What is a Classic Scientology Apologist?

[Voltaire's Child]

This term came up the other day. Afterward, I got to thinking. What would that actually be?

To me, it sounds like it means a typical Scientology apologist.

Wouldn't a typical one be a "Ron can do no wrong" type guy or gal? I think it would. I see stuff like that from Scientologists in letters to the editors, or picked up by critics from various sources and reposted. I have also met and talked to Freezoners who felt that way. Don't diss Ron. If he were here, he'd sort everything out. It's only DM who's the problem.

Another trait of the classic Scientology apologists I've seen is to have total and utter faith in the tech and to not admit that Hubbard's claims were and remain exaggerated.

I don't know of anyone here who has that view. I know I don't. I wouldn't want either of the points of view described above. In fact, I've never ever used any of the arguments I've seen the real hide bound Scn'ists in CofS and the Freezone use. I don't believe in most of 'em. I do think that Scn has a lot of brilliance and truth in it, but from there, the hardliners and I part company. I don't believe in everything Hubbard wrote, I don't believe that Scn is the only metaphysical, self help, or other methodology people should try. None of that.

I do think Scn is out-gradient for people, and that includes myself. I posted a topic about that months ago where I posited that as my theory. It's a theory I've been playing with for some months now. But that's not a matter of "you poor slobs don't get it". It's more my observations on the many contradictions in Scn, the fact that LRH threw everything in there, and the many times I've seen trained staff mangle Scn concepts, mangle Scn techniques, as well as the many things I've seen ex members say.

No, no, I leave "classic Scientology apologism" to churchies and some of the more hard line among the Freezoners. At this point, I'm playing with concepts and theories. Since they're theories, I don't have to officially back 'em up. Because they are concepts I'm playing with. All I have to do is say why I think this might be the case. So I really don't need any "classic critics" calling me names.

[Mark A. Baker]

Wouldn't a typical one be a "Ron can do no wrong" type guy or gal? I think it would. I see stuff like that from Scientologists in letters to the editors, or picked up by critics from various sources and reposted. I have also met and talked to Freezoners who felt that way. Don't diss Ron. If he were here, he'd sort everything out. It's only DM who's the problem.

Personally there's a few I'd like to see return to the church as they show all the good manners, insight & compassion requisite.



I do think Scn is out-gradient for people, and that includes myself.

Amazing! For the first time EVER on any board I've seen you post Fluff I actually disagree with you on a "significant' matter! :)

I'm with Hardeep Singh Kohli in his comment on the simplicity of the fundamentals underlying scientology. And frankly even given all the "sturm und drang" about the "ot levels", scientology is about the fundamentals.

What was most impressive to me was how ordinary people with little sophistication in their education could readily learn to provide genuine assistance to each other in pursuit of personal spiritual knowledge.

The course gradients, as they were in the early '80s were not out-gradient. Hubbard's writing wasn't particularly sophisticated although, admittedly, some of the terms & phrases he commonly used were more current in my parent's youth.

What principally screws up the wins from scientology is the rush some folk have to "reach the top" or in the case of staffers "push others up" the bridge.

I've seen a lot of people who were in such a hurry to get to the "top" of the bridge or obtain "real ot powers" that they rushed to attest to whatever action they were on. I've seen instances were regges where signing people up for stuff they wanted simply for the "prestige" value.

However, grump ol' cuss that I can be, it does strike me that general literacy has declined markedly among the american people in recent decades.

Quite frankly, my parent's generation received a far better grounding in a general high school education in the '40s than mine own did in the '60s. Theirs was more limited in available subjects, but more thorough in each subject addressed. And looking back the '60s appear a halcyon time in education in comparison to what occurs in u.s. high schools today.

O, tempore! O, more! :coolwink:



It's more my observations on the many contradictions in Scn, the fact that LRH threw everything in there, and the many times I've seen trained staff mangle Scn concepts, mangle Scn techniques, as well as the many things I've seen ex members say.


Now we're back in sync. :coolwink:

Although to me the "mangling" is exactly characteristic of people in too great a hurry, not as a result of the "out-gradient" character of the subject.

Hubbard was often inconsistent, hyperbolic, or inaccurate. The value of what he had to say was clear enough when looked at critically. But few took the time, and lord knows there was plenty of resistance to "critical" thinking skills in church courserooms.

However, quickying the process of learning scientology (or any subject really) results in increased confusion. The only way to unscramble the inconsistencies, contexts, and biases in Hubbard's materials is to proceed in an orderly fashion in accordance with an individual's own "comfort" gradient.

There's an old latin epigram:"festina lente". "Hasten slowly."

It's good advice.


Mark A. Baker

[Leon]

Good one, Mark.

[Voltaire's Child]

Hi Guys,

Just a concept I'm playing with. Just seems that so many technically trained church staff can't even apply the tech OR policy after being trained in it. I'm not talking about "oh, CofS changes the rules and they don't practice what they preach" even though that's a situation, too. I'm talking about people who can't even seem to grasp the particular concept or theory in and of itself.

I had revisited this the other day in a somewhat ill-fated chatroom conversation. One of the examples I gave was that Tory, who's gone up to OTVII, couldn't even properly define the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. I'm not talking about how it's applied or ignored nowadays, I'm talking about the original concept, whether one disagrees with it or not. And I'll give another example: someone I know was in the Academy doing a drill with someone. The can squeeze one, I think it was. So they got trounced by the supv (who was also a Class VIII) for "using an additive" and that supv THEN turned around and used an additive not five minutes later.

In fact, I remember when I was in CofS- it seemed like the reges and some of the tech staff had no idea what "standard" truly meant.

Another thing I'm basing this theory on (and, again, it's ONLY a concept I'm playing with. Unlike some critics, I can play with concepts and not have them set in stone. I'm just not that hidebound or inflexible.) is the book Dianetics in Limbo. John Noyga and Helen O'Brien thought it was a TERRIBLE idea for LRH to go beyond Dn and into the realm of Scn. They were there when he did it. I don't know that I fully agree with them, but I see now where they were coming from. People hadn't even gone as far as they could with Dn.

I may not be saying this right- I'm NOT against the creation of Scn and I probably just made it sound as if I am. But I think Hubbard put SOOOO much into it, I think it overwhelms people. Otherwise, maybe, (and again, this is only a possible theory I have) why else do we have Class VIIIs and OTVIs/VIIs who can't define this stuff? (and who then go on to tell others that they are wrong.)

Ehhhhh...it's just my opinion. Certainly not a specific set in stone viewpoint designed to make critics wrong. Oh no, babies, I'm making EVERYBODY wrong! :giggle: :grouphug:

[PirateAndBum]

I'd certainly have to agree that staff can't (or more correctly don't) apply policy after studying it! The reason why is an entirely different matter. My theory on that is that they are not permitted to apply it.

As to inability to apply tech - per the study tech this is because the person has misunderstood words. If words are ok, then false data could be another source of trouble. But the real problem that is manifesting is "too steep a gradient".

It is certainly true that the materials of the subject of Scn is huge. I think the only way to successfully study it is to do it chronologically. Not to say it cannot be understood by learning a bit here and there, but the subject was so dynamic it is hard to step into it at any given point and go. You are often hit with the fact that you need to know what was done earlier to fully understand what he's talking about.

The current push to have people study the basics in chronological order is a good idea.

[neiljung]

Oh no, babies, I'm making EVERYBODY wrong! :giggle: :grouphug:

That's what I do, though in a different way. I still have huge respect for you and to me the so called "critics" that call you OSA, or (have they toned it down?) an apologist, at the drop of a hat are making fools of themselves in the long run. Sure they get a few lapdogs to post in support of them today, but it just looks nasty and stupid to those not in that group-think attack mindset. I'm trying to help them by pointing that out and the fact it just looks bad. I've never been one to back blind propoganda. I don't care about your ideologies, but I do care about your actions.

I'm a freethinker. I don't support everything scientology and I don't support everything critical. I make up my own damn mind and I will express that as I see fit as long as I have a place, or places to do so.

When Emma started this site it was hammered by some as an OSA op that was created to harvest our IP's. Go read the threads about ESMB on OCMB if you don't believe me. Go look at the crap that's been thrown at people like Fluffy. Very attractive and sane behaviour isn't it?

I will be happy if there really is a new unity within the critical movement, but I for one prefer a bit of actual, genuine diversity and tolerance. That will really be win.

EDIT: I guess I will be called OSA again now. I can't stress how counter-productive that is. Even in the unlikely event that a poster is OSA, why not try and help them instead of alienate them? Don't emulate that which you profess to hate.

This is aimed at a very small percentage of opportunist and seemingly rabid unforgiving and paranoid attack-hounds, not at the critical movement in general. My timing could be better? Yeah, probably. I just don't like lies and injustice, no matter who the source is supposedly affiliated with. Anything I've said is easily researched and is true. Sorry if it's an inconvenient truth. Sort it out then.

[Mark A. Baker]

I may not be saying this right- I'm NOT against the creation of Scn and I probably just made it sound as if I am. But I think Hubbard put SOOOO much into it, I think it overwhelms people.

....

Oh no, babies, I'm making EVERYBODY wrong! :giggle: :grouphug:


I'm feeling suppressed by your SerFacs. :D

You're not wrong. There IS a lot in scientology, one of it's strengths to my mind actually. The point is that the GRADIENT is there. Basic Comm course, Basic TR's, Study Tech, each of the Levels, NED, etc..

The stuff IS laid out as a slow & easy GRADIENT. So, an individual's failure to duplicate is not generally as a result of there not being a gradient. But I completely agree, it is often not understood. I consider that that is as a result of problems scientologists have as students.

Primary problems scientology students face include:

A. Failure of am individual to recognize his OWN proper rate of progression, whether it is as a student or as a pc.

B. Willingness by staff to let a scientologist progress to a service for which the student is ill-prepared. (Stat pushes: WDAHS, Completions, Org Income, etc.)

B. PRESSURE by staff to FORCE a "paying customer" past his own proper rate of progress on org services to meet some arbitrary org goal. (Stat pushes, "quickied" tech, etc.)

C. Problems associated with scientology GROUP THINK overwhelming individual judgement in re study & application of actual scientology practices. (rejection of critical thinking skills, cult-mentality, "if you don't agree you have an m/u", etc.)

ALL of the above are known problems EASILY observed in every church run organization.

When people actually take the time to DO scientology they get wins. All types of wins. Big wins, little wins, modest wins, flamboyant wins, and sometimes "tie me to the chair because I'm about to rocket out of the window" kind of wins.

You can't walk a person hand in hand through every step of their training or auditing. They are the one who has PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY.

They have to use their own judgement. And tech people have to LET them exercise that judgement. The tech person's role is to facilitate, motiviate, & advise. It is NOT "8C" the unwilling, unprepared, & inept.


Personally, I'm sure the Hubbard materials could be improved upon. None of the "official" standard tech auditing courses were ever actually written up as comprehensive texts. They are ALL assembled from other materials and compiled out of chronological sequence with inadequate explanation as to the "why".

None the less, "out-gradient" isn't really a big issue EXCEPT in so far that an individual is placed or pushed on a service for which they are not properly prepared. THAT is NOT because the materials are "out-gradient". :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

[nw2394]

And I'll give another example: someone I know was in the Academy doing a drill with someone. The can squeeze one, I think it was.

I've never really seen the point of that drill. It seems to me to be a drill for people who have no idea of what a meter is, how it works and why you use it.

For a person you've audited recently, you know where to set the sensitivity. For a PC that is new to you, there will be session preliminaries while you get the right sort of can size, check whether the chair is comfortable and such things. When the person opens their mouth to speak, if the sens is set about right you'll get needle motion. If it is set too high you'll have trouble keeping the needle on the dial and you need to set the sens down a bit. If it is set too low you'll get virtually nothing on the needle and you need to jack up the sens a bit. It couldn't be simpler.

To me this squeeze the cans thing is just an unncessary additive. (Indeed, 9 sessions out of 10, the meter itself is an additive you don't need if you just observe the indicators)

Nick

[sandygirl]

:angry: Mark, I have to agree with you.

I did get something out of the courses I took, I would have taken more if the insane pressure to buy,join staff, put in more hours, sell books. etc. was gone.

I spent so much time on my course in the end just being afraid of how I would get out at night! I'd read the same page over and over.( We had a DM "hand-picked" mission there)

When I tried to point out that this type of atmosphere was not for me I had KSW shoved down my throat -WIN OR DIE IN THE ATTEMPT!!!!!!!:angry: :angry: :grouch: :grouch:

Bottom Line-I wasn't that fanatical and I left.

I don't think I'm the only one from the public viewpoint who just got too weirded out by all of the other crap going on. I did like the tech.:confused2:

[Voltaire's Child]

I've never really seen the point of that drill. It seems to me to be a drill for people who have no idea of what a meter is, how it works and why you use it.

For a person you've audited recently, you know where to set the sensitivity. For a PC that is new to you, there will be session preliminaries while you get the right sort of can size, check whether the chair is comfortable and such things. When the person opens their mouth to speak, if the sens is set about right you'll get needle motion. If it is set too high you'll have trouble keeping the needle on the dial and you need to set the sens down a bit. If it is set too low you'll get virtually nothing on the needle and you need to jack up the sens a bit. It couldn't be simpler.

To me this squeeze the cans thing is just an unncessary additive. (Indeed, 9 sessions out of 10, the meter itself is an additive you don't need if you just observe the indicators)

Nick

Well, the person doing the drill was already an interned auditor but it was a checksheet requirement so they had to do it...

So anyway, this person I knew, already knowing how to run a meter, was doing this can squeeze drill with someone and had the other person squeeze his arm the way they were squeezing the cans. So this got roundly condemned as employing an additive. Then five minutes later or less, that same course supv, a Class VIII, also used an additive in showing a student something.

I saw so much robotism even among allegedly highly trained auditors and OTs. I certainly have seen it on the 'net amongs people who hate Scn, don't want to do it anymore, yet are proudly waving their certs (which they don't even have anymore due to being expelled.) down everyone else's throats.

Really, I found very little difference in some of the Ronbots and some of the critics. Brag brag brag about training level, then when push comes to shove, they can't even demonstrate basic understanding of certain Scn principles.

Seems to me that by the time someone's Class VIII, or OT V or above, that they should be able to "duplicate" a Scn concept. Even if they add afterwards or preface it by saying (if they are an ex) that they no longer believe in it.

[Voltaire's Child]

I'm feeling suppressed by your SerFacs. :D

You're not wrong. There IS a lot in scientology, one of it's strengths to my mind actually. The point is that the GRADIENT is there. Basic Comm course, Basic TR's, Study Tech, each of the Levels, NED, etc..

The stuff IS laid out as a slow & easy GRADIENT. So, an individual's failure to duplicate is not generally as a result of there not being a gradient. But I completely agree, it is often not understood. I consider that that is as a result of problems scientologists have as students.

Primary problems scientology students face include:

A. Failure of am individual to recognize his OWN proper rate of progression, whether it is as a student or as a pc.

B. Willingness by staff to let a scientologist progress to a service for which the student is ill-prepared. (Stat pushes: WDAHS, Completions, Org Income, etc.)

B. PRESSURE by staff to FORCE a "paying customer" past his own proper rate of progress on org services to meet some arbitrary org goal. (Stat pushes, "quickied" tech, etc.)

C. Problems associated with scientology GROUP THINK overwhelming individual judgement in re study & application of actual scientology practices. (rejection of critical thinking skills, cult-mentality, "if you don't agree you have an m/u", etc.)

ALL of the above are known problems EASILY observed in every church run organization.

When people actually take the time to DO scientology they get wins. All types of wins. Big wins, little wins, modest wins, flamboyant wins, and sometimes "tie me to the chair because I'm about to rocket out of the window" kind of wins.

You can't walk a person hand in hand through every step of their training or auditing. They are the one who has PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY.

They have to use their own judgement. And tech people have to LET them exercise that judgement. The tech person's role is to facilitate, motiviate, & advise. It is NOT "8C" the unwilling, unprepared, & inept.


Personally, I'm sure the Hubbard materials could be improved upon. None of the "official" standard tech auditing courses were ever actually written up as comprehensive texts. They are ALL assembled from other materials and compiled out of chronological sequence with inadequate explanation as to the "why".

None the less, "out-gradient" isn't really a big issue EXCEPT in so far that an individual is placed or pushed on a service for which they are not properly prepared. THAT is NOT because the materials are "out-gradient". :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker


This is a great post. You make some wonderful points. Maybe the thing that is grabbing me is that people are sometimes rushed through handling their lower (and intermediate) cases and go forward to OT levels too soon. It's weird, too, cuz it sometimes takes EONS to get to do the OT levels.

I also think the church makes it way too hard to do the training. I think it should be streamlined. Not quickied- streamlined. For Academy Levels, I think that doing selected process of 0 through IV and getting provisional certs then doing one huge long internship afterward is insane. It's too long a runway. If people are coauditing to get their grades more cheaply, they often don't get them. I would propose doing Level 0 provisional, then Level 0 internship. Level 1 provisional, then level 1 internship...etc. They could also streamline the OT preps. The OT eliigibility, for example.

[Dulloldfart]

I would propose doing Level 0 provisional, then Level 0 internship. Level 1 provisional, then level 1 internship...etc. They could also streamline the OT preps. The OT eliigibility, for example.

FIVE internships to be a permanent Class IV is supposed to be quicker?

Paul

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, it would help with the coaudit stuff. People could actually do and complete each level. For one thing the internship that they have now is repetitive.Student does every process for every level, having already done selected processes for each. That's repetitive. And lengthy. I've seen people just never get through the internship. It's like this huge lump of stuff. Wouldn't it be easier to actually complete each level as you go along?

It's either that or no internship at all. Do all of Class 0, all of Class 1, etc.

[Leon]

I've never really seen the point of that drill. It seems to me to be a drill for people who have no idea of what a meter is, how it works and why you use it.

For a person you've audited recently, you know where to set the sensitivity. For a PC that is new to you, there will be session preliminaries while you get the right sort of can size, check whether the chair is comfortable and such things. When the person opens their mouth to speak, if the sens is set about right you'll get needle motion. If it is set too high you'll have trouble keeping the needle on the dial and you need to set the sens down a bit. If it is set too low you'll get virtually nothing on the needle and you need to jack up the sens a bit. It couldn't be simpler.

To me this squeeze the cans thing is just an unncessary additive. (Indeed, 9 sessions out of 10, the meter itself is an additive you don't need if you just observe the indicators)

Nick

I agree. :thumbsup:

[Alanzo]

Here's how wikipedia defines an apologist:

Apologists are authors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author), writers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_journal), editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editors) of scientific logs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research) or academic journals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-review), and leaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformism) known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrutiny) or viewed under persecutory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution) examinations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination). The term comes from the Greek word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense.

Read more here: Wikipedia on Apologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologist)

You have given up trying to defend the indefensible in Scientology as time has gone on, but you never miss an opportunity to defend whatever you can.

So don't look now, Fluffy.

But you are a Classic Scientology Apologist.

[Alan]

Isn't a Scientology Apologist - someone who was part of the Scientology cattle boat Apollo crew?

Apollo crew = Apollo-gist!

[Alanzo]

Isn't a Scientology Apologist - someone who was part of the Scientology cattle boat Apollo crew?

Apollo crew = Apollo-gist!

YOU'RE a Scientology Apollo-gist!!!

[Emma]

Here's how wikipedia defines an apologist:

Apologists are authors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author), writers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_journal), editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editors) of scientific logs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research) or academic journals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-review), and leaders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformism) known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrutiny) or viewed under persecutory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution) examinations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination). The term comes from the Greek word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense.

Read more here: Wikipedia on Apologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologist)

You have given up trying to defend the indefensible in Scientology as time has gone on, but you never miss an opportunity to defend whatever you can.

So don't look now, Fluffy.

But you are a Classic Scientology Apologist.

I agree with this and no doubt will be howled down for it. But I don't understand why it is such a bad thing.

In Christian circles an apologist is celebrated and many of them sell lots of books etc.

So I don't understand the "horror" at being called an apologist.

There are many things in Scientology that simply can't be apologised for or explained away. Anyone with any sense doesn't even try. But to come up with theories that suggest that we are all too silly or uneducated to "get" scientology is, in my book, classic apologetics.

[Voltaire's Child]

Because I wasn't called an apologist. I was called a classic Scientology apologist. This is,of course, bullshit and I've proved it in my first post. Plus the context in which it was originally done.

A Classic Scientology apologist would be quite party line and would never admit Hubbard did anything wrong. They aren't just in CofS- I've met them in the Freezone, as well. (See 1st post in this thread.)

I have never had a problem with being called an apologist. Ever. But that's not what I was called, and it's ("CLASSIC Scientology apologist") not what I am. If it were, I'd have a higher approval rating in the Freezone than I do, and possibly even CofS.

[Voltaire's Child]

Isn't a Scientology Apologist - someone who was part of the Scientology cattle boat Apollo crew?

Apollo crew = Apollo-gist!

Well, I bet the ones who stayed in and didn't flee CofS in horror probably really are classic Scn Apollo-gists AND apologists. Cute pun.

[Emma]

I was involved in that chat and I certainly never said "classic" and I don't think Alanzo did either.

Both you and Sneaks refused the label "apologist" for yourself, but now you accept it?

What I actually said was "What you are witnessing is a Scientology apologist on an Ex Scientologists message board. There are bound to be flames".

[jesuslovesxenu]

Having watched Hardeep Singh Kohli's video, I can imagine that it's simple and fundamental, or I can imagine that it (Scientology) is complex and spiritual.

In the particular instance of Scientology, I can't quite imagine that it's both, yet, but someone with more experience might be able to explain that. Or not.

[Tanstaafl]

There are those who will differentiate between CoS-Apologist and Scn-Apologist, and those who won't.

[Alanzo]

I was involved in that chat and I certainly never said "classic" and I don't think Alanzo did either.

Both you and Sneaks refused the label "apologist" for yourself, but now you accept it?

What I actually said was "What you are witnessing is a Scientology apologist on an Ex Scientologists message board. There are bound to be flames".

I don't know what "classic" even means in this sense.

Fluffy?

What's the difference between a "Scn apologist" and a "classic Scn Apologist"?

[Voltaire's Child]

delete

[Zinjifar]

and there are those who will seek to redefine terms so that they won't have to move their own positions, but want to avoid the label.

In fact; isn't that part of 'The Tech'? :)

Zinj

[Voltaire's Child]

I was involved in that chat and I certainly never said "classic" and I don't think Alanzo did either.

Both you and Sneaks refused the label "apologist" for yourself, but now you accept it?

What I actually said was "What you are witnessing is a Scientology apologist on an Ex Scientologists message board. There are bound to be flames".

Yes,actually you did say "classic". And that is what the sticking point was.

I have no problem with being called an apologist but I'm anything but typical or classic. I have never ever denied that label though I think people who get too into affixing labels to others are making a mistake whenever they do so.

[Voltaire's Child]

There are those who will differentiate between CoS-Apologist and Scn-Apologist, and those who won't.

And there are more than a few non CofS Scn'ists who act like typical Ronbots. Never something I wanted to do. That's why I don't get along with the more party line FZers.

[Tanstaafl]

and there are those who will seek to redefine terms so that they won't have to move their own positions, but want to avoid the label.

In fact; isn't that part of 'The Tech'? :)

Zinj

Fair point Zinj.

I was simply trying to (respectfully) point out that this issue dovetails with a lot of stuff that's been rubbed into the ground on ESMB and which, for the most part, left us agreeing to disagree.

[Voltaire's Child]

This term came up the other day. Afterward, I got to thinking. What would that actually be?

To me, it sounds like it means a typical Scientology apologist.

Wouldn't a typical one be a "Ron can do no wrong" type guy or gal? I think it would. I see stuff like that from Scientologists in letters to the editors, or picked up by critics from various sources and reposted. I have also met and talked to Freezoners who felt that way. Don't diss Ron. If he were here, he'd sort everything out. It's only DM who's the problem.

Another trait of the classic Scientology apologists I've seen is to have total and utter faith in the tech and to not admit that Hubbard's claims were and remain exaggerated.

I don't know of anyone here who has that view. I know I don't. I wouldn't want either of the points of view described above. In fact, I've never ever used any of the arguments I've seen the real hide bound Scn'ists in CofS and the Freezone use. I don't believe in most of 'em. I do think that Scn has a lot of brilliance and truth in it, but from there, the hardliners and I part company. I don't believe in everything Hubbard wrote, I don't believe that Scn is the only metaphysical, self help, or other methodology people should try. None of that.

I do think Scn is out-gradient for people, and that includes myself. I posted a topic about that months ago where I posited that as my theory. It's a theory I've been playing with for some months now. But that's not a matter of "you poor slobs don't get it". It's more my observations on the many contradictions in Scn, the fact that LRH threw everything in there, and the many times I've seen trained staff mangle Scn concepts, mangle Scn techniques, as well as the many things I've seen ex members say.

No, no, I leave "classic Scientology apologism" to churchies and some of the more hard line among the Freezoners. At this point, I'm playing with concepts and theories. Since they're theories, I don't have to officially back 'em up. Because they are concepts I'm playing with. All I have to do is say why I think this might be the case. So I really don't need any "classic critics" calling me names.

This is what I posted the other day. Please note the sentence that starts with "but that's not a matter of".

[Emma]

I don't think Fluffy is a CoS apologist. That is obvious. She does speak up against the abuses of the cult.

I did say she was a scientology apologist because she came into chat with a theory that IMHO belittled everyone who rejects the scientology philosophy.

Her "Scientology is out gradient" theory offends me personally. For it to me true means that I never understood it, could never properly apply it and just faked my way through. This is rubbish.

What actually happened is quite different.

I do understand Scientology, I applied at accurately for 9 years and I got some good results on people. But what was also happening was that I was seeing no REAL OTs, no REAL Clears (as per textbook definitions), no STABLE EPs for grades completions, lies from management, people being ripped off and disconnected from their familes and human rights abuses.

So now I'm a critic of Scientology. THAT DOES NOT MEAN I never "got it" or couldn't apply it.

Thank you.

End of rant.

[Emma]

Yes,actually you did say "classic". And that is what the sticking point was.

I have no problem with being called an apologist but I'm anything but typical or classic. I have never ever denied that label though I think people who get too into affixing labels to others are making a mistake whenever they do so.

No I didn't say classic for the simple reason that you aren't a classic anything.

It was the word APOLOGIST that got you so riled up. Now you accept it. Go figure.

[jesuslovesxenu]

This is from the Scienowiki, I thought it was interesting:


It is convenient, although an oversimplification, to broadly look at things like this:

* Churchie - Loves the Church and loves the Tech.
* Freezoner - Hates the Church and loves the Tech.
* Critic - Hates the Church and hates the Tech.
* Int Mgmt - Loves the Church and hates the Tech.

[Tanstaafl]

And there are more than a few non CofS Scn'ists who act like typical Ronbots. Never something I wanted to do. That's why I don't get along with the more party line FZers.

Fanatics is as fanatics does. :)

If someone just calls it as they see it, without flinching from the observable and without defaulting to group agreements, then they're alright by me; whatever their opinion. I know, I've got things wrong before and I will again. :yes: I hope people see that I'm trying to find the truth - whatever the hell that is. :eyeroll:

Anyhoo, I believe that CoS is a much more important issue, socially, than the validity of the tech. Although, Veda may have a point on the OT levels as they are currently presented.

[Zinjifar]

Fanatics is as fanatics does. :)

If someone just calls it as they see it, without flinching from the observable and without defaulting to group agreements, then they're alright by me; whatever their opinion. I know, I've got things wrong before and I will again. :yes: I hope people see that I'm trying to find the truth - whatever the hell that is. :eyeroll:

Anyhoo, I believe that CoS is a much more important issue, socially, than the validity of the tech. Although, Veda may have a point on the OT levels as they are currently presented.

How bout if we all just apologize and say that Fluffy is classic narcissistic victimologist and then move on to the demolition of Ron already in progress?

Zinj

[Voltaire's Child]

I don't think Fluffy is a CoS apologist. That is obvious. She does speak up against the abuses of the cult.

I did say she was a scientology apologist because she came into chat with a theory that IMHO belittled everyone who rejects the scientology philosophy.

Her "Scientology is out gradient" theory offends me personally. For it to me true means that I never understood it, could never properly apply it and just faked my way through. This is rubbish.

What actually happened is quite different.

I do understand Scientology, I applied at accurately for 9 years and I got some good results on people. But what was also happening was that I was seeing no REAL OTs, no REAL Clears (as per textbook definitions), no STABLE EPs for grades completions, lies from management, people being ripped off and disconnected from their familes and human rights abuses.

So now I'm a critic of Scientology. THAT DOES NOT MEAN I never "got it" or couldn't apply it.

Thank you.

End of rant.

I said it included myself and I said it was only a theory I was playing with.And I don't just "speak up about the abuses of the cult".

My theory is none too complimentary about Hubbard or Scn. So you don't like or agree with the theory. I'm not sure I do,either. Just a concept I'm playing with. I'm sure there are other ways for people to tell me they think the theory's all wet without personalizing the issue. In fact, some posts here did just that.

[Voltaire's Child]

This is from the Scienowiki, I thought it was interesting:


Unfortunately, I don't fall into any of those categories.

[Mojo]

A real classic $cn apologist is going to defend CofS no matter what.

That would be a 'Church' of Scientology apologist.


Ron's always right

That would be a Hubbard apologist.


They're not going to condone the use or interest of any Scn'ist in any other methods other than Scn.

That would be a non-sensical statement.


So yeah, there are classic Scn apologists out there

A classic scientology apologist would be one whom does not defend the church and does not defend Ron Hubbard , but does defend scientology aside from the church and aside from Ron Hubbard.

You are a classic scientology apologist Fluffy. With emphasis on the word Classic.

You are not a critic of scientology Fluff. Come on now. You love scientology. You are a critic of the Church of Scientology, and of L. Ron Hubbard. But you are not a critic of scientology. Which is perfectly fine. I seriously doubt if the majority of those protesters all around the world on feb. 10th were critics of scientology itself. Mockers of it? yea. Jokers and Degraders? yea. But they were first and foremost critics of the corrupt management of scientology (read that church) and critics of Hubbard's lies deception cons and fraud.

Fluffy is a Classic Scientology Apologist. Has a nice ring to it. Be proud of it. You are not alone. There's Nick, Leon, Bjorkist and various others here that share your undying devotion and love of scientology as a philosophy/doctrine/cosmology/technology, call it what you will.


name signed with invisible ink to protect the innocent from being ignored.

[Voltaire's Child]

No I didn't say classic for the simple reason that you aren't a classic anything.

It was the word APOLOGIST that got you so riled up. Now you accept it. Go figure.


No, Emma. It was the word "classic" that did. Plus the way in which all that was said. I don't much care about the apologist thingie, though I think it's got some inherent flaws wrt the concept of labelling others.

[Leon]

Wooo Hooooo!:thumbsup: :yes: :happydance:

[Voltaire's Child]

I am now ending my participation in this discussion about what was said in the chat room the other day.

If anyone wants to respond re my theory (which I'm not even sure is correct) re the Academy levels and as to what could be done with the study or practice of the Scn methodology and philosophy to make it less fucked up for people or IF that could even happen, I will gladly read them.

[Björkist]

It's quite productive (and fun) to label other people since it always leads to deeper understanding and blissful harmony.

[Emma]

I just thought of a new label - "distractionist"

[Björkist]

I just thought of a new label - "distractionist"

Whatever contributes to your happiness.

Maybe you could get that in the next edition of the DSM.

[Mark A. Baker]

Having watched Hardeep Singh Kohli's video, I can imagine that it's simple and fundamental, or I can imagine that it (Scientology) is complex and spiritual.

In the particular instance of Scientology, I can't quite imagine that it's both, yet, but someone with more experience might be able to explain that. Or not.

Well, as with any subject, complexity is just a whole lot of simplicities piled on top of each other.


Mark A. Baker:)

[jesuslovesxenu]

Yeah, but none of the simplicities that are showcased in the video seem to have anything to do with (any kind of) spirituality... I'm willing to grant the likelihood of such a thing in some of the complexities, and I'm willing to admit the possibility of spirituality in some of the simplicities, but I can't see any spirituality in any of the "simple things" that are Scientology.

But maybe that's what the simple thing is. He tried to get an explanation and they flatout refused to tell him unless he either found such a thing or made one up. Maybe it's supposed to be a "Tao that can be written..." kind of simple...

[Terril park]

Yeah, but none of the simplicities that are showcased in the video seem to have anything to do with (any kind of) spirituality... I'm willing to grant the likelihood of such a thing in some of the complexities, and I'm willing to admit the possibility of spirituality in some of the simplicities, but I can't see any spirituality in any of the "simple things" that are Scientology.

But maybe that's what the simple thing is. He tried to get an explanation and they flatout refused to tell him unless he either found such a thing or made one up. Maybe it's supposed to be a "Tao that can be written..." kind of simple...

I know the FZ people involved with making that video. When the " Mentor"
told Hardeep he wouldn't audit him he really meant it. Hardeep was a real handful, and that in the end was in large part what made the video so excellent. It was not contrived or staged, it was reality. In the end Max Hauri
percieved that Hardeep could indeed benefit from auditing, and persuaded the " Mentor " of that.

Hardeep got some negative area's with his relationship to his brother
handled. In truth that is an example of spirituality. But Hardeep only dipped a toe into auditing, and had maybe half an hour in total.

After a few hundred hours of auditing one may see more striking gains,
and some that are more obviously " spiritual". You can read the Freezone success stories thread to get a better idea.

Here are the first two axioms of the subject.


Axiom 1 Life is basically a static.

DEFINITION: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

Axiom 2 The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.

[Mark A. Baker]

Yeah, but none of the simplicities that are showcased in the video seem to have anything to do with (any kind of) spirituality... I'm willing to grant the likelihood of such a thing in some of the complexities, and I'm willing to admit the possibility of spirituality in some of the simplicities, but I can't see any spirituality in any of the "simple things" that are Scientology.


The key word in your statement is "seems". Funny thing, often the simplest "least spiritual" things can open whole new and genuinely spiritual vistas.

Reading about processes does not tell you much of anything about how an individual will react to actualy running that process. The only real test possible is to run it.

The "objective processes" in scientology have a particular reputation for producing amazing changes for people. For me they were definitely the basis of my coming to understand myself as a spiritual being and not a flesh & blood organism. I've been exploring that fact through scientology for many years now.

Nor is scientology unique in this. These processes are quite similar to some traditional practices of various Buddhist schools. They serve a similar purpose in Buddhism.

Don't expect "spiritual knowledge" to necessarily come couched in the sort of metaphysical language that has been propagated for centuries in the west. It's often simpler than that.


Mark A. Baker

[Leon]

The Objective Processes are the most OT processes we have.

[PirateAndBum]

The Objective Processes are the most OT processes we have.

I guess I'd have to agree. If you add processes for: Body lifting, telekenisis, remote viewing, instantaneous travel to a desired location, and creative processing (which probably might be argued isn't objective. But if you were hot enough it'd be so :happydance: ) They don't give you those on the lower bridge, in fact nowhere on the current bridge... Bunch a bums! So do my Pirate Bridge - gain true OT abilities now! prices TBD :D

[neiljung]

I guess I'd have to agree. If you add processes for: Body lifting, telekenisis, remote viewing, instantaneous travel to a desired location, and creative processing (which probably might be argued isn't objective. But if you were hot enough it'd be so :happydance: ) They don't give you those on the lower bridge, in fact nowhere on the current bridge... Bunch a bums! So do my Pirate Bridge - gain true OT abilities now! prices TBD :D

Are you asking me out?

[Tanstaafl]

I guess I'd have to agree. If you add processes for: Body lifting, telekenisis, remote viewing, instantaneous travel to a desired location, and creative processing (which probably might be argued isn't objective. But if you were hot enough it'd be so :happydance: ) They don't give you those on the lower bridge, in fact nowhere on the current bridge... Bunch a bums! So do my Pirate Bridge - gain true OT abilities now! prices TBD :D

I had some interesting experiences running someone on bodylifting.
Never got to the whole body off the surface :melodramatic: but doing this drill and asking the pc to lift their arm by beam created a movement that I don't think could be achieved by muscles alone.

I'll sign up for the Pirate Bridge if I get my own parrot and am allowed to say "Arrghh, arrghh, me laddie!". Do we go looking for buried treasure? Oh, no that's been done hasn't it. :whistling:

[dr3k]

A classic apologist is anyone who believes they're still out-ethics and that's why they can't prove that OT powers exist.