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 www.exscn2.net.



Should Scientologists have the right to practice Scientology?

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Emma, Apr 26, 2013.

View Users: View Users
  1. PirateAndBum

    PirateAndBum Gold Meritorious Patron

    Ah well, here is an actual video of what booming means in scientology.

    [video=youtube;SoEgoRpulxM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoEgoRpulxM[/video]

    Woa dude, you like totally boomed that orb...
     
  2. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    Are you serious? Have you actually read my posts here on ESMB? I'm on the record here and elsewhere as advising anyone against following Hubbard's route, my default position is "discover what you hope to achieve from scientology and find another way to achieve it." I don't feel that I need to continually repeat that message, it's here on ESMB for those who care to read it. I've said how I feel, if I ever change my mind about that (not much chance!), I'll let you (and everyone else here) know. :)

    Edit: Just caught the apology, no worries mate. :carryon:
     
  3. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    There's one more thing which is NOT a mental construct and is a physical actuality and that is the doctrine - the words and instructions - of Scientology. There's been a 40 year struggle to expose this doctrine, and that exposure was passionately resisted by Scientology's founder and, later, by those operating under his so called "Command Intention."

    That there is a totality of doctrine, ranging from the publicized, to that for members only, to that for specific members only, to the advertized-confidential, to the secret-(not-advertized and denied)-confidential, and that these components of the doctrine could be assembled in a very big room, and, that these components have a relationship to each other, are part of a coherent whole, complement each other and, when examined as a totality, like the assembled pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, begin to show a picture, and that picture is not a nice picture.

    Noting this, laying it all out, and analyzing it, assembling all the jigsaw pieces of the secretive doctrine of Scientology and, then, standing back and taking a look at the picture that appears, is something that Scientology wants very much not to happen.

    And if it does happen, completely, or to a large extent, that needs to be poo pooed, distracted from, denied, or rationalized-away in some fashion.

    Assisting - wittingly or unwittingly - in forwarding "Command Intention" that the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle not be assembled fully, and then viewed, are those who insist that "It's all bullshit, and I don't care!" etc., those who say that there are as many Scientologys as there are Scientologists, that people believe all sorts of wacky things, etc., etc., but who never mention that there is an actual totality of doctrine that can be assembled and examined.

    The "It's all bullshit! Who cares anyway?!" people unwittingly protect Scientology, much in the same manner as do those who dislike religion and think they're opposing Scientology by calling it a religion. The former contributes to the voices making it unlikely that the doctrine of Scientology will be fully assembled, and calmly examined, and understood, and the latter contributes to the protective umbrella or cloak of "religion," by asserting that Scientology is a religion.

    Scientology is sneaky and loves and values dupes. In fact, it's almost impossible to be around Scientology for any length of time, and not be duped to some extent, no matter how smart one is.

    Sure, there are many wacky beliefs etc., and, sure, there are many Scientologys, but why? after all that "word clearing," and all that "ARC," and all that "duplication," why should that be? Maybe it's not just "human nature," but a bulit-in aspect of Scientology. Maybe the science of knowing how to know was designed not to be fully known?

    Which returns us to the dilemma that those "practicing Scientology," inevitably, don't know what Scientology is. Even though many have risen to a high level on the Hubbard Chart of Awareness Characteristics&Grade Chart, they remain selectively unaware, while patting each other on the back, validating each other, and going on about "theta," "theta," "theta." Witness the latest gathering of Independent Scientologists in Europe.

    It's a dilemma. These are the folks who will be delivering the many actions of Scientology, and they're pretty clueless folks. They are Scientologists and, true to their founder's "Intention," don't know what Scientology is.

    Should they be stopped? IMO, no. Will some people be hurt by them? IMO, yes.

    I'd rather err on the side of freedom and keep restriction to a minimum.

    With so much information already available, one can hope that, aided by the amazing development of the Internet, that most, or at least many, of these now clueless folks will begin to be not so clueless. That, over time, the situation will improve, now that so much information, through the hard work and sacrifice of some over many decades, has become available.

    What's important is keeping the information available for others to see, when they are ready to see it.
     
  4. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    I think of the doctrine as part of the physical actuality of scientology, how individuals interpret and act upon that doctrine seems to vary to some degree. I take it from what you wrote above that you think of me as an unwitting dupe who is forwarding Command Intention. That made me smile. :)
     
  5. Veda

    Veda Sponsor


    We've all been duped. :)
     
  6. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    That's true, some more than others, I guess. :)
     
  7. SchwimmelPuckel

    SchwimmelPuckel Genuine Meatball

    No.. I don't think scientologists should be allowed to 'practise' any more than they are allowing me to practise my muthafucking SP activities!

    But this topic always reminds me.. Of something scientologists have the hardest time to understand.. Weird that, because it really simple.

    To start with, back in 1950 or abouts, Hubbard 'invented' Dianetics.. And he PROMISED great gains in intelligence, life expectancy and cure for all psychosomatic illness. And Hubbard, the genious, proceeded to explain that psychosomatic illness'es, aside from broken bones, were most of all illness in general. Naturally, Hubbard took money for these 'services'..

    And then Hubbard and 'Dianetics' got into a strained debate with authorities about that... Quackery and swindle were words bandied about. Hubbard took a dislike to the authorities over this. He refused to 'prove' anything, but instead wrote a 'tecnical bulletin' that pointed out that people who wanted proof was mentally degraded beings whose aims was to destroy humanity and Scientology as we know it.

    The authorities sort of 'gave up' on making Hubbard and the scientologists stop selling nonexsistent cures for money.. This is a baffeling mystery to me!

    :unsure:
     
  8. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    This uses my current favorite word about theories and worldviews, "coherent," and does so in a way I haven't really considered as much as I should have. So far I've been happy to acknowledge that non-CofS Scientologists have a perfect right to pick and choose whatever doctrines and practices they like, and reject any others they wish. They're also free to call what they keep "Scientology," at least as far as I'm concerned; I don't hold the copyright to the term. I've questioned, however, firstly: why they would want to use such a negatively loaded term for something they could just as well re-name something else; and, secondly, whether giving their residuum a single name is really justified, when it's really a loose collection of unrelated parts. In other words, I don't think that Scientology is coherent.

    But there is another possibility, this time on the side of the critics. Maybe Scientology does have coherence, only not in the way it claims to have. Maybe it really does all hang together, as a brainwashing and control system, with mutually re-inforcing parts that fit together naturally and effectively.

    I'm not immediately convinced that Scientology is really coherent even in this sinister way. To me it still seems rather haphazardly cobbled together, one improvisation at a time, even as deliberate con. So on the one hand I'd challenge those critics who do believe that Scientology is a cunning total conspiracy that all fits together, to demonstrate that it's really so. It may be that they're still just tasting cult Kool-Aid, and seeing coherence where none exists, just in negative terms. Or maybe they're right; but the point needs to be argued, not just stated. And on the other hand I guess I'd challenge Scientology supporters (of any stripe), who think that Scientology does have a benign coherence, to reflect on whether the links that they see might be understood more naturally in terms of a trapping mechanism, rather than in terms of genuine insight or help.

    TL,DR: I think that Veda may have a point. I'd like to hear more about this. Not just whether Scientology is bad, but whether it's coherently bad.
     
  9. SpecialFrog

    SpecialFrog Silver Meritorious Patron

    I'm not sure this is actually true. While relativity tells us that time is relative to the velocity of the observer, if you know the velocities of two objects you can calculate the passage of time for one object relative to the other. This implies that these are not two observer-dependent versions of reality but two observer-dependent measurements of the same reality.

    It is a bit like colour perception. While my colour perception and yours are different, colours are associated with particular wavelengths of light and we can both measure these to be the same.
     
  10. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I hear you!

    "Boom" is a BUSINESS word. "Busts and booms".

    It is all about MONEY.
     
  11. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I think this has been touched on quite a bit already here and elsewhere.

    In the past, I have talked about how the version of Scientology that exists within the organized Church of Scientology contains the widest use of what Veda calls the "doctrines". In THAT environment, there is a strict demand to know and use ALL of Hubbard's policies, bulletins, advices, books and so forth. Since no pick and choosing is allowed, it exists in its "worst" form. The subject materials (doctrine) are taken as a WHOLE, and as I see it, when this totality of information is practiced, it can't be anything other than "coherently bad". KSW is paramount and "gospel" within this context.

    I don't think that it has a benign coherence, because the subject is cobbled together from many different places. Hubbard takes bits of psychology, spirituality, business administration, moral relativism, finance theory, and more, and calls this all, "Scientology". There may be some coherence within certain sub-aspects of the larger subject, but even that will be strained.

    I have also talked in the past about how in many cases the "evils" exist right in the subject materials (dogma, doctrines) of Scientology. That should be examined and acknowledged, just as Veda points out. For example, there is no way to sensibly apply the data of "hard sell". It will always result in taking every penny you can get from a prospect. There is no decent way to apply the ideas about disconnection from HCO declared SPs. There is no honest way to apply TR-Lying, where Scientology members are TRAINED to LIE to others. The ruin-finding drill, when understood and used, is ALWAYS MANIPULATIVE. There is no way that "truth" can ever be a primary concern when the "doctrine" of Scientology firmly states that "agreement" is all that matters.

    I could go on and on. There are just so many isolated ideas, that no matter how you choose to interpret and use them, result in bad results for people.

    The subject materials of Scientology should be examined, because it is often easy to show how "evil" follows directly from applying the exact ideas contained in the "doctrines".

    Of course, there are also some ideas that are not inherently evil, and that can be used separate from the nastier doctrines. I do a spacation drill from time to time. I pay off all bills when I am in "affluence". I do a contact assist when I smash my thumb with a hammer. I used an admin scale to help a friend with their business.

    I agree that Scientology as it exists in the Church of Scientology, where the largest totality of the doctrines are used, DOES have a coherence as a method of mind control. I suspect that Hubbard intended it that way, BUT I can entertain possibilities where it may have been sort of an "accident". But either way, full-blown Scientology, as practiced within the organized Church of Scientology, with nothing taken out, and followed ruthlessly as designed by Hubbard, functions as mind control.

    It is not necessary to know or even surmise about Hubbard's intentions. One need only study the "doctrines" and the results that naturally follow by applying these ideas. In a looser environment than the official C of S, what the word "Scientology" means to any person is different. There is often no consistent meaning for the term. But inside the C of S, there is no leeway for understanding the term - though if you could get 100 Scientologists to honestly tell you what the word "Scientology" means to each, without PR and posturing, I am sure you would still get a great many different answers.

    The best way to understand Scientology is to 1) know the doctrines, and 2) know the history. Those two things can be studied and they exist in the real world. You can have ideas about these things, BUT for the most part, if you examine these things honestly and carefully, they are what they are - and few people can disagree with the FACTS.

    The Church of Scientology version is the very worst because it does not omit, alter or ignore any of Hubbard's directions and orders. Free Zone and other versions are less nasty and less "bad" to the degree that they do ignore and omit the worst of the "doctrines". That is why some reminisce and wax all "warm and fuzzy" about the good 'ole "early days". In the early days, especially at Missions, there was much less of a connection with the Sea Org and Command Intention, and they happily did IGNORE and NOT APPLY some or much of the nastier aspects of the overall subject materials. That "version" of Scientology was more fun, and less oppressive, because in a very real sense they were picking and choosing. Of course, in 1982, with the Mission Holders Conference, that all was put to a stop, and Hubbard (and DM) began the consolidation of power and control over ANY version of Scientology (as best they could).
     
  12. BardoThodol

    BardoThodol Silver Meritorious Patron

    I would like to meet the person who has coherence in all aspects of their life and their thoughts and their behavior and their actions.

    Hubbard, like all of us, was more complex than simplistic explanations.

    And just as we try to explain and justify the contradictions in our lives, often ignoring our weaknesses and failings, Hubbard did also. He did it for himself. And he did it for his creation.

    There can be coherence in madness, but the coherence is often the capacity to glue together disparities and consider them uniformities.

    Does a psychopathic national leader become more social because he's created thousands of jobs and helped erase national debt? Even if secretly he's rounded up oppositional leaders and shot them in the forest? Do you focus on the murders or the job creation?

    Does job creation now become anathema because it's associated with the sociopathic leader?

    What benefits us benefits us, regardless of whether a sociopath had anything to do with it or not.

    The confusion and argument come about from how inextricably intertwined the benefit and detriment can become.

    IMHO
     
  13. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    I focus on the forest.
     
  14. BardoThodol

    BardoThodol Silver Meritorious Patron

    Even in the desert?
     
  15. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    An interesting exercise, IMO, is to separate out the actual auditing technology (the purported raison d'tre - reason for existence - of scientology) from all the other organisation-oriented policies and directives. Just, for a moment, consider the technology without all the other things introduced into it; Admin, Ethics, PR, OSA, Management by Statistic, Organisational Policy etc. I know that Hubbard prohibited this thought but I think it's an interesting thing to consider.

    One thing that I became completely convinced of regarding auditing technology during my time as a scientologist is that the bulk of technical "development" stems from the need to solve unworkable aspects of the then-existing technology. Hubbard and his Tech Development team were continually solving failures and problems created by existing scientology tech, these solutions in turn became problems and were in turn "solved" only to become problematic in turn. The millstone around the neck of the tech has always been Hubbard's insistence that the Tech works uniformly in all cases. The simple truth is it doesn't, never has and never will.

    There is, IMO, no coherent entrapment routine at work in the development of Hubbard's auditing tech but it seems to be getting there these days. Maybe the Golden Age of Tech II will perfect it.
     
  16. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    In response to this:-

    "Scientology was simply whatever extortion scheme Hubbard determined he preferred at any given time. Scientology was whatever Hubbard was even paying attention to at the time. Scientology was his insanity that became OUR group insanity".

    There may be some elements of truth to the above. However few indies/FZers would use this as a definition.

    For me Marty's " A psychotherapy with a spiritual basis" [ approx] is my favorite.

    This is perhaps really a definition of auditing. Without auditing the rest is pointless.
     
  17. still here

    still here Patron with Honors


    The untested, unbelievable, sold by the unconscionable, to produce unthinkable, unusable results..which are undeliverable.

    (apologies to Oscar Wilde)
    Still
     
  18. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation


    Auditing is equally pointless if it is not needed in the first place ... which I believe to be the situation with most people.

    After decades there still isn't even a legitimate definition for what auditing is or is meant to be, most people wouldn't wander into the cofs (or the freezone) looking for some 'psychotherapy with a spiritual basis' ... where people are handed a set of issues that hubbard decided they have and then sold and resold the solution for as long as they are willing to be played.

    It's all just a trick with a lot of pompous, once clever sounding padding that some people can't seem to wake up from, just getting their attention off themselves would do "PC's" more good by far than auditing ever could.

    :yes:
     
  19. Abletu

    Abletu Patron with Honors

    that is what LRH did. He focused on a tech solution.
    What was unworkable was not the tech,
    it was on how to deliver that tech, when to deliver that tech and the atmosphere needed to deliver that bit of tech.

    The shot gun approach may appear to work, the bridge may appear to work,

    how to clear what is on the meter,
    how to clear what is blocking being alive in the person's life at this moment,
    and/or how to validate and enhance what is going right for the person right now is also needed.

    solving auditor goofs, atmosphere goofs, delivery goofs with more tech creates a nightmare.

    It may just be an active self-denile. We can be terrified to really shine, to just be fully ourselves in our own skin.

    The millstone around the neck of the tech has always been Hubbard's insistence that the Tech works uniformly in all cases. The simple truth is it doesn't, never has and never will. Panda Termint

    Thus LRH never graduated,

    he never climbed the whole mountain to obtain what it really is to be a dianetic and/or scientology auditor.

    LRH's focus was off, his focus was on magic wand solutions.
     
  20. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    Huh, well, yes: a simple sort of coherence is indeed created, I suppose, just by including, as one item in the package, the claim that everything in the package is a coherent whole. A lot of ideologies do this. Fundamentalist evangelical Christianity is a notorious example, asserting that you can only have the Sermon on the Mount if you also take six-day creation. And this is certainly an effective kind of mental trapping. It's a hostage-taking: give us unquestioning acceptance of everything we say, or we'll take away the things that you really hold dear.

    And in fact there's some real coherence involved in this kind of coherence-by-assertion. There's an actual mutual reinforcement going on, I think, because I think this kind of ideological totalitarianism actually needs to have some ridiculous and incoherent parts, just to put some teeth in the test of faith. Once you get somebody to accept something obviously ridiculous, you've forced them to commit to you. So there has to be some stupid involved. It's an active ingredient.

    So okay, I'll accept this. It's a kind of coherent badness that full-blown KSW Scientology certainly has, and that does work effectively as a trap.

    Is there any other coherent badness to Scientology? Do its (to me) apparently disparate parts work effectively together, in some sinister way, even beyond the basic mechanism Gadfly has pointed out, of hostage-taking plus commitment-test?

    For instance, something I've wondered about: the 'what's true is what's true for you' line seems to me to encourage delusion, because it seems like it encourages everyone to look carefully before committing, but in practice it can all too easily encourage people to stop looking as soon as they feel a few good vibes. So are there other parts of Scientology that work coherently together with this, in that they reinforce the 'true for you' principle, while benefiting from it themselves? Auditing seems to produce a high in many people, for example. Put this together with 'true for you', and the high becomes a proof: Scientology works. But then auditing is a lot of navel-gazing. It's all about focusing on your own memories (or what seem to be memories). So maybe it does seem to reinforce the 'true for you' principle, by making you spend a lot of time on stuff where it really is all just up to you.

    This may really be an example of coherence, in that the pair of auditing high plus 'what's true is what's true for you' work together to detach a person from objective reality, and push them toward solipsism.