that identities shouldn't be forced on others - as with Africa. Every dictator who has ever oppressed a people has forced various identities upon them. It is largely THEM that I meant when I said, "fuck them". I was too brief in my explanation. But also, many existing identities are destructive in some way (clitoral mutilation in Africa, refusal to use condoms in Africa as a way to prevent AIDS due to macho proclivities, etc). Also, in a very Hegelian sense, various Earth cultures are stuck in some aspect of mindless mediocre identification (thesis), to their detriment, and it is "natural" that other forces will come along to act against these in various ways (antithesis), thus bringing about some new, altered combination of the two (synthesis). But, the game of force is always riddled with problems.

    Communities NEVER sort out their own problems. First, if left entirely alone and unaffected by outside forces, most groups simply immerse themselves in their own limited, myopic versions of obsessive identification. Second, without factors from the outside changes would often never come to any isolated group. I understand this obsession with diversity that grew out of Darwin, modern biology, and modern sociology, but I don't agree with it. Difference for difference sake is a dumb axiom to me. Some "different things" serve no purpose other than to harm some section of various societies.

    I agree with this, "If I validate their effort to harm I will carry on with me the opposite vector to that. That means I will attract opponents." As I understand it, I will act to contribute to and empower the existence of anything that I am FOR OR AGAINST. A consciousness of complete neutrality is the ONLY way. I need to explain that I view this from afar. I sit on a mountaintop, observing and aware of the horrible games so many humans play, I have no affinity for the harmful aspects, BUT I do not choose to act to change any of it, because THEY WILL CREATE WHAT THEY WILL CREATE AT THEIR OWN LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING - as does any conscious entity. I too LOVE too, but from afar. I cannot love close up pain, torture, abuse and murder. Well, I can at times, when I am in a really mystical gnostic state of mind. When I see it ALL as "just as it should be". "How could it be any other way?" And possibly, the ONLY hope of any salvation is that it all very well might be forever naturally "evolving" towards better and better conditions, on the long journey back to God (whatever THAT means).

    If we sat down and talked about all of this, I suspect in the end we would largely agree. While people will choose their own identities NO MATTER WHAT, and there is nothing anybody can do (at this stage of human evolution) to stop that, as you said, "one can point out abuses, show them openly so they can evaluate and make any change on a self determined basis. And if one insists, well, then that society who claims to have a better way should position itself as a good example." Again, any person or group is always influenced by forces around them, unless of course, the group or person entirely isolates itself from outside influence (i.e. North Korea, old Soviet Union, the Church of Scientology to some degree).

    I agree entirely on the idea and practice of non-resistance. PEACE and non-resistance as a way to live life at every level. I watch friends endlessly create his or her own drama. They don't see it. They see it as originating outside his or herself. They have no idea of what non-resistance means, much less have any interest or ability to apply it.

    What a wonderful world it will be when the majority of people understand and apply THAT concept - LIVE AND LET LIVE, without any need or desire to make others do ANYTHING! But, that seems to be a long way off, and I will probably have jumped off this orbiting orb long before that occurs.

    Theory: Earth is not a place to change. Everybody tries to change the horrors of the world. It is an intermediate step along the way. Entities move in and out all of the time. It is like a train station, with people always coming and going. When one "advances" enough, well simply, you can't "be here" anymore. You have vibrated yourself into a different resonance, and MUST move on to some other reality. The goal is mistakenly taken as "I must change the world to better it". False. The real goal is to "change yourself", so that this world loses any and all meaninmg for you. Then you will find yourself in a new reality, more closely matching your NEW state of consciousness. In a very real sense, your experience and reality exactly mirrors your own state of consciousness. You want to see and experience a better world? Well, then CHANGE YOURSELF. You will then experience a better world - it just won't be this one. Of course, Earth also is not static, and is also evolving, so things do "improve over time". As you "better yourself", you can't help but also "better the world".

    "be the change you want to see in the world" - Ghandi

    "There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self." - Aldous Huxley

    Last, in another post you had commented on my dislike for fanatics. I will give an example. I met a girl a few weeks ago. We got to talking about the sociology of various religions. She mentioned that she had been brought up Catholic, and that it took her nearly 40 YEARS to undo the mental nonsense that had addled her mind and affected her negatively in a very real ways. She was brought up with no abuse, no physical harm, and nothing really out of the ordinary. She remained a victim of accepted and adopted Catholic beliefs for the greater part of her life.

    I agree with Dawkins on this. Do parents have a RIGHT to do what they do to their children through religious indoctrination? Should parents be "free" and "have the right" to propagate their dumb and stupid religious belief systems that HARM real people, and do so far outside the frame of "physical harm"? I don't agree that they should necessarily have a right to their OWN identity - because there is real harm. Minds are locked up into little boxes of restrictive religious belief systems. As time goes on THAT TYPE OF HARM will become more and more recognized as a real and tangible thing to be dealt with by society at large.

    Interestingly, Hubbard made a real big point asserting that people's religious beliefs should NEVER be intruded upon. I wonder why that was? He may have anticipated the liberal backlash against the psychological harm inherent in religiouus indoctrination, and knowing how this might intrude on his venture, set blocks to it ahead of time. For me, I think this exagerration on "rights of religion" to do whatever it wants to anybody, including brain-washing generation after generation of chilldren, is quite nuts. Children don't have a choice. They should.

    Of course, as you say, other people will present arguments against it, communicate and bring about change. Life is nothing except CHANGE. That we can count on. What is here today, will NOT be here tomorrow in the same form, and THAT is probably the pattern for the next many many eons.

    Luckily, the stupidity, intolerance, and extreme rigidity doesn't occur in a vacuum, and there will almost always be differing ideas acting to "evolve" any existing view, culture or identity into something else. Identities too are always constantly changing. It is not a static situation, but very dynamic, especially when viewed over longer periods of time.

    A problem with certain proponents of "diversity" is that part of the view involves "maintaining things as they are" in some status-quo sort of way. Of course, that is impossible, no matter what their intentions and actions might be to the contrary. Nothing stays the same. THAT can be taken as an axiom of manifested reality. And, all attempts at stopping or hindering change are futile. All is change.

    Resistance is futile, You WILL be assimilated! (For those non-Star Trek folks, that was the slogan of the race known as the "Borg")

    Question: If the crew of Star Trek had applied the theory of non-resistance to the Borg, what would have happened? They WOULD have been assimilated (and the human race would have become extinct). Or, maybe there was a way to apply the idea of non-resistance, and still WIN, that I am not noticing. I don't see the Borg as an evolutionary "advance" necessarily (although it was in some sense a technological advance along the lines of self-genetic and self-bioelectronic manipulation.)
  16. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    Hi Gadfly,

    Before I reply I'd like to bring something to your attention. I don't know what's your experience on discussion boards is, so what I write here might be not relevant.

    You do seem to have an ability to express your thoughts and write a nice and long article exploring every corner of your argumentation. That's fine. I like to surf on the net and find articles, read them, assimilate them. Then I move on, I got the point of view of the person and I don't feel the need to reply.

    Here you're on a discussion group. It's not about lecturing. People state their points of view, there a are multiple voices, a thread is like a Chamber Ensemble piece of music, point counter-point rules, dialectic, etc. might apply.

    When I read your post I see different arguments spread out through all of your paragraphs.I understand you have a lot to say, but going through your post to pick-up the points you make becomes tedious to reply. Maybe a bit of structure would help? Because what I might want to say is just a one liner, but where do I put it? after which paragraph? or - should I post myself a looooong post exploring every consideration I might have?

    Your posts come sometimes to me like a big Wagnerian monumental piece of music. Or like an electric hammer in a ballad. I prefer Debussy, or Tchaikowsky. Some finesse. Can you make your point with a "one-line" answer too?

    Just a suggestion, not that I want to change your style - I'm into Jazz so anything will do.

    In my last post I would have written "the facts that people commit abuses in the name of a belief or a Religion doesn't necessarily mean the roots of their belief are wrong. Maybe the application is incorrect and especially the intention to apply their beliefs on those that don't share them".

    But I lost track of this concept going through your BIG post ;-)

    So - in your next post I'll assume what you write in CAPITAL letters is your point

    Communities do sort their own problems and my position on this is - they should be the only ones to take decisions about their matters. Unless they hand out the power to solve it to another, bigger entity, but then I consider that a mistake.

    On a smaller scale, which is of interest here as the subject is Scientology - the first act, and mistake in my opinion, is to give the power to regulate one's life to a group. And abandon one's own free will, gradually.

    What's wrong with communities is when they disconnect from other communities, Then they cannot evaluate and compare what they are doing and what seems to them "normal". When they meet other communities, that other culture acts as a virus. The commnity is a colony of cells, exterior ideas the virus. Then it can act, fight those ideas or succumb - but the decision about what to do should be left to the community. My opinion.

    And it's not differences for differences sake. It's sharing different ways of life. If this place, Earth, was "one thought", one identity rules, it wouldn't be worth to take a lifetime to come on holydays on.

    Well, I have no affinity for abusers either. As they cannot stop themselves they should be stopped. I'm only stating that if I, in my own universe, carry on efforts to harm, all flows, I might attract some unwanted situations. Which I don't have time for. Now, if some stupid touches my Dear Ones, or disrupts what I love, he will soon learn he'd better think twice. And he'll never come back in my space anymore.

    I like your quotes in your post below.

    About the other points here under - children should be protected. I completely forgot for years about the existence of the CofS till I found ESMB, and I read here about 2d or 3rd generation of "Scientologists". THIS is a big failure. The role of the parents is to guide children when they grow up till they they can take decisions on their own and take the lead of their life..

    I remember when my kids were little. Some people that came consulting, or some "ex"-Scientologists were commenting "They're lucky, your children, they have parents who are OT and Scientology within reach".... Little they knew. My kids were never "indoctrinated". The only advice they got concerning their life was about not getting fooled by others. If they asked, they got some sound advice, and some of it had Tech behind it. And they used it and came back "Mom, or Dad, the problem is solved :)))" but to this day they don't have a clue about what Scientology is as they didn't reach for it and they didn't ask. And sometimes reply when there is an argument - "well, you say this but we don't agree, you say this because when you were young you were in a sect".

    Yes I think people beliefs shouldn't be intruded upon. They should be challenged, if needed. When there are abuses one has every right to ask "is this what your belief is all about? is this the propsed way of life? but the decision about what to do about theselves is up to the person.

    Last edited: Aug 9, 2009
  17. Pepin

    Pepin Patron with Honors

    How ironic..
    I saw an old video of Hubbard saying to avoid just that. That the world claims to hand you a new identity just like a suit and says "wear this"
  18. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Yes, so ironic. Because, Scientology hands each new member a very nice little package of identity to now wear! "I am a Scientologist!":duh:
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2009
  19. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    It's the fundamental problem of groups: the tendency to identify with the group.

    Example, the "I'm a ..." paradigm: muslim, knight of columbus, american, tory, patrician, rabbi, biologist, daughter, soldier, etc..

    This stands in contrast to simply recognizing oneself as an individual AND an advocate of goals, interests, or principles which may be shared by others.

    In the first instance there is a "hunger" to belong demonstrated by the assertion of an "identity". The latter simply acknowledges one's individuality & agreements.

    Mark A. Baker
  20. Pepin

    Pepin Patron with Honors

    no doubt, I noticed this amongst the staff on day one. In further reading of the materials, it seemed to me that the organisation itself was in conflict with the goals of the written data.