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.



Featured The Nature of Evil

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Gadfly, Jul 10, 2009.

  1. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    As I mentioned elsewhere, it is ok to have goals in this universe, but to get attached to those goals will definitely suck one into this universe. That was my sole criticism of Knowledgism, that it promoted such goals.

    Undue attention on “survival” is an indicator of such attachment. That attachment is now doing Scientology in.

    .
     
  2. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I do think that the main attraction of Scientology is that it bloats one’s ego as “knower of truth.” That is a very insidious trap.

    “Ego” is a mental construct. It starts with the postulate “To Be.” Buddhism refers to it as “self.” It is something invented and therefore, temporary. It stands out that way against the background of BRAHMA.

    Attachment to this universe starts with one’s attachment to ego. Gadfly, looks like you were aware of this before you came across Scientology.

    NOTE: It is not ego, but the "attachment to ego" that traps one.

    .
     
  3. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    This subject is treated as “siddhis” in Hinduism. It is very tempting. Buddha talked about it too as the final temptation one needs to free oneself from.

    OT powers are just that… a desire for siddhis… the final trap.

    .
     
  4. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Gadfly, I think I was lucky just as you were, to be able to take what made sense and discard the rest that didn’t make sense in Scientology.

    What helped me the most was my earlier grounding in Hinduism, especially to my exposure to the writings of Swami Vivekananda. I have links to these in my signature line (see Vinaire’s Page).

    Thank you for your wonderful summary.

    .
     
  5. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    So many great thoughts

    Welcome Gadfly :goodposting: :welcome:

    Your original posting really struck a chord with me to wit:

    "There are as many ways to conceive of things as there are independent aware conscious viewpoints (you and me). But, I would never consider demanding or forcing others to accept what I say, and I would never think to silent anyone in saying whatever he or she chooses to say"

    "For me, and this is just my opinion, a top level quality of a legitimate spiritual path would take away all judging, divisions and inhumanity toward others. In other words, the highest activity is to treat all others as living beings, to grant all complete beingness, to basically "love" all others, despite differences in IDEAS."......(The Cult of)"Scientology has utterly failed in this regard as a spiritual activity"

    "The best that you can do is to help alleviate the suffering of those who still take it all too seriously."

    "See, I first got involved in Scientology, not to get better at making money or to "succeed" in life, but to find TRUTH"

    "The way I see it, and maybe this is there for me because I want to see it this way, but what I see is an entirely "empty" clean awareness, with no attention or concern on itself or anything related to itself at all, outpouring complete love, infinite concern and incredible compassion. What a great way for ANY person to live and interact with their fellow living beings. I aspire to that. "

    :thumbsup:
     
  6. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Fixation on "survival" is at the root of the problem.

    This is attachment. This is bondage. This is not freedom.

    .
     
  7. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    Another great post, for sure.
     
  8. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron


    The most basic fractal of all is Beingness, Doingness, and Havingness - which are themselves the direct result of putting Time into a postulate. They need to be properly understood. All else - all of the triangles and sequences and scales and wot-not of Scientology and everything else derive from this.
     
  9. CornPie

    CornPie Patron Meritorious

    I thought your post #1 was a great read.

    But this post #9, I find it unreadable, it's hard to believe #1 and #9 are from the same person. What gives?
     
  10. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Mmm, let's see, how should I answer this?

    How about this? Pick one from below.

    A) I suffer from multiple personality disorder (MPD) and the different versions of "me" took turns writing the posts.

    B) In Scientology-speak, I did a "valence shift", between the first and second posts. Similar to "A", but not quite as regimented a division of personality traits as severe MPD.

    C) Due to the readers lack of familiarity with the concepts involved in the second post (a great deal of Eastern philosophical views), it could only fail to connect and make sense to the reader. For more information, read "The Tao of Physics" by Capra, or "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Zukav. Both books are on modern physics, covering theories of relativity, quantum mechanics and sub-atomic particle phenomena. But the books also investigate and compare the findings of modern physics to Hindu ancient Vedic philosophy, the Tao and Buddhism. The similarities are at times quite unbelievable (to an entirely "Western" indoctrinted mind). It takes a few hundred pages and many examples to gradually get a normal westerner to "get" what is really going on with the findings and theories of modern physics. In a nuthsell, "nothing is as it seems". Not matter, not energy, not time and not space. Not you and not me.

    D) I am not a one-trick pony. I jump from one field to the next, with little regard to where I was before. I can be "so much in the now" that I at times forget entirely where I was before, and in effect, become an entirely new viewpoint, often quite unrelated to the "previous viewpoint". So, of course, most people would react with a "what gives".

    E) Too much LSD in my early days. Maybe a "flashback pheneomena."

    Since everone else seems to add a quote at the end of their post, I will also adopt that habit.

    ____________________

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
     
  11. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    :lol: You are a gadfly indeed!

    .
     
  12. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    :confused2: Me? I am not doing anything . . . .

    :whistling: Shhhh! Please, don't tell anyone Vinaire; please, keep the secret a SECRET!

    :thumbsup: By the way, I have always enjoyed reading your comments and views, wherever and whenever you have decided to appear, just as I have enjoyed you responses in this thread.
     
  13. CornPie

    CornPie Patron Meritorious

    You [Gadfly] said in your Post #1, "If someone were abusing me verbally or emotionally, which is unlikely because I simply don't attract or participate in such nonsense, I would walk away." I think a lot of what you said was about inter-personal relations, rather than entities. And I realize you weren't specifically speaking about scientology, but let me use that as an example.

    Attraction:
    I have had two different 'experts', who I really respect, suggest that I, "change my style" or "back off" from the bullies, and maybe they'd let up on harassment. In fact I had already tried backing off temporarily, and it works, but I couldn't live with myself, letting the bullies squash my speech. Shouldn't some people do their part to keep the bullies in line? Each protester (or blogger) does it in their own way. And I have heard numerous notable protesters who post on ESMB mention, however subtlety, say that they have 'attracted' harassment from scientology because they've spoken out. I notice these types of comments from protesters all the time on ESMB. Yet however you want to spin it, I think preaching don't 'attract' attention is like saying, "Let George do it" -- let somebody else fight the battle.

    I'm not as confident as you seem to be, that the Internet will resolve the ills that scientology inflicts. Their stated intention is clear -- they seek world domination, and right now, they have hundreds of beachheads (locations) in many countries, and unknown numbers of KSW people planted in society and governments. If you are right, then no problem. But what if you're wrong Gadfly, what if we're not doing enough? What if scientology takes over the world, a little bit at a time, right under our noses, while we confident in "let George do it", inaction? What if their reach progresses past the point of no return?

    Walking Away:
    When scientology-OSA-PI's abuse people, it's a safe bet that somebody else is taking pictures, in hopes of capturing an illegal retaliation of the harassee on video. So you really don't have any choice but to walk away, unless you want to be badgered into breaking the law, and handing them video evidence on a silver platter. So I agree with your viewpoint; on walking away. The question is though, whether to take a let George do it approach. We 'hope' enough people will join the cause, and expose the bad guys, but what if it's not enough. Shouldn't some people 'attract' scientology's wrath, to intentionally p*** off the beast (again, and again, and again) -- and in so doing, advise others of the problem, and motivate some of them to do the same. And I realize there are numerous ways to do it, but whether to, "walk away", or whether to attract their attention, that's my focus here.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2009
  14. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    Originally Posted by finishedman:
    ...
    "This is the way the human organism is functioning too. Every cell is interested in its own survival. It knows in some way that its survival depends upon the survival of the cell that is next to it. It is for this reason that there is a sort of cooperation between the cells. That is how the whole organism can survive. It is not interested in utopias. It is not interested in your wonderful ideas. It is not interested in peace, bliss, or anything. Its only interest is to survive. That is all it is interested in. The survival of a cell depends upon the survival of the cell next to it. And your survival and my survival depend upon the survival of our neighbor."



    All that is necessary for the survival of this living organism is already there. The tremendous intelligence of the body is no match for all that we have gathered and acquired through our intellect. You’re talking about psychological survival of the self with your fixation comment there. The fear of losing what you have, the fear of not getting what you want. That's psychological fear.

    The human organism is not interested in your wonderful spiritual ideas or any such thing. Its only interest is survival. What your spiritual customs and thought structures have placed before us as the goal to reach and attain is the enemy of this living organism.

    There is no self, there is no I, there is no spirit, there is no soul, and there is no mind. That knocks off the whole list, and you have no way of finding out what you are left with. We have been for centuries using some instrument, that is, thinking or mind, or whatever you want to call it, to free ourselves from the whole of what you call the 'I' or the 'self', and all kinds of things. That is what the whole quest of spirit is all about. But once it dawns on you that there is nothing to be free from, then comments and questions about freedom don't arise at all.

    What we are left with is the functioning of the living organism. How it is functioning is extraordinary. The whole attempt on your part to understand what you are left with is a lost battle.

    There is nothing to what we have been made to believe. All our problems have arisen because of our acceptance that it is possible for us to understand the reality of the world, or the reality of our existence. You have no way of experiencing anything that you do not know. So anything that you experience through the help of your knowledge is fruitless. It is a lost battle.
     
  15. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    The instrument which we are using to understand the reality of our existence and the reality of the world around us is not part of this body mechanism that is there. Thoughts are not self-generated and are not spontaneous. There are no thoughts there even now. If you want to find out whether there is any such thing as thought, the very question which we are posing to ourselves, namely, "Is there a thought?" is born out of the assumption that there is a thought there. But what you will find there is all about thought and not thought. All about thought is what is put in there by the culture. That is put in by the people who are telling us that it is very essential for you to free yourself from whatever you are trying to free yourself from through that instrument. That is not the instrument, and there is no other instrument. And when once this hits you, dawns upon you that thought is not the instrument, and that there is no other instrument, then there is no need for you to find out if any other instrument is necessary. No need for any other instrument. This very same structure that we are using, the instrument which we are using, has in a very ingenious way invented all kinds of things like intuition, right insight, right this, that, and the other. And to say that through this very insight we have come to understand something is the stumbling block. All insights, however extraordinary they may be, are worthless, because it is thought that has created what we call insight, and through that it is maintaining its continuity and status quo.
     
  16. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor




    There is no physical organism either... listen to buddha...

    It is no use getting stuck to the physical... it is just another layer of thought... solidified thought...

    :p
     
  17. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Cornpie, you bring up some good points.

    First, the situation I was talking about was a very unique and specific context where a person willingly involves him or herself in a relationship with another person or group. There is extensive literature on abusive 2D relationships where one member stays in the relationship despite the verbal, emotional and mental abuse from the other. There is also some literature on the same phenomena in groups. There are similarities between the two; relationships with one other person and relationships with groups. What you are talking about is a freely entered upon confrontational, argumentative or adversarial relationship. In your first paragraph what you are talking about is deciding to enter into an "attack" type relationship. That is what it is and it is fine.

    But it should be clear that what defines that relationships is the "adversarial" aspect. In a 2D relationship, what defines it to some degree are mutual goals and mutual interests, and the "abuse" is an aspect that wasn't originally anticipated or desired. The same is true for cults (and I use the term very loosely). In fact "abuse" happens in all sorts of groups, including businesses, clubs, political parties, fraternities, and so on. But, what differentiates all of these is that the person CHOOSES to be a member and to remain a member. These people choose to accept the abuse for whatever reason - and there are MANY reasons. That could be the topic of an interesting discussion - WHY each person stayed involved for so long past the point when he or she began noticing and experiencing abuse of some sort.

    As an aside, I want to make it clear that I understand that KIDS in the Sea Org and Church did NOT have that choice to leave. Their situation was and is entirely different, in that they cannot do much about the suppression each of them was put into. They can't walk away. In Scientology-speak, as LRH defines it, a person is PTS to the degree that the person cannot do anything about the suppression he or she is undergoing. Kids were and are VERY suppressed, because they did not CHOOSE to enter into the Church organization from the mindset and attitude of a fully functioning adult with some degree of evolved emotional and mental factors. They were for all practical purposes FORCED to "join". That could take up an entire thread too, so I will leave it that for now. Back to what you said.

    When you choose to enter into a confrontational situation, you cannot help but "attract" the same in return. Add to that the way Scientologists are trained to attack, belittle and "deal with" any and all critics, and of course, conflict will occur. But, you are an adult. You know the situation. You even know very well how "they" will react and respond back at you. This is NOT "abuse" in the normal sense of situations where a person CHOOSES to enter into a MUTUAL relationship with common goals and purposes. "Walking away" and "confronting an adversary" are mutually exclusive. If you choose to speak your mind, protest, be a witness in a court case against Scientology or loudly promote the Church's nasty behavior and deception, then you are choosing to enter into a situation where some sort of "abuse" may occur against you. Any person choosing to do that must realize that, accept that, deal with it, and continue on regardless. Words are only words anyway. Personally, I wouldn't consider it abuse if some Church member were rattling off my overts to me from my PC folder at some rally against the Church - but then, I don't respond to things so sensitively as many others do. Shit, do some TRs before you go to a rally to stabilize your viewpoint, and just don't let the "words" affect you. And yes, I am fully aware that the Church has and continues to do things against "critics" that very much HARM a person - maybe not physical harm, but harm as in examples like Paulette Cooper and Gabe Cevarez. Of course, spread the facts of this behavior. But, realize if and when you plan to take on the Church to THAT degree that you are in for the fight of your life. That factor alone dissuades many - and the Church plans and hopes for that. But, THAT aspect has now been examined, is part of court cases, and is INFORMATION available for any and all to view. THAT matters.

    Of course people must act to keep the bullies in line. We all do it in different ways. Please realize that you have largely generalized comments I made about a very specific case of being involved "in the Church as a member". What you are talking about is NOT what I was talking about. But I will answer your questions, because obviously by your answers you are reading in a great deal that I never said in any way.

    I never talked about the things you are talking about. I didn't say and never said "don't attract attention". I said that I don't often "attract or participate in such nonsense"; I NEVER said not to "attract attention". The fact that you made such a huge jump in meaning and context simply tells me that you need to pay a bit more attention to what is being discussed EXACTLY. But, I will forget about that because what you say has meaning and validity anyway, even if not as a direct response to what I was discussing. But first, to end what I was just clarifying, my point was that in normal human relations I simply don't find myself often in antagonistic, abusive or confrontational situations. First, largely by my awareness and behavior I can easily control the direction of communication to avoid any "entheta". Second, if I find myself in a potentially dangerous situation where I might be physically harmed, I deal with or get away. I don't "react" much to words or emotional escalation of others (like in Tone Scale games of ratcheted-up anger). I have trained myself over many years for "abuse" to pass over and through me. I just "don't do abuse". Maybe that is hard for me to explain and for you to understand. Or, in other words, ALL relationships take TWO. All conflicts take two. How one responds has a GREAT deal to do with how the "conflict" develops. I am talking about normal interpersonal relations. Where you have a trained antagonist, like an OSA-dupe, standing there yelling and trying to cave you in, that is somewhat different, but in the end, really, words are only words UNLESS YOU allow them to have MEANING FOR YOU.

    Yes, of course, bring to light the abuses, nastiness and hypocrisy of the Church of Scientology. For instance, I posted the little essay on the Sea Org and Degraded Beings. I would guess that almost every member of the human population, who is able to read and understand simple concepts, can see how NUTS the author of that Flag Order was. And also how nuts someone must be who agrees with such idiocy. The statements made about an ex-Sea Org member being a "DB" are insane - and verifiable as being insane by direct observation. If one "member" reads that and makes a slight mental shift, then something has been done. I do what I do and others do what they. I happen to be good at observing interesting aspects of things, and at explaining these things in usually easy-to-understand terms. I "fight the battle" in my own way. I never said or meant to imply that we should all "sit and do nothing". If I ever say that, or cause that, then find me and shoot me as a Church OSA agent (loose analogy, no real violence intended). But, I think in my two posts alone I made sufficient arguments against certain negative aspects of the functioning of the Church of Scientology. Did I do nothing? Am I somehow letting others "fight the battle"? I never meant to imply that.

    Of course, also, if you get loud past a certain point and the Church considers that you are becoming too much of a problem, then you may get the investigators coming after you and other unsavory attention placed upon you. Again, "abuse" in that regard is not what I was talking about. But, on what you are saying, well it is part of the reality of dealing with Scientology. THAT is what they do. They attack people per LRH policy. They send out investigators to harass. They make it tough to want to continue against them. They even lie and put together phony scenarios to entrap people and to make people look bad. They have no back off on doing just about anything to "win". But, this behavior is becoming more and more documented on the Internet and in legal cases all across the world. There is a LARGE mountain of similar data, describing the unsavory activities of the Church, building in court files and on the Internet. Luckily, many people look down on such behavior. The Church behaves in certain ways that most of the population finds unsavory, underhanded and nasty. THAT is what it is, and that can only work against them - no matter whether they see that and no matter what they PR to others around them.

    I never said that the "Internet" alone will solve the problem of Scientology. It is a segment of what is working against Scientology. There is no doubt that the protests of Anonymous would be MUCH LESS effective and meaningful if it weren't for their display all across the world on the Internet. The Internet IS a large factor, enabling the communication of facts and information about the REAL BEHAVIOR by Church staff and members over years and years. THAT can and will work against them.

    Oh, please realize that while I may seem to disagree with you about certain things and clarify other things, I AM responding to you with time and care, because I think the points are valuable. We AGREE - the Church has aspects that should NOT be tolerated in any decent society. But, for me, they have many aspects that they should be free to express however they choose in a free society. It isn't all or none. Personally I want to see the abuses stop. The disconnection, the contrived situations to harm and silence (Paulette Cooper, Gabe Cevarez), the use of PIs, noisy investigations, misrepresentation of facts, oppressive work conditions, the use of the legal system to overwhelm critics, and others I am surely missing. But realize, I do not and will not ever agree to shut up some group because someone doesn't like them. Even the "poor work conditions" probably cannot ever be legally stopped, because people ARE "free" to involve themselves in whatever manner they want with whatever groups they want. They can CHOOSE to receive a pay of $50 per week, and eat rice and beans for weeks. That IS their free choice. I would NEVER want to take that choice away from anyone. If a Buddhist ascetic wants to sit on a dirt path begging for alms, as part of a certain Buddhist community, THAT is their right and I will never support anyone desiring to tell others what they can or cannot freely choose to do. But the nasty shit, and there is much of it, YES, that must be brought to the attention of all people and stopped.

    Onto another thing you said. About Scientology "taking over the world". First WHAT does that even mean? As an example, and I suppose I should start an entire thread for this, what does it mean to "clear the planet"? This is a CONCEPT often mentioned by Church folks. But, what does it really mean? This is another interesting (and oppressive) factor about how the Church functions in real life. Members of the Church are not allowed to discuss almost anything about Scientology outside of the courseroom or the Qual division. If you start having a discussion about "what it means to clear the planet", or what "ARC" means, or what it means to "be able to mock up illusions that others can see", somebody will sooner or later give you that brutal TR 0 look and loudly attack you with, "THAT IS VERBAL DATA" - "KNOCK IT OFF". That whole area of activity, about "stopping verbal data" has interesting consequences. Simply, members are largely forbidden from discussing a tremendous amount of ideas and concepts. This behavior can easily be observed. THAT also would make a great discussion, how the application of "verbal data" stops such an immense amount of "free discussion". Anyway, what does that relate to what I am talking about?

    First, a little more background data. Imagine asking each Church member to sit down and write an essay, "What does it mean to Clear the Planet". They might write this essay as part of some course, or as part of a Success Story, BUT nobody will EVER tabulate the results and/or compare the responses. Why not? Because in truth, the IDEA of "clearing the planet" has no specific meaning outside the MANY individual, wildly different interpretations by individual members. Like so many SLOGANS and ideological notions, it is a VAGUE CONCEPT that can have EMOTIONAL ENERGY attached to it as a way to influence, affect and manipulate groups of people. Again, LRH was no dummy, whatever else he may have been. Like many concepts in Scientology, and this is true in more ways than most are aware in ALL aspects of life, these concepts survive at very LOFTY levels of abstraction and have very UNCLEAR and VARIED meaning for people. It is a trick to tell someone that you can know what something means by "clearing the words", because as in this case, the IDEA will mean something different to every person who tries to describe it. That is partially why Scientology is set up so that members cannot discuss so many things. Then many would discover that there IS such a huge difference in meaning from person to person. Keep it vague and emotional - that is part of the trickery. Of course, the real problem comes down to defining the word "clearing". What does THAT mean to each person? But, it is an analogy, and analogies always have a widespread difference in personal meaning. "Clearing" refers to the action of supposedly clearing away "held-down-sevens" in individual "reactive minds". Whatever THAT means! So, the concept of "clearing the planet" itself is some weird transference of an idea relating to a single person to the world as a whole. Of course, this goes on all of the time in human thinking, where IDEAS often have little to do with any possible real thing or event or relationship. In fact, it goes on everywhere about everything, including modern "science".

    Sorry, I need to include a little diversion to further explain what I just said. The content of the minds of most people is "mush" - vague ideas relating in varying degrees to other vague ideas, wrapped up in endless metaphors and analogies, confusing various levels of abstraction, that in the end creates a personal MENTAL WORLD very very far removed from any observable anythings. This is the usual and common state of the mind of almost any human being on Earth. Your mental world is a CREATED THING. YOU create it. Most people have little awareness of the functioning of their own intellectual minds, much less any actual control over it. I am talking ONLY about the intellect here. Thinking in concepts and ideas. "Thinking" happens to you; you don't "think". I suspect that few of the readers will agree with this - but then, you also probably "think" way too much. Scientology is just one example of the entire panaroma of life where this weird, but entirely common thinking goes on - it is the Church's observable nasty and harmful behavior that is the issue for me.

    So, really, when it comes down to it, "clearing the planet" has very little REAL meaning. There are as many meanings as there are people who take the concept seriously. Fundamentally, it is a SLOGAN, attached to emotional energy, that is used by Church manipulators (knowingly or unknowingly) at events and other group activities to drum up participation and action to support the group. Now, onto, "taking over the world". What does THAT mean? I know the Church has some intention to do so, but what does that mean in REAL behavior, activity and terms? A way to get some handle on this is to look at other ideologies and movements that have attempted to "take over the world". I will only brush on a few.

    Christianity tried. Fundamentally, early Christianity involved a group of concepts about what was believed, and how and why all others should accept and follow those ideas (Scientology has a similarity in that Church members also feel that they "have the truth" and that everyone else should accept and follow the truth" - if only because on some stupid level the members believe that everyone else would benefit and be happier by doing so). First, as have all other attempts, it failed. There are now many different versions and interpretations of Christianity. There is no longer any single "Christianity" to "take over the world". There are reasons for why Christianity failed in "taking over", many of these reasons separate from the fact that some or many of the ideas themselves were flawed.

    Reason One: Everything changes into something else. Everything alters. Nothing stays the same, including IDEAS, and the groups based on those ideas. Even IDEAS change and evolve. In a sense, nothing stays the same, so despite all attempts to "keep Scientology" as LRH originally envisioned it, it has been changing and it will continue to evolve into new altered versions of itself. THAT factor acts to cause any movement to fail, if in the end solely by virtue of the fact that the "something" no longer exists as originally envisioned. What "survived" and expanded has morphed into something else. This is very true for Christianity, and for many other movements. True, for most movements, and subjects, it is because the subject "grows" and learns from experience. This is not possible in Scientology because of the way it is set up. LRH worked hard to prevent it from being "added to". In a certain regard, its inability to "mold" itself to new conditions may work very much against it. In a sense it can't "evolve" in accordance with external forces (this is just another one of those analogies that will mean something different to each reader).

    Communism, envisioned by Marx and Engels tried to take over the world. Part of the philosophy involved the idea of "spreading". It had an evangelizing "aspect", though the idea was more like "accept it or else". Communism also morphed into different versions of its original self, with different authors adding to it. It contained the notion that "our ideas are so legitimate and true, that eventually people will accept our views because it results in better societies and happier people". Of course, that didn't pan out quite as expected. Now, Scientology has a built-in mechanism to try to prevent morphing into something else - but it is doing so anyway to some degree. How that is happening is too much to start discussing here, but it IS happening, though not as much as it would have naturally if Hubbard hadn't foreseen and tried to prevent such alteration. Also though, while I think the ideas of evolution by modern biologists are largely ludicrous, and while to me the ideas of modern neo-Darwinist thought take more the form of a "doctrine" in a religious sense with little observable verification, there is a sort of "survival" reason why groups change into other forms. They do so TO SURVIVE. If Christianity didn't respond to the forces against it, such as occurred during and after the Age of Reason, and didn't temper its attitudes, and become something else from a theoretical and practical behavioral aspect, they would have DIED completely. Christianity as existed in the 12th century cannot exist today in the western world. It would have ceased to exist IF it had not had changed in certain regards. This is all easily explainable and observable. Groups often change otherwise these groups would FAIL completely. Again, much could be explained with many examples how that has been so through history. That brings us to the next point.

    Reason Two: Factors eventually conspire in the environment AGAINST any group that is trying to "take over the world". There can never and will never be enough people who fanatically agree to a level where they are willing to accept all the negatives with the real or imagined positives of probably ANY ideology. There are simply too many negatives to actual real Scientology behavior and life. Even in entirely suppressed populations, where nearly all information has been controlled and facts hidden, people still have consistently revolted against the tyranny. In open societies, as we have in many parts of the world, where information is free to accrue itself, it would be quite impossible for Scientology to "take over the world". Another aspect of this is that Scientology "works" as a group because the INSIDE reality is entirely CLOSED. The Church leaders control all information (PR) inside the Church. Members are controlled to willingly refuse to look at any and all criticism - or else suffer the consequences of heavy ethics and/or expulsion. There is no way that I see where this same sort of CLOSED ultra-controlled operation of the Church of Scientology could ever transfer to the outside world at large. There are too many safeguards built into existing government constitutions to allow any such thing from happening. And while you CAN fool some of the people some of the time, it is quite impossible to fool all of the people all of the time.

    But, really, again, what does it mean for "Scientology to take over the world". I think I may start another thread on THAT, because there are many interesting ways to envision THAT possibility. For instance, how would disconnection work in a world "controlled by Scientology"? The local Scientology baker wouldn't sell you bread. The Scientology taxi driver would refuse to pick you up. The local school would refuse to enroll any children of SP parents (unless they disconnected of course). Heck, how would all the "good and ethical" people (the people living by Scientology principles) even recognize the many declared SPs? There would have to be a system of recognition developed. Maybe they could put little symbols on their shirts, like the Nazis did to Jews. Then, the SPs could be easily spotted and the "good" people could refuse to support them in any way. Then the SPs could and would all "die out", because nobody would or could support them in ANY way. What amazing compassion for ones fellow man! (sarcasm) When it comes down to it, the idea of transferring Scientology internal org life to the real world truly is probably entirely impossible. You can now sleep better at night! But, really, do the THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. Think about and write down exactly how Scientology principles would be enacted in a real society. In some cases it gets very Nazi-like.

    HINT: Whenever you want to think in abstractions, such as the idea involved in the phrase, "Scientology taking over the world", do yourself an intellectual favor, and bring the idea down to observable reality from the flimsy clouds of mental abstraction. MAKE UP EXAMPLES. And make up more examples. And then make up more! Understanding the reality and possible reality of things is in the specifics and in actual events. Generalities are the bane of human thought. LRH was right about that. There is a severe problem with thinking and talking in generalities (besides the fact that supposed SPs do it). He was right about lots of things. He was also right (because he stole a legitimate idea from the theories of General Semantics by Alfred Korzybski) that sanity is gauged by the ability to DIFFERENTIATE. (Note: Much of the "Data Series" comes from the theories of General Semantics. But, LRH screws up with his interpretation of that too. That is good, because all Church INT evaluations are based on the Data Series, and since the Data Series has major problems, that the leaders don't see or ackowledge, the results of their "evals" will generally be ineffective.)

    But it is easy to use the things he was right about against those things that he was wrong about, and that the Church is wrong about.

    One final comment. Planting people in businesses and governments to obtain special favor for the Church organization is VERY different than planting Church members and adherents who will somehow get local and federal governments to adopt and run their own organizations with Scientology principles. The gulf between the two is immense.

    ____________

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2009
  18. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    "This is the way the human organism is functioning too. Every cell is interested in its own survival. It knows in some way that its survival depends upon the survival of the cell that is next to it. It is for this reason that there is a sort of cooperation between the cells. That is how the whole organism can survive. It is not interested in utopias. It is not interested in your wonderful ideas. It is not interested in peace, bliss, or anything. Its only interest is to survive. That is all it is interested in. The survival of a cell depends upon the survival of the cell next to it. And your survival and my survival depend upon the survival of our neighbor."

    Vinaire, there is no use even trying to answer this guy's posts. It is like trying to have a meaningful conversation with a box of hammers - or with a Jehovah's Witness, or a with a dedicated Scientologist, or with an orthodox modern biologist (bingo). What all of these folks have in common is a strict, largely unexamined BELIEF SYSTEM. All this talk about "survival", "evolution", "cells", and so forth stems from someone's exaggerated affiliation with the ideas of modern biology and neo-Darwinism. Read a few books by Richard Dawkins ("The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker"). I have read them, and I happily read many things I disagree with so that I can truly understand where the "thinking" goes awry with these seemingly "intelligent" people.

    This is the viewpoint of modern biology in a nutshell. It aligns entirely with the idea of the Big Bang and that everything "evolved" "naturally" without any hidden (non-materialistic) cause of any sort. In other words, while these folks always talk about how well things are designed, because "nature" did it so well through the "forces" or "influence" of "natural selection" and pure cosmic chance, they reiterate that there is and can never be any cause other than senseless undirected atoms and molecules.

    There is a famous argument where a watch is examined, and the details of its working, arrangements and patterns are brought alive in the reader. It is obviously "designed" and there by implication must be a "designer". When you see a "created thing", well, there must be a creator. That is true for any man-made thing. The argument starts by looking at many "made" things, and showing how, obviously, such design and complexity implies an "author" - the "designer". The argument has been used to try to convince people that there must also be a "designer" for all life forms, planets, stars and even the entire universe. The extent of organization, consistent motion in repeating patterns, and consistency inherent in all aspects of the observable universe is truly mind-boggling to any honest person who takes a little time and LOOKS. That is true when limited to simply the five senses. It gets even more amazing when you add in scientific instrumentation that detects waves and energies and patterns that we normally cannot perceive.

    Anyway, the book by Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, is an attempt to dispute that entirely and to somehow make a case of "undesigned designs", "uncreated creations", and "unintended complex patterns". This is pretty much the accepted framework of modern biology and science. It looks as if there must be something behind it all, since it is so amazingly "put together". It is so well-arranged, but there is no arranger. The patterns are so amazingly integrated but nobody thought up the pattern. Basically, the dilemma was that there was no way to minimize the incredibly OBVIOUS detail, complexity, patterning and arrangements at every level of physical reality. Any awake slightly intelligent thinking being cannot help but SEE THAT. So, the problem became how to take the "creator" out of the created? That is what the theories of Darwin and all after him have attempted to do. Modern science in many regards is an answer to the question, "How can we make theories that seem to explain everything without resorting to any concept involving spirit, mind or God"? In other words, starting with little stuff (atoms), how could it all magically come together as if by nothing, but "accident"? THAT in a nutshell is the view of modern materialistic science. There is an obsession with many of these people, an urge that drives them to take the "being" out of "human being".

    Modern biology today is almost entirely driven by companies selling products (bio tech firms, genetic engineering, etc). They have the money and they fuel the research that defines the accepted views on these topics in the universities. The view involves examining the details. This is called atomism. It involves the idea (theory) that there are fundamental, irreducible small thingies (called atoms) that somehow, through no plan of anything anywhere, then form into arrangements, such as molecules, on up into more complex arrangement of cells, until it ends with organisms. This modern paradigm attempts to explain all the properties of complex organisms in terms of the properties of their parts (as best as each of the parts can be understood). They do recognize arrangement of forms, patterns, and close working together of different things, BUT, and this is key, the underlying primary postulate is that NOTHING CAUSES ANY OF IT. God forbid, heaven help us if there were some "invisible" anything that actually influenced the forming of anything anywhere! These people can be defined in part because of their antipathy to any and all ideas involving a "hidden cause" that is not part of the observable physical universe of matter and energy.

    I suggest that anyone who falls into this type of thinking read anything by Rupert Sheldrake. He has a Ph.D. in biology, is an accomplished biologist, he has lectured at Harvard, AND he easily and intelligently blows holes through the entire modern mindset of materialistic thinking. He delivers a stinging critique of conventional scientific thinking, which sees nature as a machine that, although constant and governed by "eternal laws", is nonetheless somehow evolutionary. Read any of his books; The Presence of the Past, A New Science of Life, or The Rebirth of Nature. He has an amazing ability to identify the weak spots of scientific orthodoxy. He also very well can get a "devoted follower" of science to begin to question their own many fixed ideas, biases, unexamined flawed assumptions, undefined abstractions and attitudes. The way Sheldrake portrays thought in modern science:

    "Whether or not evolutionary faith is recognized as essentially religious or ideological in nature, it arouses what seem very like religious passions in its defenders; and like traditional religious faiths, evolution is interpreted differently by different sects and schools of thought. The passions aroused can be intense."

    He hits the nail on the head here:

    "The various schools of (evolutionary and biological) thought commonly criticize each other on the grounds that they start from preconceived assumptions. And so they do. But who does not?"

    This is key. Any argument involves "logic". Any argument involves "ideas" and thinking with ideas. It is true, whether you realize this or not, that ANY train of thought can be traced back to some assumption, some basic attitude or notion that is simply accepted at face value. Any side of an intellectual argument can be traced back to basic willy-nilly held ideas. If you didn't hold that assumption, then your train of thought collapses. It is a good practice to awaken ones own intellectual activity by tracing back ones own beliefs (anything you hold to "be true" no matter and especially how "obvious" you think it to be). In the end Sheldrake is entirely right. Not only because he is brutally honest regarding his intellect, but because if anyone takes the time to investigate the working of your own intellect you will find the same exact thing. You will always hit a point where the idea can link to no earlier or related basic idea, not logically. Basically, you hit a point where you take a "leap of faith". This is the nature of ALL mental reasoning and logic. Bright honest thinkers know that. The rest don't. Interestingly, the "rational" people harp endlessly about sticking to the "facts" and "reality", but in truth, in the end, every thinking person hits a point with any train of logic or rational thought where he or she dispenses with all of that and simply ACCEPTS AND BELIEVES. Lots could be said about that actuality. If you disagree with that, then you have never taken the time to honestly examine how your own mind works. Or how your own activity of "thinking" links and relates internal ideas to external observations and experiences.

    Now, what Finishedman does is exactly what you do - in some cases. You just state something as if it is a fact. You make an assertion. In that regard these two are equal:

    "Every cell is interested in its own survival. It knows in some way that its survival depends upon the survival of the cell that is next to it."

    "This is attachment. This is bondage."

    Each is simply a statement of belief. It "may" be true in some aspect, but really, without a very careful and well written argument, these things are just STATEMENTS of agreement. You agree with the idea that the materialistic view involves attachment. This guy agrees with this whole biological, atomist evolutionary train of thought. Lots of "modern" people do who have been sufficiently indoctrinated into the related ideas.

    In a sense this back and forth debate or discussion has been going on since the beginning of time. It is the solution to the question, "where does everything come from and why does it all do what it does?" Everybody has a different answer. Everybody tends to identify to some degree with their answers and get all wrapped up in their idea of it being "right". One can have an intellect and have a minimized ego, but it is rare. It is so easy to identify with ones intellect. Thinking is so very close to "you".

    As I am sure YOU know Vinaire, truth cannot and will never be realized through logic, reason, or examination of the parts by looking under some microscope of the five senses. Truth to a large degree, on a still physically observable level, resides in the ARRANGEMENTS, the PATTERNS, the ORGANIZATION, and interaction between the many parts. Modern physicists have been seeing the same thing by investigating very small sub-atomic particles. There really ARE NO "things", there are just relationships, patterns, and organization. Taking the time to notice the patterns, arrangements and organization, at all levels of reality takes time, but it has rewarding results. This is NOT "ultimate truth". But is different, and somewhat closer to the truth than the materialistic urge to examine the parts in detail ad nauseum, as if understanding tiny small parts can ever somehow bequeath "truth".

    Fundamentally, is there some invisible "something" that is behind it all? Something that creates and defines the patterns? Something that sets into motion, well "motion"? I think there is. I am aware that this is my opinion. I also think that the many various "religions" that have come up with their versions of how this can true have been and are primarily peopled by lunatics spouting insane inanities to the answer-needing masses. I find most of it to be absurd fairy tales and absurd belief systems. I agree completely that the results of religion over many centuries have been often and largely "bad". The examples of stupidity, pain caused to others, and even torture and murder are extensive. But, and this is where I will lose many, I see the same sort of lunatics spouting insane inanities to the answer-hungry masses amongst the majority of the modern "scientists".

    Notice folks that "dialectic materialism" (as materialistic as you can get), or in other words "communism, as a "science of the organization of society", killed about 50 million people under the reign of Stalin. Religion has no monopoly on inhumanity against man. Of course, it was an IDEOLOGY - just another bunch of IDEAS parading as truth, used as a way to get people to brutalize their fellow human beings. People happily torture and kill each other, whether under the name of religion or science. It is a false distinction, these two ideas "science" and "religion", created by immature unevolved thinking human minds.

    The only way to ever find out whether there is some invisible something behind it all is to delve into it on the level of the invisible. At this point, to continue with honest investigation you must abandon all forms of gadgets and devices of perception. You are not looking out - you are looking IN. You must experiment with and research the invisible realms. The only "tool" for that is your "mind", but really not even that, but your AWARENESS. THAT is the key to opening the door here. But it is fraught with difficulties, tendencies to error, and delusion.

    This has been done to some degree in areas of eastern "religious" practices, though really, I would call it more involving "mental practices". The word "religion" has a negative and largely disreputable connotation (deservedly so). Interestingly, this activity of "delving into the self" is not done at all in Scientology! That is another reason why it will fail as a spiritual path. Okay, I will submit that auditing does cause the PC to look inside some. But the "right" view in SCN is "extroversion". Be there, looking out at MEST, at all times. THAT is considered to be the "winning" attitude. But, that is NOT at all delving into the nearly infinite arrangement, organization and patterns of your own INNER self. Yes, you do contact past moments of pain and stress in auditing, and probably even do remove these. But, that is far different than tearing your intellect apart, or learning to willingly separate your awareness from all thoughts or from your body. Scientology has this weird idea that if you just remove all the bad stuff, that somehow you will become "OT". That is so much bullshit. It takes a pro-active approach.

    So, to learn anything about this invisible realm behind the manifested everything requires delving in and sincere looking. That is, if there is even anything there to discover. This is a road that apparently has been traveled by only a few. It is not easy. There are not many places you can go to sign up for this adventure. But, there seems to me to be no other way to do it. You can't discover it by "thinking about it" with arguments, logic or reasoning. Talking about cutting the grass is not the same as cutting the grass. Thinking about cutting the grass is not the same as cutting the grass. Arguing about cutting the grass is not the same as cutting the grass. Imagining cutting the grass is not the same as cutting the grass. Reading stories by other people who have cut the grass is not the same as cutting the grass. You can only discover what it really means to cut the grass by cutting the grass.

    The same is true regarding the inner workings of your own "inner space". You can talk about it, argue about it, think about it, read books about it, and even imagine about it until the end of time, but until you actually go there and spend some time LOOKING, well then you really just have no clue. You remain mired in "thoughts about" it. LRH correctly made the disctinction between "knowing about" and "knowing". It should be obvious which one is which regarding the example of cutting the grass.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2009
  19. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    In all that endless verbosity I noticed you made a lot of assumtions about me. They are all false of course.
     
  20. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    I don't know why the body wants to survive, but if it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

    We only go along with what the physiologist have told us. This is how we come to know about the functioning of the organism. But even with this there is no way you can experience the functioning. What you experience is what you have gained from the knowledge about it.