PDA

View Full Version : Are Freezoners Scientologists?



The Anabaptist Jacques
17th July 2008, 03:27 AM
I have to disagree with some of the critics who I hold in high esteem. Freezoners are Scientologists, just as Lutherans are Christians. I consider the Freezoners similar to the defrocked monks in the Middle Ages who were liberal thinkers and disenchanted with the hypocrisy in administration by the Catholic Church of Rome. They sold their services as teachers and tutors. There was a special name for them, but it escapes me. Per the Church of Scientology, Freezoners are not Scientologists. Per L. Ron Hubbardís policy they are not Scientologists because they are not in good standing with the Church. The Church may not even know that they are exes, but that still, per Church policy, would not make them Scientologists because to the Church, whether their doubts are discovered by the Church or not, they are in a lower condition.

But I do not use L. Ron Hubbardís viewpoint, or the Church of Scientology ethics decrees in formulating my view. For example, L Ron Hubbard somewhere, I think on the Tony Hitchman interview, said that a Scientologists is anyone who uses Scientology. I donít necessarily buy that either, because this is more evasive reasoning by Hubbard so it can be then argued that there are eight million Scientologists and that Scientology is non-denominational. So I donít care how Hubbard or the Church defines a Scientologist. As a critic, I canít hold the view that Hubbardís thinking is inherently warped and at the same time accept his determination on what is or isnít a Scientologist. How I define a Scientologist is someone who believes it works and uses it. I believe hypnotism sometimes works but I donít use it, so Iím not a hypnotist. So I define a Scientologist as someone who believes it works and uses it.

Also, I noticed that Freezoners still are the effect of, and still use the inconsistent and manipulative reasoning (if you can call it reasoning) of Hubbard and the Church. By manipulative reasoning I do not mean reasoning where the user tries to manipulate the other side, I mean that the reasoning itself manipulates the person to accept the indoctrination. It is not reasoning to arrive at a synthesis; the thinking process used is in itself a self-indoctrinating process. That's why the Scientologist can't see it.
For example, when there is a point about Scientology they disagree with, such as disconnection, some Freezoners will say that Hubbard got it wrong and he was inherently flawed. Yet at the same time they marvel and consider him brilliant and will accept abstract concepts and principles of Hubbard as truth, such as the ARC Triangle. Or they will accept other principles and practices such as the workability of the e-meter. With regards to the technology of Scientology, the Church is consistent, but authoritarian and thereby corrupt, and the Freezone is inconsistent but democratic. But all believe and use Scientology.

So it seems to me that Freezoners can rightfully call themselves Scientologist, but not members of the Church of Scientology. Just as when Martin Luther split from the Catholic Church of Rome he could still call him self a Christian. A personís religion is determined what the person believes and is applying in life. It is not determined by administrative authorities whether it is the Pope or David Miscaviage.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Escalus
17th July 2008, 03:32 AM
I personally don't care if they think of themselves as scientologists or not. Couldn't give less than a damn and don't see why it's even important. They're just very slim customers is all. I have no idea what they believe, and they refuse to tell me. That's a very great mystery to me.

I figure if you're happy about something you'd want to tell the world. And, quite frankly, they can't. Or - at least - I haven't met one yet who can.

Mark A. Baker
17th July 2008, 04:11 AM
I have no idea what they believe, and they refuse to tell me. That's a very great mystery to me.


No mystery, there is no "Freezoner Dogma".

Mostly individual freezoners, like most others, "believe" what they choose to believe. No one answer is possible to your question. [And I even know freezoners who'd disagree with THAT. :) ]


Mark A. Baker

gomorrhan
17th July 2008, 06:37 AM
What FreeZoners believe:

Is entirely up to them. Many "believe" in the standard scientology dogma, and think modern management is just run by an asthmatic dwarf.

Others think that Hubbard was on to something, but wasn't always right, or was only right as often as a stopped clock is right, but that when he was right, he was worth listening to.

However, for a pretty accurate understanding of how most scientologists in the FreeZone believe, just read "The Road to Clear" by Clearbird Publishing.

It's not a mystery. It's scientology, as understood by the parishioners, although perhaps NOT exactly as understood by Hubbard, or by those who are running the organizations. As Veda would say, it's the part of scientology that is the shore story. So long as that's the only part that is engaged in, I find it beneficial and worthwhile, although incapable of delivering "OT", or of creating "Clears".

Veda
17th July 2008, 07:42 AM
What's delivered in the Scientology Freezone is not the Road to Clear, but the Road to Xenu:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=77980&postcount=75

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=104842&postcount=28

gomorrhan
17th July 2008, 01:44 PM
Yes, I know your views regarding this.

However, the book is entitled "The Road to Clear", and that's what most FreeZoners I know relate to. The OT III stuff is, when known, generally regarded as almost unbelievable.

Veda
17th July 2008, 02:56 PM
Wow.

The Scientology Freezone has stopped using L. Ron Hubbard's OT 3 materials. That's quite an announcement.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=101407&postcount=56

Even the "Church" of Scientology thinks it's silly (Go to 5:30):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSS178Q-4eo&feature=related

Alan
17th July 2008, 03:33 PM
So it seems to me that Freezoners can rightfully call themselves Scientologist, but not members of the Church of Scientology. Just as when Martin Luther split from the Catholic Church of Rome he could still call him self a Christian. A person’s religion is determined what the person believes and is applying in life. It is not determined by administrative authorities whether it is the Pope or David Miscaviage.

The Anabaptist Jacques



As most of Scientology has earlier and deeper roots - at best Scio is a Johnny come lately gatherer of much of those earlier deeper roots - once you pierce the Scio Matrix - and get your deeper roots.....being told you are a Scientologist when you obviously are not - then acts as an enforced wrong item.

I've been processesing people on their Own Goals, Own Games and Own Identities for almost 50 years - (of course most of my clients are squirrels) - not once has a client given their Prime Identity the name of "A Scientologist" - nor for that matter "A Freezoner" or "An Independent."

Finding out what you really are, who you really are, what your OWN wants are, what your own Interests are, What Games of your Own trully are, What your OWN Prime Identities are that you need to wear in order to what you love to Be - Do - and Have - are extraordinary steps forward to living a happier life.

Alan

Div6
17th July 2008, 03:34 PM
Wow. Someone with the word "anabaptist" in their nick stirring the pot.

Does any one else see the irony in this?


Civilizations on this planet have a well documented history of vilifying anything they don't understand. For a humorous illustration of this, you can read
Lexicon of Musical Invective: Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven's Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039332009X/qid=1071633751/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-5372442-0423924?v=glance=books)
by Nicolas Slonimsky

It is amazing just how much invective these creative types managed to engender in their time. As an example: "Beethovens Second Symphony is a crass monster, a hideously writhing wounded dragon, that refuses to expire, and though bleeding in the finale furiously beats about with its tail erect."
[Zeitung fur die Elegant Welt, Vienna, May 1804]


TL,DR People will criticize that which they do not understand.
(Cycle of an overt and everything...)

Alan
17th July 2008, 03:37 PM
Double post

Royal Prince Xenu
17th July 2008, 03:38 PM
Nice groomed for TV, but wht a crock! TR0 was out. He was on the hop the whole time looking for answers. This guy is not OSA; he had not been drilled anough deal with the media. His changes of subject were obvious without being blatant. Heber would have done a far better job, and would have had the audience spellbound--so why is he in the SP hall?

Veda
17th July 2008, 03:46 PM
Nice groomed for TV, but wht a crock! TR0 was out. He was on the hop the whole time looking for answers. This guy is not OSA; he had not been drilled anough deal with the media. His changes of subject were obvious without being blatant. Heber would have done a far better job, and would have had the audience spellbound--so why is he in the SP hall?

I tried to find the video of Heber doing his dismissive smirk at the mention of Xenu, but couldn't locate it.

The "Church" of Scientology has OT 3 on its Grade Chart, and the Scientology Freezone promotes itself as an alternative to the "C" of $ for those wanting to do their OT levels (OT 1 - 7 or 8), and both do the "Xenu who?" routine.

What's funny is that neither can get their stories straight.

Or maybe it's sad.

Zinjifar
17th July 2008, 04:18 PM
Wow. Someone with the word "anabaptist" in their nick stirring the pot.

Does any one else see the irony in this?

The irony I see is that, in keeping with TAJ's description of Scientology 'discussion tactics' TAJ himself is being attacked, rather than his discussion points.


TL,DR People will criticize that which they do not understand.
(Cycle of an overt and everything...)

People will also criticize what they *do* understand. Hubbard's 'theory' that understanding = agreement is palpably false.

Zinj

The Anabaptist Jacques
17th July 2008, 04:26 PM
Wow. Someone with the word "anabaptist" in their nick stirring the pot.

Does any one else see the irony in this?


Civilizations on this planet have a well documented history of vilifying anything they don't understand. For a humorous illustration of this, you can read
Lexicon of Musical Invective: Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven's Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039332009X/qid=1071633751/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-5372442-0423924?v=glance=books)
by Nicolas Slonimsky

It is amazing just how much invective these creative types managed to engender in their time. As an example: "Beethovens Second Symphony is a crass monster, a hideously writhing wounded dragon, that refuses to expire, and though bleeding in the finale furiously beats about with its tail erect."
[Zeitung fur die Elegant Welt, Vienna, May 1804]


TL,DR People will criticize that which they do not understand.
(Cycle of an overt and everything...)

I think you're trying to be dismissive of me, but you're comments are a bit non-sequitor within themselves, so I'm not sure. I have been in Scientology for well over 30 years. So I think I know what I'm talking about when I'm talking about my experiences with Scientology.
Hubbard's work is not a symphony. He isn't a Beethoven. The cycle of an overt and everything... is your discursively created, socially constructed, opinion. My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly. This is manifest in how Scientologist and Freezoners reason.
The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges.
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions.
3) The tendency when they canít persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point which the other person may agree with, and try to persuade others they are right by showing their agreement on the point they have switched to.

Your argument seems to fall into the categories I've marked in bold.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Royal Prince Xenu
17th July 2008, 04:38 PM
Scientologically, free zoners are squirrels.

Having read so many materials where the meaning was so much more than the words on the page, I was open to the concept that perhaps Xenu and his story would mean more to someone who was ready to receive that information, but as the story was leaked mroe and more by people who have done it, I came to dismiss it more strongly.

Like The Illusionist said: If BTs are real, why aren't we befriending them, and uniting into a stronger entity?

Div6
17th July 2008, 06:16 PM
I think you're trying to be dismissive of me, but you're comments are a bit non-sequitor within themselves, so I'm not sure. I have been in Scientology for well over 30 years. So I think I know what I'm talking about when I'm talking about my experiences with Scientology.
Hubbard's work is not a symphony. He isn't a Beethoven. The cycle of an overt and everything... is your discursively created, socially constructed, opinion. My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly. This is manifest in how Scientologist and Freezoners reason.
The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges.
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions.
3) The tendency when they canít persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point which the other person may agree with, and try to persuade others they are right by showing their agreement on the point they have switched to.

Your argument seems to fall into the categories I've marked in bold.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I'm not trying to be oblique, I am just wondering of what importance ANY of these labels are. The irony being that Anabaptists, Bogomils, Cathars, and any number of other "schismatic" groups have been singled out in the past and hunted down and killed for "being different". (Does that violate Point #1?)

Hubbards work was "creative". Of what can be legitimately argued, and has been and will be. My point was only that exposure to the unfamiliar can breed strange ideas and alienation.

I also would say that your assertion that "My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly" is a flawed assertion. You could substitute "military" for "scientology" for example, and have an equally arguable statement. But since you made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise it is simply an exercise in demagoguery.

The Anabaptist Jacques
17th July 2008, 06:37 PM
I'm not trying to be oblique, I am just wondering of what importance ANY of these labels are. The irony being that Anabaptists, Bogomils, Cathars, and any number of other "schismatic" groups have been singled out in the past and hunted down and killed for "being different". (Does that violate Point #1?)

Hubbards work was "creative". Of what can be legitimately argued, and has been and will be. My point was only that exposure to the unfamiliar can breed strange ideas and alienation.

I also would say that your assertion that "My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly" is a flawed assertion. You could substitute "military" for "scientology" for example, and have an equally arguable statement. But since you made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise it is simply an exercise in demagoguery.

I think my proof is in the reasoning demonstrated on these discussion boards. I expanded my list of how the debilitated reasoning manifest itself. But your answer itself I believe is some proof. But here goes:
The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges, or reversely, argue that apples canĎt be compared to apples..
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions. By this is meant the tendency to refer to general statements of categories, such as SPs, PTS, 3rd Dynamic, 3rd Party Law, etc., and using these concepts as substitutes for understanding the complexity and nuances of a pluralistic society. This substitution of categories for understanding is evidenced when discussing particular incidents. When referring to particulars they use the abstract concepts for similes.
3) The tendency when they canít persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point, which the other person may agree with, and then try to persuade others that their first point must be right because there is agreement on the point to which they have switched. For example, ďRon is a genius. He gets criticized and attacked. Look how Beethoven was attacked.Ē (Who doesnít think Beethoven was a genius?)
4) The tendency to treat abstract ideas as facts, and to treat facts as abstract ideas.
Watch the arguments made on ESBM by Freezoners and Scientologists and see if you can find examples of what I am talking about.
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you canít take the Scientology out of the person.

The list will probably expand. As far as Scientology being the cause of it, I am working on that. To show that will take more than a few lines.

If it seems that I am smug about this, I apologize. I don't feel smug. I feel what many people do when they realize that an awful lot of good people with good intentins where tricked, coerced, belittled, and then cast aside. So there is a tinge of contempt to those who try to apologize for the crimes. Also, it doesn't make me pleased to see the warp reasoning displayed by Scientologists and many exes who still practice and believe in Scientology display. Its a human and social tragedy really. And I really despise the hubris that Scientologist display. Scientology is applied fascism as far as I'm concerned. Maybe some day I'll write a book about it. Maybe, thanks to others, I won't have to.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Mick Wenlock
17th July 2008, 06:39 PM
I have to disagree with some of the critics who I hold in high esteem. Freezoners are Scientologists, just as Lutherans are Christians.

...

So it seems to me that Freezoners can rightfully call themselves Scientologist, but not members of the Church of Scientology. Just as when Martin Luther split from the Catholic Church of Rome he could still call him self a Christian. A personís religion is determined what the person believes and is applying in life. It is not determined by administrative authorities whether it is the Pope or David Miscaviage.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Catholics and Lutherans et al are all Christians. But that argument does not then validate the "FZers are Scientologists" - Lutherans are NOT Catholics, for example.

That the CofS and the FZers both sort of believe in Hubbard's drivel would make them Hubbardians (Hubbardists, Drivellists?) or some such generic term. Scientologists are, IMHO, the label that Hubbard, as the originator of the term, is free to decide how it should be bestowed. When Luther and his followers left the Roman Catholic Church they did not call themselves Catholics.

Zinjifar
17th July 2008, 06:43 PM
I also would say that your assertion that "My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly" is a flawed assertion. You could substitute "military" for "scientology" for example, and have an equally arguable statement.

I think this assertion would fit within TAJ's #1, but, my description/name for that particular 'handling method' would be - 'It's All The Same', something one hears repeatedly from Scientologists attempting to justify what is obviously indefensible.

It involves reducing any criticism/argument to a low enough 'common denominator' that, for example, an H-Bomb is the equivalent of a popped cork, or calling someone a doo-doohead is the equivalent of gassing them in ovens.

It's All The Same

Zinj

The Anabaptist Jacques
17th July 2008, 06:49 PM
Catholics and Lutherans et al are all Christians. But that argument does not then validate the "FZers are Scientologists" - Lutherans are NOT Catholics, for example.

That the CofS and the FZers both sort of believe in Hubbard's drivel would make them Hubbardians (Hubbardists, Drivellists?) or some such generic term. Scientologists are, IMHO, the label that Hubbard, as the originator of the term, is free to decide how it should be bestowed. When Luther and his followers left the Roman Catholic Church they did not call themselves Catholics.

Good point. I lump them together for two reasons: They practice their brand of Scientology just like the Lutherns practice their brand of Christianity. So I distinquished between Scientology as concepts and the Church of Scientology as an administrated organizational structure. If they are using Scientology, and auditing Scientology, then they are Scientologist. In the American Civil War both sides considered themselves true inheritors of American ideas. But if Freezoners quack like Scientologist, walk like Scientologist, and audit Scientology processes, they're Scientologist, regardless of what some orthodox Church ethics officer thinks. (Hell, both sides think they are the orthodox ones.)
Having said all that, I still think both grooups are batshit crazy for using Scientology.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Div6
17th July 2008, 06:56 PM
I think this assertion would fit within TAJ's #1, but, my description/name for that particular 'handling method' would be - 'It's All The Same', something one hears repeatedly from Scientologists attempting to justify what is obviously indefensible.

It involves reducing any criticism/argument to a low enough 'common denominator' that, for example, an H-Bomb is the equivalent of a popped cork, or calling someone a doo-doohead is the equivalent of gassing them in ovens.

It's All The Same

Zinj

I see it more as "Fallacy of False Cause". But then, its all just opinion...

The Anabaptist Jacques
17th July 2008, 07:02 PM
Christ! Can we have a bell go off or something, every time somebody does that?

The Anabaptist Jacques

Div6
17th July 2008, 07:02 PM
I think my proof is in the reasoning demonstrated on these discussion boards. I expanded my list of how the debilitated reasoning manifest itself. But your answer itself I believe is some proof. But here goes:
The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges, or reversely, argue that apples canĎt be compared to apples..
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions. By this is meant the tendency to refer to general statements of categories, such as SPs, PTS, 3rd Dynamic, 3rd Party Law, etc., and using these concepts as substitutes for understanding the complexity and nuances of a pluralistic society. This substitution of categories for understanding is evidenced when discussing particular incidents. When referring to particulars they use the abstract concepts for similes.
3) The tendency when they canít persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point, which the other person may agree with, and then try to persuade others that their first point must be right because there is agreement on the point to which they have switched. For example, ďRon is a genius. He gets criticized and attacked. Look how Beethoven was attacked.Ē (Who doesnít think Beethoven was a genius?)
4) The tendency to treat abstract ideas as facts, and to treat facts as abstract ideas.
Watch the arguments made on ESBM by Freezoners and Scientologists and see if you can find examples of what I am talking about.
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you canít take the Scientology out of the person.

The list will probably expand. As far as Scientology being the cause of it, I am working on that. To show that will take more than a few lines.

If it seems that I am smug about this, I apologize. I don't feel smug. I feel what many people do when they realize that an awful lot of good people with good intentins where tricked, coerced, belittled, and then cast aside. So there is a tinge of contempt to those who try to apologize for the crimes. Also, it doesn't make me pleased to see the warp reasoning displayed by Scientologists and many exes who still practice and believe in Scientology display. Its a human and social tragedy really. And I really despise the hubris that Scientologist display. Scientology is applied fascism as far as I'm concerned. Maybe some day I'll write a book about it. Maybe, thanks to others, I won't have to.

The Anabaptist Jacques


Embrace your anger....FEEL the Power of the Force....:)

Hubbard was very up front about this...."Confusion and the Stable Datum".

The datum "handles" the confusion....until it is disproved. He even mentions in Level 1 materials that what a Scngst is doing is removing "aberrated" stable data and replacing them with "more workable" stable data.

So, if you wish to nuke people for using Hubbard "data" as "stable data", then good luck to you sir.

(Note: I agree that the CoS in its current incarnation is an abomination. But I do find value in "the tech"...some of it anyway. Hell, the Comm cycle is the foundation...could this board even function without that?)

Zinjifar
17th July 2008, 07:06 PM
Good point. I lump them together for two reasons: They practice their brand of Scientology just like the Lutherns practice their brand of Christianity. So I distinquished between Scientology as concepts and the Church of Scientology as an administrated organizational structure. If they are using Scientology, and auditing Scientology, then they are Scientologist. In the American Civil War both sides considered themselves true inheritors of American ideas. But if Freezoners quack like Scientologist, walk like Scientologist, and audit Scientology processes, they're Scientologist, regardless of what some orthodox Church ethics officer thinks. (Hell, both sides think they are the orthodox ones.)
Having said all that, I still think both grooups are batshit crazy for using Scientology.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I would agree with the lumping together, but, not for the same reason. Whether 'in' the 'Church' or not, I would see anyone as a Scientologist who accepts *all* of Scientology as L. Ron Hubbard intended it. Admittedly, there is the tiny problem of believing yourself to be the true Scientologist outside the 'Church' that Ron founded and organized and left behind, but, I can accept sectarian differences if one assumes that *otherwise*, both groups accept all of Scientology. Including *everything*; in which case, the 'Freezone Scientologists' would be as damnable as the 'Church' and its current management.

Admittedly, their actual crimes and abuses come nowhere near those of the 'Church' of Scientology or Ron Himself, but, if we are to accept faithful adherence to Hubbard's word, that would be more a case of capability than intent.

They would if they could, but they can't, so they don't.

Zinj

The Anabaptist Jacques
17th July 2008, 07:07 PM
Embrace your anger....FEEL the Power of the Force....:)

Hubbard was very up front about this...."Confusion and the Stable Datum".

The datum "handles" the confusion....until it is disproved. He even mentions in Level 1 materials that what a Scngst is doing is removing "aberrated" stable data and replacing them with "more workable" stable data.

So, if you wish to nuke people for using Hubbard "data" as "stable data", then good luck to you sir.

(Note: I agree that the CoS in its current incarnation is an abomination. But I do find value in "the tech"...some of it anyway. Hell, the Comm cycle is the foundation...could this board even function without that?)

Do you think because a person strongly disagrees with you that they want to nuke you? And if you do, do you think that is logical? Do you not see that the tech on stable data that you refer to is discursively created? And that you and other Scientologist make it a social construct? While this is true with other things as well, it seems it is only Scientologist who have the hubris to think that they are above it all---as they wreck people's lives. Are not all the suicides a stable datum for you?

The Anabaptist Jacques

Zinjifar
17th July 2008, 07:13 PM
(Note: I agree that the CoS in its current incarnation is an abomination. But I do find value in "the tech"...some of it anyway. Hell, the Comm cycle is the foundation...could this board even function without that?)

Holy Christ.

Ron's 'Comm Cycle' is what allows ESMB to function?

..and, the earth goes around the sun because Ron thought so.

Zinj

Escalus
17th July 2008, 07:16 PM
er... the "My Dinner With Terril" thread is NOT the comm cycle! It's more like a comm scooter...

The Anabaptist Jacques
17th July 2008, 07:19 PM
By the way, I want to add another trait. HYPERBOLE!

Div6,
Don't you see how ridiculous your reasoning is? This is exactly what we are talking about.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Pixie
17th July 2008, 07:34 PM
Scientologically, free zoners are squirrels.

Like The Illusionist said: If BTs are real, why aren't we befriending them, and uniting into a stronger entity?

Scientology convinced us we had a 'case', and that we need 'auditing' and all the rest, so now we hear in so many words, "well I was the victim of a very dangerous cult, ron was a very bad man, I'm going to go out and protest.... but I'm still going to get auditing and apply ron's tech...but don't get confused, cos I'm not a scientologist, I've changed my label, but I'll continue up the bridge to total freedom". :confused2: :duh: :no:

None of this makes any sense to me. One either agrees with $camology or one doesn't, end of story, and even if one agrees with only bits 'n' pieces of it, then the mind indoctrinating cult has done it's job very well indeed in keeping that cultic personality stuck right there defending the mindfuck to the last.

Div6
17th July 2008, 07:36 PM
Holy Christ.

Ron's 'Comm Cycle' is what allows ESMB to function?

..and, the earth goes around the sun because Ron thought so.

Zinj

Gawd.

YOU injected "ron".


Does he own your comm cycle?

He win it in a poker game?

THis gives a whole new dimension to the work MoRon....:)

Div6
17th July 2008, 07:39 PM
By the way, I want to add another trait. HYPERBOLE!

Div6,
Don't you see how ridiculous your reasoning is? This is exactly what we are talking about.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Um....I'm not going around calling people batshit crazy.

And tell me, how does one exist in a "religion" for 30 years and then come out the other end calling it a "mindfuck".
Where is the personal integrity and reasoning in that?

EP - Ethics Particle
17th July 2008, 07:42 PM
This I KNOW!

A martini would do me a world of good!:cheers2:

Particularly after this discussion.

$cn will not help with that - will it?:no:

The Anabaptist Jacques
17th July 2008, 07:45 PM
Um....I'm not going around calling people batshit crazy.

And tell me, how does one exist in a "religion" for 30 years and then come out the other end calling it a "mindfuck".
Where is the personal integrity in that?

Becasue I was batshit crazy too, once. I was as crazy as the rest. But I started reading non-fiction books that LRH didn't write. Books in history and philosophy and science. I didn't know about all the suicides and child molesting. And when I did, that was enough to seal it for me. What is your excuse?

The Anabaptist Jacques

olska
17th July 2008, 07:48 PM
My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly. This is manifest in how Scientologist and Freezoners reason.

I think my proof is in the reasoning demonstrated on these discussion boards. I expanded my list of how the debilitated reasoning manifest itself.
...
The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges, or reversely, argue that apples canĎt be compared to apples..
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions. By this is meant the tendency to refer to general statements of categories, such as SPs, PTS, 3rd Dynamic, 3rd Party Law, etc., and using these concepts as substitutes for understanding the complexity and nuances of a pluralistic society. This substitution of categories for understanding is evidenced when discussing particular incidents. When referring to particulars they use the abstract concepts for similes.
3) The tendency when they canít persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point, which the other person may agree with, and then try to persuade others that their first point must be right because there is agreement on the point to which they have switched. For example, ďRon is a genius. He gets criticized and attacked. Look how Beethoven was attacked.Ē (Who doesnít think Beethoven was a genius?)
4) The tendency to treat abstract ideas as facts, and to treat facts as abstract ideas.
...
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you canít take the Scientology out of the person.
...
If it seems that I am smug about this, I apologize. I don't feel smug. I feel what many people do when they realize that an awful lot of good people with good intentins where tricked, coerced, belittled, and then cast aside. So there is a tinge of contempt to those who try to apologize for the crimes. Also, it doesn't make me pleased to see the warp reasoning displayed by Scientologists and many exes who still practice and believe in Scientology display. Its a human and social tragedy really. And I really despise the hubris that Scientologist display.

I have made similar observations drawn similar conclusions to what you have so articulately stated on this thread.



My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly. This is manifest in how Scientologist and Freezoners reason.
...
As far as Scientology being the cause of it, I am working on that. To show that will take more than a few lines.

I agree that scientology "training and processing" debilitates a person's ability to reason; however I'm not so sure it is the original cause. I think it may be that scientology appeals to and attracts people whose ability to reason/ critical thinking skills are already flawed or underdeveloped; further involvement often makes this worse.

The lack of such skills may be one common denominator amongst those who fall for the scam, one of the factors which separates the few who stay "in" from the many who leave immediately or after only a brief introduction to the subject and the madness which surrounds it.

That is not to say that all the many who don't fall for the con have wonderfully developed critical thinking skills, because they don't. Here in the USA, only rarely does anyone in the public schools actually teach reasoning or critical thinking skills. Those skills are not part of the curriculum and are tapped ONLY because here and there a teacher in the system has the cojones, the energy, and the zeal to go "against the grain" and try to teach children reasoning and judgment along with and alongside their normal curriculum.

Interestingly, some of the most "dedicated" and fanatical long-term scientologists I've personally known had very little actual training or auditing, even after many years (some most of a lifetime!) of involvement. Yet they were "true believers" in the "movement" and quite "obedient" -- that is, not inclined to question, or make any waves, and quick to close their eyes and ears at any hint of "entheta."

And, I'm often amazed by how little some of those on this and other forums who call themselves "scientologists" (freezone, indie, non-CoS, or whatever) actually know about the subject they are so avidly defending.

For me, this would point to an earlier cause, a predisposition if you will, which imo certainly is exacerbated by "training and processing."

The Anabaptist Jacques
17th July 2008, 07:51 PM
I have made similar observations drawn similar conclusions to what you have so articulately stated on this thread.



I agree that scientology "training and processing" debilitates a person's ability to reason; however I'm not so sure it is the original cause. I think it may be that scientology appeals to and attracts people whose ability to reason/ critical thinking skills are already flawed or underdeveloped; further involvement often makes this worse.

The lack of such skills may be one common denominator amongst those who fall for the scam, one of the factors which separates the few who stay "in" from the many who leave immediately or after only a brief introduction to the subject and the madness which surrounds it.

That is not to say that all the many who don't fall for the con have wonderfully developed critical thinking skills, because they don't. Here in the USA, only rarely does anyone in the public schools actually teach reasoning or critical thinking skills. Those skills are not part of the curriculum and are tapped ONLY because here and there a teacher in the system has the cojones, the energy, and the zeal to go "against the grain" and try to teach children reasoning and judgment along with and alongside their normal curriculum.

Interestingly, some of the most "dedicated" and fanatical long-term scientologists I've personally known had very little actual training or auditing, even after many years (some most of a lifetime!) of involvement. Yet they were "true believers" in the "movement" and quite "obedient" -- that is, not inclined to question, or make any waves, and quick to close their eyes and ears at any hint of "entheta."

And, I'm often amazed by how little some of those on this and other forums who call themselves "scientologists" (freezone, indie, non-CoS, or whatever) actually know about the subject they are so avidly defending.

For me, this would point to an earlier cause, a predisposition if you will, which imo certainly is exacerbated by "training and processing."

I'm inclined to agree with you. There is a strong emotional element to it too. And the emotional and psychological imperatives can easily trump the reasoning.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Terril park
17th July 2008, 07:57 PM
Scientologically, free zoners are squirrels.

Having read so many materials where the meaning was so much more than the words on the page, I was open to the concept that perhaps Xenu and his story would mean more to someone who was ready to receive that information, but as the story was leaked mroe and more by people who have done it, I came to dismiss it more strongly.

Like The Illusionist said: If BTs are real, why aren't we befriending them, and uniting into a stronger entity?

Perhaps they also state " We are not your personal army. " :)

olska
17th July 2008, 08:28 PM
And tell me, how does one exist in a "religion" for 30 years and then come out the other end calling it a "mindfuck".
Where is the personal integrity and reasoning in that?

It's a relatively simple set of steps that can happen over a really short time, or a rather long time (even as long as 30 years). It goes like this:

1) One gets caught up in the "bubble" of the so-called "religion" because it is DESIGNED to distract one from all other areas of life (reading other works, having "other fish to fry," etc.), because it actively SUPPRESSES many, many facts about its origins and its operations by way of "information management," and because manipulative techniques are used to make the "religion" APPEAR to be a wonderful thing.

That's the "mindfuck" part. It happens early on, but since by its very nature it is a "mindfuck," it doesn't become obvious until later.

2) Then some unpleasant facts leak into the bubble.

3) The participant notices more and more little "outpoints" as they accumulate.

4) The participant experiences "cognitive dissonance" and suspects there may be more to this story than meets the eye.

5) The participant does some research, and thanks to the availability of information made possible largely by the internet (a recent historical development) discovers the layers of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and manipulation outside the "bubble."

That's the "reasoning" part. It can happen quickly, or it can happen over an extended period of time -- depends on a variety of factors including intelligence, education level, the availability of information, the depth of the person's involvement, the extent of the person's contact with influences outside the "bubble," and many more that could be mentioned.

6) Upon discovering the whole truth about the so-called "religion" -- the Founder's true intentions, the unsavory activities carried on outside the "bubble," the manipulative techniques intentionally used for the "mindfuck" part, the participant makes a stand against the ugly truths and unsavory activities and denounces them.

That's the "personal integrity" part.

Voltaire's Child
17th July 2008, 08:52 PM
I personally don't care if they think of themselves as scientologists or not. Couldn't give less than a damn and don't see why it's even important. They're just very slim customers is all. I have no idea what they believe, and they refuse to tell me. That's a very great mystery to me.

I figure if you're happy about something you'd want to tell the world. And, quite frankly, they can't. Or - at least - I haven't met one yet who can.

Well, what they call themselves may not be important to you- but enough people have brought it up in such a way as to suggest that they feel strongly about it enough to try to tell people what they can and cannot call themselves.

If you have any questions I can answer about beliefs, I will try to be as frank as possible. I'm not a Freezoner but I am another type of heretical Scn'ist, so maybe I can answer some questions you have, if you are inclined to ask them.

Voltaire's Child
17th July 2008, 08:53 PM
Becasue I was batshit crazy too, once. I was as crazy as the rest. But I started reading non-fiction books that LRH didn't write. Books in history and philosophy and science.



Hi, AJ,

I did that, too. Even when I was still a member...

Mick Wenlock
17th July 2008, 09:01 PM
Good point. I lump them together for two reasons: They practice their brand of Scientology just like the Lutherns practice their brand of Christianity. So I distinquished between Scientology as concepts and the Church of Scientology as an administrated organizational structure. If they are using Scientology, and auditing Scientology, then they are Scientologist. In the American Civil War both sides considered themselves true inheritors of American ideas. But if Freezoners quack like Scientologist, walk like Scientologist, and audit Scientology processes, they're Scientologist, regardless of what some orthodox Church ethics officer thinks. (Hell, both sides think they are the orthodox ones.)
Having said all that, I still think both grooups are batshit crazy for using Scientology.

The Anabaptist Jacques
Oh I agree with you - the reason I keep drawing the distinction is an important one.

On several threads the assertion has been made, correctly, that a Scientologist cannot be critical of Scientology without leaving it. Fluffy has been one of the major people trying to refute that by saying "well I'm a scientologist and I am critical".

What is even funnier about that is that Fluffy, back when she first came on to the internet, was, indeed on lines and part of her posting "rationale" was an effort to show how real scientologists could engage in free thinking and public debate.

She was declared and expelled for doing it. She is indeed a woman of principle. I admire her greatly for it.

The clue should be, for FZers and Fluff agreers , the phrase "woman of principle". It is impossible to be a person of principle and be a scientologist.

Contrariwise I would suspect that it could be possible to be a Free Zoner and a person of principle.

Pixie
17th July 2008, 09:18 PM
Oh I agree with you - the reason I keep drawing the distinction is an important one.

On several threads the assertion has been made, correctly, that a Scientologist cannot be critical of Scientology without leaving it. Fluffy has been one of the major people trying to refute that by saying "well I'm a scientologist and I am critical".

What is even funnier about that is that Fluffy, back when she first came on to the internet, was, indeed on lines and part of her posting "rationale" was an effort to show how real scientologists could engage in free thinking and public debate.

She was declared and expelled for doing it. She is indeed a woman of principle. I admire her greatly for it.

The clue should be, for FZers and Fluff agreers , the phrase "woman of principle". It is impossible to be a person of principle and be a scientologist.

Contrariwise I would suspect that it could be possible to be a Free Zoner and a person of principle.

Well said Mick.. :clap: I couldn't have put it better myself..

Div6
17th July 2008, 09:53 PM
It's a relatively simple set of steps that can happen over a really short time, or a rather long time (even as long as 30 years). It goes like this:

1) One gets caught up in the "bubble" of the so-called "religion" because it is DESIGNED to distract one from all other areas of life (reading other works, having "other fish to fry," etc.), because it actively SUPPRESSES many, many facts about its origins and its operations by way of "information management," and because manipulative techniques are used to make the "religion" APPEAR to be a wonderful thing.

That's the "mindfuck" part. It happens early on, but since by its very nature it is a "mindfuck," it doesn't become obvious until later.

2) Then some unpleasant facts leak into the bubble.

3) The participant notices more and more little "outpoints" as they accumulate.

4) The participant experiences "cognitive dissonance" and suspects there may be more to this story than meets the eye.

5) The participant does some research, and thanks to the availability of information made possible largely by the internet (a recent historical development) discovers the layers of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and manipulation outside the "bubble."

That's the "reasoning" part. It can happen quickly, or it can happen over an extended period of time -- depends on a variety of factors including intelligence, education level, the availability of information, the depth of the person's involvement, the extent of the person's contact with influences outside the "bubble," and many more that could be mentioned.

6) Upon discovering the whole truth about the so-called "religion" -- the Founder's true intentions, the unsavory activities carried on outside the "bubble," the manipulative techniques intentionally used for the "mindfuck" part, the participant makes a stand against the ugly truths and unsavory activities and denounces them.

That's the "personal integrity" part.

Right. Exactly.

Now, in making a stand against the ugly truths and unsavory acitivities, is it more productive to use exact time place form and event of such, or emotionally tinged generalities?

I prefer the former....I find the latter demagoguery, or an effort to suppress, after inviting understanding.

olska
17th July 2008, 10:29 PM
Now, in making a stand against the ugly truths and unsavory acitivities, is it more productive to use exact time place form and event of such, or emotionally tinged generalities?

I wonder what you mean by "emotionally tinged generalities?" Maybe you could provide an example. Is that code for the scientology term "Human Emotion and Reaction?"

Could any person, any human being, make a stand against the ugly truth and unsavory activities of an organization which had manipulated and duped them so as to take from them years of their life, their financial resources, perhaps their family and friends, and most certainly their sense of honor and integrity WITHOUT some expression of emotion?

I seriously doubt that possibility, nor would I expect it -- in fact, since emotions are such an integral part of human life, I'd find it really odd.

Div6
17th July 2008, 11:49 PM
I wonder what you mean by "emotionally tinged generalities?" Maybe you could provide an example. Is that code for the scientology term "Human Emotion and Reaction?"

Could any person, any human being, make a stand against the ugly truth and unsavory activities of an organization which had manipulated and duped them so as to take from them years of their life, their financial resources, perhaps their family and friends, and most certainly their sense of honor and integrity WITHOUT some expression of emotion?

I seriously doubt that possibility, nor would I expect it -- in fact, since emotions are such an integral part of human life, I'd find it really odd.

How about "My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly" ?
Without specifics, its an emotionally tinged generality. The "ARC Break" mechanism so thouroughly covered on Acad Level III. You can't audit over them, if you do the PC will get worse.

I DO expect expression of emotion. Something is terribly wrong if there IS no expression of such. BUT when countering injustice, time place form and event is also needed.

Zinjifar
17th July 2008, 11:51 PM
They don't call it MindFuck for nuthin.

Zinj

Voltaire's Child
18th July 2008, 01:02 AM
Div 6, I think that all the "rudiments" are just really one kind, even though they are presented as several. Every single one of them, if "out"- is a "present time problem". (Hey, yo, it's ok for me to use Scn-ese cuz I'm in the FZ section. Plus, I put those phrases in quotes so as not to alarm the delicate sensibilities of others.) Every single one of those things would pull the pc's attention away from case/session, etc.

Voltaire's Child
18th July 2008, 01:16 AM
As most of Scientology has earlier and deeper roots - at best Scio is a Johnny come lately gatherer of much of those earlier deeper roots - once you pierce the Scio Matrix - and get your deeper roots.....being told you are a Scientologist when you obviously are not - then acts as an enforced wrong item.




It's also bad for someone to be told they are not something when they are. It comes down to-- people shouldn't tell other people what to do or be or what that person IS. There's Scn-ese for that, but I'm sure y'all know that already.

Voltaire's Child
18th July 2008, 01:21 AM
I wonder what you mean by "emotionally tinged generalities?" Maybe you could provide an example. Is that code for the scientology term "Human Emotion and Reaction?"

Could any person, any human being, make a stand against the ugly truth and unsavory activities of an organization which had manipulated and duped them so as to take from them years of their life, their financial resources, perhaps their family and friends, and most certainly their sense of honor and integrity WITHOUT some expression of emotion?

I seriously doubt that possibility, nor would I expect it -- in fact, since emotions are such an integral part of human life, I'd find it really odd.


Making a stand against something would not preclude a show of emotion about that subject or thing.

The only time "human emotion and reaction" can constitute a problem is if it gets in the way of what one is doing. If it's appropriate for the given situation, then it's not a problem. If it gets in the way, then it's not appropriate for that situation, and so it is a problem.

I don't think it's a good idea (and this harkens back to an earlier discussion) where someone frequently cries at work or throws tantrums at the grocery store or jerks off in class amidst many expressions of incandescent joy amidst that activity. But there are situations where the cries of grief, even the occasional tantrum (I'd throw a big freaking tantrum if the Mansonettes broke into my house and were going to kill me anyway. You'd better believe they'd get an earful before they finally dispatched me. Heh.) or the shouts of orgasmic glee would be not only appropriate but expected- even...um....required in some cases.

Voltaire's Child
18th July 2008, 01:22 AM
So it boils down to this as a criterion (IMO)

"What is the person trying to accomplish?"

Free to shine
18th July 2008, 01:52 AM
Holy Christ.

Ron's 'Comm Cycle' is what allows ESMB to function?

..and, the earth goes around the sun because Ron thought so.

Zinj

:duh: :hysterical:

olska
18th July 2008, 01:54 AM
How about "My point has been that scientology training and processing debilitates a person's ability to reason properly" ?
Without specifics, its an emotionally tinged generality.

Well the statement you reference above is an opinion, and is a statement of the author's observations and conclusion, which was accompanied by several detailed specific points illustrating how and why that particular author had arrived at that particular opinion/conclusion.

So while I personally wouldn't view that statement as "an emotionally tinged generality," I see that you do, and as I did ask you for the example, I thank you for replying with an example of what to you looks like "an emotionally tinged generality."

Now, back to your statement ...[The bracketed phrase within the quote below is to remind or apprise readers of my previous statement to which your quoted statement refers.]


Now, in making a stand against the ugly truths and unsavory acitivities [as an act of recovering ones personal integrity], is it more productive to use exact time place form and event of such, or emotionally tinged generalities?

I'm going to take a chance and guess that when you used the word productive in the quote above you actually meant effective, since no "production" was under discussion. (If I'm wrong about that, feel free to delineate what "production" you were referring to.)

As to which is more effective in making a stand regarding one's principles and values -- delineating the exact time place form and event of ugly truths and unsavory activities, or speaking in what you view as emotionally tinged generalities -- that completely depends on the audience and the context.

If you're both the speaker and the audience (as in working things out for yourself in a journal or internal dialogue) the important point is not in how you communicate the ugly truths and unsavory activities, but only that you recognize those as being contrary to your own core values and reject them. Thus it is that one "recovers" and renews one's own personal integrity.

Which is what you asked about several posts back when you posed this question:


And tell me, how does one exist in a "religion" for 30 years and then come out the other end calling it a "mindfuck". Where is the personal integrity and reasoning in that?

If you're giving a speech or writing an opinion piece intended to inform, inspire, and/or rally a general audience, then emotionally tinged generalized summaries of personal observations, discoveries, beliefs, experiences, opinions and conclusions fit perfectly in that occasion.

Whereas, if you're writing a scholarly research paper or presenting a case in a court of law, the exact factual time place form and event would be essential.


The "ARC Break" mechanism so thouroughly covered on Acad Level III. You can't audit over them, if you do the PC will get worse.

I don't know where you're going with that statement, or what it has to do with recovering or renewing one's personal integrity after having been aligned with a group that has manipulated one through deceptive practices, so please enlighten me on its relevance.


I DO expect expression of emotion. Something is terribly wrong if there IS no expression of such. BUT when countering injustice, time place form and event is also needed

You're right -- "countering injustice" is well served by the facts of time place form and event, especially if one is dealing with the justice system, courts of law, and the like. But is that the subject of this discussion thread? If so, I missed it.

Div6
18th July 2008, 02:20 PM
Further fragmenting the quotes is getting a bit much for me, hopefully I will address your questions.

Re: Production. Back in my day I spent time as an ARCX auditor. Basically, I would go visit people at their homes (the guys the Reg's crushed sold, or whatever..). The whole idea was to "cure" the ARC X. To find the correct source of "by passed charge". The idea being that if it was truly found, the ARCX would disappear. This was a production post. There were unreal expectations (ie: the people would then come running back in to the org, check book in hand, etc). And while there were a FEW cycles like that, most often it took quite some doing to get some one to even agree to go "back on the cans".

So I was looking at it from the old viewpoint. "Effective" is a good word too, it depends upon what the "outcome" is that you are aiming for.

Re: "the ARC Break Mechanism". There is a "cycle of recovery" that is talked about in recovery circles.....Denial, Shock & Disbelief, Anger and Personal Responsibility. Below "Personal Responsibility" we see LOW or NO ARC for the subject or area. (http://www.drirene.com/victim_recovery.htm is just one of MANY pages about this.) Where I was going with that is that often you have to allow the person to come up through their anger, etc before you can even begin to address the "personal responsibility" issues.

As for injustice...it goes back to my "observation" that the statement made was made more out of emotion than reason. I would love to see the discourse that supports that assertion. But to me, it seems more an opinion arising out of the Anger band of recovery from a "destructive cult". So the cycle has a way to go yet (imho). Your mileage may vary.

olska
18th July 2008, 04:45 PM
Re: "the ARC Break Mechanism". There is a "cycle of recovery" that is talked about in recovery circles.....Denial, Shock & Disbelief, Anger and Personal Responsibility. Below "Personal Responsibility" we see LOW or NO ARC for the subject or area. (http://www.drirene.com/victim_recovery.htm is just one of MANY pages about this.)

Thanks for clarifying for me your reference to the "ARC Break Mechanism" from your previous post. I find it most interesting that you would pick that particular reference (see link above) as an illustration of your statement ...


Where I was going with that is that often you have to allow the person to come up through their anger, etc before you can even begin to address the "personal responsibility" issues.

I would agree that there are parallels between Dr. Irene's "Victim's Stages of Recovery" [from abusive relationships] and the process of recovering from involvement in a destructive cult. The following (in red) is quoted directly from that site:

Recovery from codependent victimhood usually occurs in a series of often overlapping stages. Here is a rough outline of what you may expect, though each individual is different:

Duh... Denial Stage. The victim is relatively brain dead here. Your energy is spent on justifying your abuser, working overtime to "make him or her happy," and hiding the truth from yourself. You often pay with physical and / or emotional symptoms. Your self-esteem is non-existent.

The wording belongs to "Dr. Irene," the bold emphasis is mine. Applying this to the stages of "recovery" from scientology (or other similar cults) I would place most "practicing scientologists," who continue to follow LRH ideas and/or agenda, in or out of the CoS, at this stage.

Regarding the accuracy of the last sentence, your self-esteem is non-existent: Scientologists often appear to be quite confident and to have a high level of self esteem; but I venture the opinion that for most who are in the "denial" stage regarding the cult, their "self-esteem" rests on their being defined and defining themselves as a scientologist -- an identity created by Hubbard to capitalize on a person's need to "be someone," and to "feel important and worthy." Take away the identity of scientologist and the person is left lost and floundering, with no self-defined identity, and a complete loss of self-esteem.

This is of course my own observation, but it is supported by the many, many stories told on this and other discussion forums of how people -- particularly those who had been in the cult for a long time and had gained much "status" within it -- felt when they were either expelled or, finding their situation intolerable, finally chose to leave.

Ugh! Shock & Disbelief Stage. The victim doesn't know which end is up! You have just learned about abuse and are shocked to realize that your relationship may be abusive! You need validation and support. You are just learning to trust your senses.

It is in this stage that many people leaving scientology find their way to the internet, and here to this forum or other such discussion groups. Here the hidden facts about the cult of scientology are brought to light, and the person's former world is turned upside down!

I observe that many of the "newbies" on this and other forums are in this stage, and they are indeed in need of validation and support, and a hand in learning to trust their own senses.

It is not uncommon, nor unexpected, for those in this stage to cling to a belief in Hubbard's good intentions, the validity of "the tech," and whatever straws of "goodness" they can find in scientology -- at least for a little while.

IMO the recovery process for non-CoS scientologists -- the Freezone practitioners, the "indy" practitioners, and so forth -- is arrested at this stage. Rather than progressing forward, these individuals often sink back to the "Denial" stage with a whole new set of "reasons why" they continue to align with Hubbard's agenda.

Ooops! Anger Stage. There is a sharp sense of outrage over what has been happening! Your victim's buttons are all showing! You are angry, defensive, blaming, and full of guilt now - and you are internally fighting all of it!

<snip>

In regard to cult recovery, this stage is self-explanatory, and also imo quite understandable, particularly if one has lost resources, family, and years of self-development opportunities to the deceptive practices of the cult. Emotional outbursts, the "highs and lows" of emotional roller-coaster, and "venting" and "rants" would be common and expected in this stage.

While that's not it's only purpose, a forum such as this can provide a safe space in which a person can work through this stage with the encouragement and validation of others who've "been there, done that" and thus have some understanding and sympathy.

Yippee! Personal Responsibility Stage. Finally. You are very clear on what's going on, you are able to stand up to your abuser. <snip>.

I believe that this is the stage in which EX-scientologists gradually extricate themselves from the "mindfuck" by deconstructing and debunking "scientology," and by recognizing its effects on them and on others.

Pointing out these effects in order to help others through the process, or to warn casual readers away from the cult and its offshoots, is part of this stage. Protesting, demanding one's money be returned, etc. are part of this stage, part of standing up to your abuser.

It is an ongoing process that is done "when it's done." Some get through this stage quickly, leave the cult and all things scientological behind and go off to build a new life for themselves with a new self-defined identity.

Some join what could be termed a crusade and devote most of their energy to exposing the cult's abuses and ensuring that others are not deceived, as they were.

In between those extremes are many gradations of personal responsibility as regards recovery from the scientology experience, as each individual works out their own new life at their own pace.


As for injustice...it goes back to my "observation" that the statement made was made more out of emotion than reason. I would love to see the discourse that supports that assertion. But to me, it seems more an opinion arising out of the Anger band of recovery from a "destructive cult". So the cycle has a way to go yet (imho). Your mileage may vary.

With that I disagree -- I think the statement [made by another author, earlier on this thread] was made as part of the "personal responsibility" stage, that as an opinion it was well supported by the author's observations and detailed description of those observations, and that it contained little if any anger or other emotion -- that is, it was made more out of reason than emotion.

But as you point out, YMMV.

alex
18th July 2008, 05:53 PM
For years I accused Fluffy of not being a scientologist.

In fact I did it abusively.

Now, KSW notwithstanding, perhaps she is in my book, although she is further and further away from anything resembling the church.

alex (sorry fluff..)

Voltaire's Child
18th July 2008, 06:05 PM
Oh, it's fine, Alex. Really. We're cool...

I do admit to being heretical. :D

Voltaire's Child
18th July 2008, 06:11 PM
The thing about running an ARC break or running ANYTHING is not to explain anything away or go into agreement with Hubbard or anything like that.

In session, one faces up to whatever happened AND what the person being audited felt about it.

So it's not about making anything fit in with any Hubbardite worldview.

Cat's Squirrel
18th July 2008, 06:34 PM
Thanks for clarifying for me your reference to the "ARC Break Mechanism" from your previous post. I find it most interesting that you would pick that particular reference (see link above) as an illustration of your statement ...



I would agree that there are parallels between Dr. Irene's "Victim's Stages of Recovery" [from abusive relationships] and the process of recovering from involvement in a destructive cult. The following (in red) is quoted directly from that site:

Recovery from codependent victimhood usually occurs in a series of often overlapping stages. Here is a rough outline of what you may expect, though each individual is different:

Duh... Denial Stage. The victim is relatively brain dead here. Your energy is spent on justifying your abuser, working overtime to "make him or her happy," and hiding the truth from yourself. You often pay with physical and / or emotional symptoms. Your self-esteem is non-existent.

The wording belongs to "Dr. Irene," the bold emphasis is mine. Applying this to the stages of "recovery" from scientology (or other similar cults) I would place most "practicing scientologists," who continue to follow LRH ideas and/or agenda, in or out of the CoS, at this stage.

Regarding the accuracy of the last sentence, your self-esteem is non-existent: Scientologists often appear to be quite confident and to have a high level of self esteem; but I venture the opinion that for most who are in the "denial" stage regarding the cult, their "self-esteem" rests on their being defined and defining themselves as a scientologist -- an identity created by Hubbard to capitalize on a person's need to "be someone," and to "feel important and worthy." Take away the identity of scientologist and the person is left lost and floundering, with no self-defined identity, and a complete loss of self-esteem.

This is of course my own observation, but it is supported by the many, many stories told on this and other discussion forums of how people -- particularly those who had been in the cult for a long time and had gained much "status" within it -- felt when they were either expelled or, finding their situation intolerable, finally chose to leave.

Ugh! Shock & Disbelief Stage. The victim doesn't know which end is up! You have just learned about abuse and are shocked to realize that your relationship may be abusive! You need validation and support. You are just learning to trust your senses.

It is in this stage that many people leaving scientology find their way to the internet, and here to this forum or other such discussion groups. Here the hidden facts about the cult of scientology are brought to light, and the person's former world is turned upside down!

I observe that many of the "newbies" on this and other forums are in this stage, and they are indeed in need of validation and support, and a hand in learning to trust their own senses.

It is not uncommon, nor unexpected, for those in this stage to cling to a belief in Hubbard's good intentions, the validity of "the tech," and whatever straws of "goodness" they can find in scientology -- at least for a little while.

IMO the recovery process for non-CoS scientologists -- the Freezone practitioners, the "indy" practitioners, and so forth -- is arrested at this stage. Rather than progressing forward, these individuals often sink back to the "Denial" stage with a whole new set of "reasons why" they continue to align with Hubbard's agenda.

Ooops! Anger Stage. There is a sharp sense of outrage over what has been happening! Your victim's buttons are all showing! You are angry, defensive, blaming, and full of guilt now - and you are internally fighting all of it!

<snip>

In regard to cult recovery, this stage is self-explanatory, and also imo quite understandable, particularly if one has lost resources, family, and years of self-development opportunities to the deceptive practices of the cult. Emotional outbursts, the "highs and lows" of emotional roller-coaster, and "venting" and "rants" would be common and expected in this stage.

While that's not it's only purpose, a forum such as this can provide a safe space in which a person can work through this stage with the encouragement and validation of others who've "been there, done that" and thus have some understanding and sympathy.

Yippee! Personal Responsibility Stage. Finally. You are very clear on what's going on, you are able to stand up to your abuser. <snip>.

I believe that this is the stage in which EX-scientologists gradually extricate themselves from the "mindfuck" by deconstructing and debunking "scientology," and by recognizing its effects on them and on others.

Pointing out these effects in order to help others through the process, or to warn casual readers away from the cult and its offshoots, is part of this stage. Protesting, demanding one's money be returned, etc. are part of this stage, part of standing up to your abuser.

It is an ongoing process that is done "when it's done." Some get through this stage quickly, leave the cult and all things scientological behind and go off to build a new life for themselves with a new self-defined identity.

Some join what could be termed a crusade and devote most of their energy to exposing the cult's abuses and ensuring that others are not deceived, as they were.

In between those extremes are many gradations of personal responsibility as regards recovery from the scientology experience, as each individual works out their own new life at their own pace.



With that I disagree -- I think the statement [made by another author, earlier on this thread] was made as part of the "personal responsibility" stage, that as an opinion it was well supported by the author's observations and detailed description of those observations, and that it contained little if any anger or other emotion -- that is, it was made more out of reason than emotion.

But as you point out, YMMV.

OK, but one quick question here; the awkward fact is that there are people who claim to have made actual gains from the Scn tech. There are also people who claim to have made gains from, say, psychosynthesis, anthroposophy (Steiner), dynamic meditation (Osho) and raja yoga.

Would you apply the same level of skepticism to all of these in determining whether or not they're telling the truth about the benefits they claim to have received? And if not, why not?

olska
18th July 2008, 09:38 PM
OK, but one quick question here; the awkward fact is that there are people who claim to have made actual gains from the Scn tech. There are also people who claim to have made gains from, say, psychosynthesis, anthroposophy (Steiner), dynamic meditation (Osho) and raja yoga.

Not sure why you would describe the fact that there are people who claim to have made actual gains...[from the things you listed plus many you didn't] as "awkward" -- the fact that people make such claims is simply a fact and needs no qualifying descriptor.


Would you apply the same level of skepticism to all of these in determining whether or not they're telling the truth about the benefits they claim to have received? And if not, why not?

Nowhere in the post you quoted did I question (apply skepticism to) whether or not they're telling the truth about the benefits they claim to have received, or accuse anyone of NOT "telling the truth" about their subjective experience.

So your question is kind of like you asking me, do you still beat your dog? and if not, why not?

FYI, my personal belief and stance on subjective reality is that the line between the real, the delusional, and the hallucinatory is sometimes very, very thin and that while I might form an opinion about that difference from what I observe in others, I wouldn't presume to impose that opinion on nor judge that difference for another. EXCEPT if it was an obvious emergency, like someone high on drugs about to gleefully jump off a building with the delusion that he can fly, OR if someone asked me for a reality check, as in a woman friend "in love" asking my opinion on what the guy really meant when he said he was a sadist even though she's never actually seen him do anything sadistic....

Further, it is my personal opinion that most subjective "gains" come from the individual's belief that those "gains" are attainable coupled with that individual's faith in the process of attaining them.

Thus are "miracles" brought about and lives transformed. Just my opinion.

Zinjifar
19th July 2008, 12:43 AM
Some people mainline placebos

Zinj

Cat's Squirrel
19th July 2008, 10:29 AM
Not sure why you would describe the fact that there are people who claim to have made actual gains...[from the things you listed plus many you didn't] as "awkward" -- the fact that people make such claims is simply a fact and needs no qualifying descriptor.

Nowhere in the post you quoted did I question (apply skepticism to) whether or not they're telling the truth about the benefits they claim to have received, or accuse anyone of NOT "telling the truth" about their subjective experience.

So your question is kind of like you asking me, do you still beat your dog? and if not, why not?

FYI, my personal belief and stance on subjective reality is that the line between the real, the delusional, and the hallucinatory is sometimes very, very thin and that while I might form an opinion about that difference from what I observe in others, I wouldn't presume to impose that opinion on nor judge that difference for another. EXCEPT if it was an obvious emergency, like someone high on drugs about to gleefully jump off a building with the delusion that he can fly, OR if someone asked me for a reality check, as in a woman friend "in love" asking my opinion on what the guy really meant when he said he was a sadist even though she's never actually seen him do anything sadistic....

Further, it is my personal opinion that most subjective "gains" come from the individual's belief that those "gains" are attainable coupled with that individual's faith in the process of attaining them.

Thus are "miracles" brought about and lives transformed. Just my opinion.


Apologies if I got you wrong. Anyone who claims to have had benefits from auditing is on the defensive here and I suppose I tend to lump people together in that regard.

It nevertheless wasn't my intention to claim that you're saying people who claim to have had benefits from the Tech are lying, but it did seem that you think those who have had such benefits are self-deluding.

In my experience there's nothing hallucinatory about blowing charge, especially LOTS of charge, any more than there is in having a thorn plucked out of your body.

You know something's happened when that occurs. I've been shrieking with laughter for minutes on end when something big has blown in session. A lot, in fact most, of the time it's not as dramatic as that but you know you've got a new and clearer viewpoint after an auditing cycle has completed, and that's worthwhile too.

I'm not saying the Tech's perfect, but IMO it needs to be improved upon rather than simply trashed.

Veda
19th July 2008, 12:54 PM
Apologies if I got you wrong. Anyone who claims to have had benefits from auditing is on the defensive here and I suppose I tend to lump people together in that regard.

It nevertheless wasn't my intention to claim that you're saying people who claim to have had benefits from the Tech are lying, but it did seem that you think those who have had such benefits are self-deluding.

In my experience there's nothing hallucinatory about blowing charge, especially LOTS of charge, any more than there is in having a thorn plucked out of your body.

You know something's happened when that occurs. I've been shrieking with laughter for minutes on end when something big has blown in session. A lot, in fact most, of the time it's not as dramatic as that but you know you've got a new and clearer viewpoint after an auditing cycle has completed, and that's worthwhile too.

I'm not saying the Tech's perfect, but IMO it needs to be improved upon rather than simply trashed.

Just a few questions, if you don't mind.

Are there parts of Scientology that you haven't examined because they're uninteresting? Or because they're unpleasant?

Are there parts of Scientology you haven't examined because you're not ready, due to your case level?

What's your next step on the Scientology Grade Chart?

Does it concern you that L. Ron Hubbard secretly authored a booklet having to do with "asserting and maintaining dominion over thoughts and loyalties through mental healing"?; and does it concern you that he, secretly, used much of that booklet on Scientologists, and made it part of Scientology?

And lastly, when did you decide that you were a Scientologist?

Cat's Squirrel
19th July 2008, 01:41 PM
Just a few questions, if you don't mind.

Sure, though I find it odd that you haven't seen fit to comment on the points I made. This is beginning to feel like an inquisition.


Are there parts of Scientology that you haven't examined because they're uninteresting?

1 / No. OK, maybe a lot of Ron's writings about Dianetics seem repetitive.


Or because they're unpleasant?

2 / "The History of Man" has some weird stuff in it certainly, but nothing else. Apart from Pilot's "Big Splitter" implant in SuperScio, which has about 108 legs (I took one look at that and decided something like Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy looked more inviting....).



Are there parts of Scientology you haven't examined because you're not ready, due to your case level?

Not the orthodox bridge, no. I'd be happy to look at the solo NOTs materials if I could afford them and was convinced there was a point. I got about halfway through audited NOTs but never finished it.

As it is, I made decent gains with entity handling using Pilot's materials (with contributions from Ralph).


What's your next step on the Scientology Grade Chart?


I've done all I care to on the orthodox Bridge, though I could probably do with having my grades put back in or at least some flying of ruds. My interest now is in the freezone materials which go a lot further and deeper than anything in the CofS, such as Super Scio.

I've had a go at Paul's "Rub and Yawn" and have got some good results, though so far I haven't tackled anything heavy with it.

Also though I have to admit Pixie's solution to Vinny's ills sounds like a good one for me too :). Probably temporary in its effects.


Does it concern you that L. Ron Hubbard secretly authored a booklet having to do with "asserting and maintaining dominion over thoughts and loyalties through mental healing"?; and does it concern you that he, secretly, used much of that booklet on Scientologists, and made it part of Scientology?

Probably. I admit there's a dark side to the subject.

Knowledge can be used for good or ill. At the centre I attended I was allowed to have my own viewpoint to a far greater degree than I was in the CofS, otherwise I probably wouldn't have stuck with the subject. No, make that certainly.


And lastly, when did you decide that you were a Scientologist?

After my life repair (not in the CofS), perhaps even during it, I identified as a scientologist (small letters). Meaning; I experienced for myself the value of the tech and wanted more of its benefits for myself and for others.

olska
19th July 2008, 05:15 PM
Apologies if I got you wrong. Anyone who claims to have had benefits from auditing is on the defensive here and I suppose I tend to lump people together in that regard.

Oh well that's certainly understandable and might be because this forum tends to attract people who've been made wrong, invalidated, manipulated, heavy-handedly pressured to give up their time, their homes, their money, their career ambitions, their friends, their lovers, their children, their health, their sense of right and wrong, and their sense of who they are or who they thought they were;

people who've been lied to, ripped off, implanted with false goals, sec checked for hours on end, held prisoner and denied access to any avenues of communication with the outside world, worked like slaves, coerced to abandon or abort their children, and otherwise used and abused;

people who've been told that the reason they're feeling mentally unbalanced and their lives are a mess is because of their critical thoughts or words or their "withholds" or their "overts" or their "crimes" or their "misunderstood words," or their "out ruds" or because they are "PTS" or are "suppressive persons" and/or "no case gain cases;"

people who've been told they are degraded beings and "low-toned" "victim" types who pretty much don't deserve to live, who've been told to go away and shut up about it and to never never never speak ill of "scientology" or "the tech" or face severe consequences now and on into all their eternity;

people who've been told those things by practicing scientologists.

Shame on all us rascals making you feel uncomfortable or putting you on the defensive just because you claim to have had benefits from auditing.


It nevertheless wasn't my intention to claim that you're saying people who claim to have had benefits from the Tech are lying, but it did seem that you think those who have had such benefits are self-deluding.

Actually, there are cases in which I do think those who have had benefits from "the Tech" are self-deluding:

"Success stories" from the older Advance magazines come to mind -- especially one [wish I had the link handy, but I don't] from a couple who sat on their comfortable balcony some safe distance away from a serious fire and, while the professional firefighters on the ground struggled in "confusion" these two successfully "fought the fire" with their "OT abilities."

Another example is my scientologist friend telling me that the lovely sunny day we were having in Southern California was a result of him "controlling the weather" -- and he hadn't even done the OT levels yet! Wowee!

Another example is the group of "OTs" taking credit for keeping the hurricane from hitting Clearwater, Florida. (Too bad they weren't around when Katrina hit New Orleans, but I guess you just can't be everywhere and do everything, even if you are "OT").

And my scientologist friends tell me that the reason why the "big one" (earthquake) hasn't hit Southern California is because all the "OTs" out there are "postulating" that it won't. (Doggone, that must be why I don't have any elephants in my house -- my "OT" friends are looking after me, and I didn't even realize it!)

I'd be interested to know where YOU draw the line between reality, delusion, and hallucination. Might be good subject for a thread all its own.

Cat's Squirrel
19th July 2008, 06:21 PM
Oh well that's certainly understandable and might be because this forum tends to attract people who've been made wrong, invalidated, manipulated, heavy-handedly pressured to give up their time, their homes, their money, their career ambitions, their friends, their lovers, their children, their health, their sense of right and wrong, and their sense of who they are or who they thought they were

But it's also attracted people like me, Fluff, Terril, DOF, Mark and Dart. OK, I'm the only one complaining here about being given a hard time but until Emma decides to limit forum membership we need to find a way to live together.


people who've been lied to, ripped off, implanted with false goals, sec checked for hours on end, held prisoner and denied access to any avenues of communication with the outside world, worked like slaves, coerced to abandon or abort their children, and otherwise used and abused;

people who've been told that the reason they're feeling mentally unbalanced and their lives are a mess is because of their critical thoughts or words or their "withholds" or their "overts" or their "crimes" or their "misunderstood words," or their "out ruds" or because they are "PTS" or are "suppressive persons" and/or "no case gain cases;"

people who've been told they are degraded beings and "low-toned" "victim" types who pretty much don't deserve to live, who've been told to go away and shut up about it and to never never never speak ill of "scientology" or "the tech" or face severe consequences now and on into all their eternity;

people who've been told those things by practicing scientologists.


Yeah, practicing scientologists IN THE CofS. I haven't seen any such stories yet about the freezone / independent field, where I've spent most of my time in Scn.


Shame on all us rascals making you feel uncomfortable or putting you on the defensive just because you claim to have had benefits from auditing.

And I'm a fair target for that, am I, even though most of my experience of scn was in the independent field? I haven't done those things, to anyone here or out in the world. I wasn't in the Church very long and wasn't on staff. So why take it out on me?

Shame isn't appropriate here, I agree with that much.


Actually, there are cases in which I do think those who have had benefits from "the Tech" are self-deluding

There may be some, sure, the question is whether everyone who claims to have had such benefits is self-deluding.


"Success stories" from the older Advance magazines come to mind -- especially one [wish I had the link handy, but I don't] from a couple who sat on their comfortable balcony some safe distance away from a serious fire and, while the professional firefighters on the ground struggled in "confusion" these two successfully "fought the fire" with their "OT abilities."

Another example is my scientologist friend telling me that the lovely sunny day we were having in Southern California was a result of him "controlling the weather" -- and he hadn't even done the OT levels yet! Wowee!

Another example is the group of "OTs" taking credit for keeping the hurricane from hitting Clearwater, Florida. (Too bad they weren't around when Katrina hit New Orleans, but I guess you just can't be everywhere and do everything, even if you are "OT").

And my scientologist friends tell me that the reason why the "big one" (earthquake) hasn't hit Southern California is because all the "OTs" out there are "postulating" that it won't. (Doggone, that must be why I don't have any elephants in my house -- my "OT" friends are looking after me, and I didn't even realize it!)


Sure, fatuous assertions of causality like those are very entertaining. It's worth pointing out though that during World War II British Intelligence took the possibility of occult practitioners being able to influence the weather so seriously that they had a group of senior magicians, including I believe Aleister Crowley, perform a set of rituals in advance of a major troop landing; I think it may have been the D-Day one in 1944.


I'd be interested to know where YOU draw the line between reality, delusion, and hallucination. Might be good subject for a thread all its own.

Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. I am sitting here in a room, in the south western part of the UK, typing on a keyboard which is linked to a computer.

I'm listening to the Police's "Ghost in the Machine" on my radiocassette player. It's coming up to 6.30 pm.

Those are facts in my experience, which I can't prove to you.

Delusion and hallucination; If a sexually experienced person were asked whether or not sex was enjoyable, what do you think they'd say? They can't "prove" that it is unless the questioner had experienced it him or herself, in fact someone in the grip of an orgasm apparently looks and sounds like someone in severe pain.

So it's just "possible" (to an outside observer) that the enjoyability of sex is a delusion. The same with the benefits of auditing.

I probably won't read your reply, if any, to this. I could do with a break anyway.

olska
19th July 2008, 07:59 PM
But it's also attracted people like me, Fluff, Terril, DOF, Mark and Dart. OK, I'm the only one complaining here about being given a hard time but until Emma decides to limit forum membership we need to find a way to live together.

Seems to me we are already "living together" in the internet forum sense. I don't see any need to "limit forum membership" and I hope you're not suggesting that.


Yeah, practicing scientologists IN THE CofS. I haven't seen any such stories yet about the freezone / independent field, where I've spent most of my time in Scn.

And your point is? I hope you're not suggesting that people's experiences with scientology and scientologists that I listed in my previous post are somehow "unimportant," or "invalid," or "not worthy of attention or discussion" because they mostly happened "in" the CoS?


And I'm a fair target for that, am I, even though most of my experience of scn was in the independent field? I haven't done those things, to anyone here or out in the world. I wasn't in the Church very long and wasn't on staff. So why take it out on me?

You're not a "target," and no one is "taking it out" on you. If you aren't up for having scientology "tech" and/or some of your own ideas and opinions discussed and challenged, maybe a discussion forum such as this not your cup of tea?


There may be some, sure, the question is whether everyone who claims to have had such benefits is self-deluding.

Did someone say everyone who claimed benefits from auditing, in all instances was self-deluding? If so, I missed it.

Conversely, if some claims of benefit from auditing ARE NOT self-deluding, are you implying that the "some, sure" that ARE INDEED self-deluding should just be brushed aside and dismissed as inconsequential?

What is your view on those claims of benefit that are indeed delusional? care to comment?


Sure, fatuous assertions of causality like those are very entertaining. It's worth pointing out though that during World War II British Intelligence took the possibility of occult practitioners being able to influence the weather so seriously that they had a group of senior magicians, including I believe Aleister Crowley, perform a set of rituals in advance of a major troop landing; I think it may have been the D-Day one in 1944.

So ... would you class those "fatuous assertions of causality" that I mentioned in my last post as delusional? or not? and if not, what in your opinion might motivate people to make such assertions?


So it's just "possible" (to an outside observer) that the enjoyability of sex is a delusion. The same with the benefits of auditing.

It's also just "possible" that the enjoyability of sex is a delusion to the people actually engaging in sex -- the world is full of things strange, ya know?

Again, I'd be interested to know where YOU draw the line between reality, delusion, and hallucination. Care to share?


I probably won't read your reply, if any, to this. I could do with a break anyway.

Well allllriighty then.

But wait ... what if I gather up a group of heavies from this forum and we record this post on audio tape and tie you up with your ears unobstructed and MAKE you listen to it? over and over, for hours and hours? Just kidding.

Smitty
19th July 2008, 09:25 PM
"This is an informal discussion, not a fucking academic debate"
The quote of a freezone scientologist in response to my asking for a citation to verify his statements. He was passing off his speculations as facts. When called to prove his statements, he attempted to change the terms of our discussion --- or is it that in discussions between scientologists, it is understood that facts are irrelevant?
Smitty

Pixie
19th July 2008, 09:28 PM
"This is an informal discussion, not a fucking academic debate"
The quote of a freezone scientologist in response to my asking for a citation to verify his statements. He was passing off his speculations as facts. When called to prove his statements, he attempted to change the terms of our discussion --- or is it that in discussions between scientologists, it is understood that facts are irrelevant?
Smitty

But sure isn't that the way it always is Smitty? I've said it before, it's nigh on impossible to get a straight answer to a straight question.

Pixie
19th July 2008, 09:29 PM
Olska: ""But wait ... what if I gather up a group of heavies from this forum and we record this post on audio tape and tie you up with your ears unobstructed and MAKE you listen to it? over and over, for hours and hours? Just kidding"".


Olska, you're such a naughty little minx! :coolwink:

Smitty
19th July 2008, 09:32 PM
But sure isn't that the way it always is Smitty? I've said it before, it's nigh on impossible to get a straight answer to a straight question.

Discussions with them can be rough. It appears to me that the belief in scientology cripples one's powers of reasoning.
Smitty

Pixie
19th July 2008, 09:34 PM
Discussions with them can be rough. It appears to me that the belief in scientology cripples one's powers of reasoning.
Smitty

It does, I very much agree. At least we can agree on this Smitty.

Smitty
19th July 2008, 09:36 PM
It does, I very much agree. At least we can agree on this Smitty.

I would venture that we agree on considerably more.

Pixie
19th July 2008, 09:40 PM
I would venture that we agree on considerably more.

Venture away Smitty. :yes:

Cat's Squirrel
19th July 2008, 10:21 PM
Olska: ""But wait ... what if I gather up a group of heavies from this forum and we record this post on audio tape and tie you up with your ears unobstructed and MAKE you listen to it? over and over, for hours and hours? Just kidding"".

Olska, you're such a naughty little minx! :coolwink:

Oh I get it. It doesn't matter what suggestions you make as long as you put "just kidding" at the end of it.

Funny how the initial suggestion is never anything pleasant.

Vinaire
19th July 2008, 10:35 PM
...

So it seems to me that Freezoners can rightfully call themselves Scientologist, but not members of the Church of Scientology. Just as when Martin Luther split from the Catholic Church of Rome he could still call him self a Christian. A personís religion is determined what the person believes and is applying in life. It is not determined by administrative authorities whether it is the Pope or David Miscaviage.

The Anabaptist Jacques

That is a reasonable conclusion.

.

Vinaire
19th July 2008, 10:37 PM
I personally don't care if they think of themselves as scientologists or not. Couldn't give less than a damn and don't see why it's even important. They're just very slim customers is all. I have no idea what they believe, and they refuse to tell me. That's a very great mystery to me.

I figure if you're happy about something you'd want to tell the world. And, quite frankly, they can't. Or - at least - I haven't met one yet who can.

That is an absolutely correct reasoning from Escalus's viewpoint.

.

Zinjifar
20th July 2008, 12:14 AM
I don't really care about whether people call themselves 'Scientologists' or not. Where I do begin to object is when people calling themselves 'Scientologists' then proclaim that the bowderized, castrated, sanitized and defanged verion they practice is 'Scientology', and, insist that 'Scientology doesn't say/do that, and, I know because, I'm a 'Scientologist' and *I* don't do/say that'.

It's a deliberate misrepresentation, with the intention of 'rehabilitating' the term 'Scientology' by distracting from the most objectionable parts.

Zinj

Cat's Squirrel
20th July 2008, 12:15 AM
Deleted

Voltaire's Child
20th July 2008, 02:21 AM
I don't really care about whether people call themselves 'Scientologists' or not. Where I do begin to object is when people calling themselves 'Scientologists' then proclaim that the bowderized, castrated, sanitized and defanged verion they practice is 'Scientology', and, insist that 'Scientology doesn't say/do that, and, I know because, I'm a 'Scientologist' and *I* don't do/say that'.

It's a deliberate misrepresentation, with the intention of 'rehabilitating' the term 'Scientology' by distracting from the most objectionable parts.

Zinj

Yes, you've said that (many many many times) before, but I don't know of ANYONE who does that.

Everyone I know who, say, touts or runs an auditing process like 3XRD or something like that, SAYS it's not written by Hubbard.

Freezoners, indies and others indicate if they're by the book purists, if they agree or disagree with Hubbard on various things, and so on.

So what you say is just not true.

Voltaire's Child
20th July 2008, 02:24 AM
But it's also attracted people like me, Fluff, Terril, DOF, Mark and Dart. OK, I'm the only one complaining here about being given a hard time but until Emma decides to limit forum membership we need to find a way to live together.



Yeah, practicing scientologists IN THE CofS. I haven't seen any such stories yet about the freezone / independent field, where I've spent most of my time in Scn.



And I'm a fair target for that, am I, even though most of my experience of scn was in the independent field? I haven't done those things, to anyone here or out in the world. I wasn't in the Church very long and wasn't on staff. So why take it out on me?

Shame isn't appropriate here, I agree with that much.



There may be some, sure, the question is whether everyone who claims to have had such benefits is self-deluding.



Sure, fatuous assertions of causality like those are very entertaining. It's worth pointing out though that during World War II British Intelligence took the possibility of occult practitioners being able to influence the weather so seriously that they had a group of senior magicians, including I believe Aleister Crowley, perform a set of rituals in advance of a major troop landing; I think it may have been the D-Day one in 1944.



Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. I am sitting here in a room, in the south western part of the UK, typing on a keyboard which is linked to a computer.

I'm listening to the Police's "Ghost in the Machine" on my radiocassette player. It's coming up to 6.30 pm.

Those are facts in my experience, which I can't prove to you.

Delusion and hallucination; If a sexually experienced person were asked whether or not sex was enjoyable, what do you think they'd say? They can't "prove" that it is unless the questioner had experienced it him or herself, in fact someone in the grip of an orgasm apparently looks and sounds like someone in severe pain.

So it's just "possible" (to an outside observer) that the enjoyability of sex is a delusion. The same with the benefits of auditing.

I probably won't read your reply, if any, to this. I could do with a break anyway.

It's interesting to see the earlier comment about people being made wrong. I think that for some, making others wrong is ok if that person does not have the majority point of view.

It's hard to take protestations of empathy for ex members who are being mistreated so seriously when some of those making those protestations are so busy making others wrong themselves.

Voltaire's Child
20th July 2008, 02:28 AM
"This is an informal discussion, not a fucking academic debate"
The quote of a freezone scientologist in response to my asking for a citation to verify his statements. He was passing off his speculations as facts. When called to prove his statements, he attempted to change the terms of our discussion --- or is it that in discussions between scientologists, it is understood that facts are irrelevant?
Smitty

Sounds like some things I've seen posted by various (non Scn'ist) critics to people who were only trying to answer or discuss things with them.

Bottom line: this is the sort of thing people say when they're annoyed.

Free to shine
20th July 2008, 02:31 AM
It's interesting to see the earlier comment about people being made wrong. I think that for some, making others wrong is ok if that person does not have the majority point of view.

It's hard to take protestations of empathy for ex members who are being mistreated so seriously when some of those making those protestations are so busy making others wrong themselves.

Who? :confused2:

Voltaire's Child
20th July 2008, 02:32 AM
Who? :confused2:


I was referring to and replying to an exchange between Cat's Squirrel and Olska, things said to the former by the latter.

olska
20th July 2008, 03:22 AM
I was referring to and replying to an exchange between Cat's Squirrel and Olska, things said to the former by the latter.

So apparently you were referring to things "Olska" said to "Cat's Squirrel" (to the former, by the latter) when you wrote


It's interesting to see the earlier comment about people being made wrong. I think that for some, making others wrong is ok if that person does not have the majority point of view.

It's hard to take protestations of empathy for ex members who are being mistreated so seriously when some of those making those protestations are so busy making others wrong themselves.

I said a lot of things to Cat's Squirrel -- I have no idea which things you're talking about.

Please please please if you're going to accuse me of "making others wrong," be more specific and quote what I said!

Or if you're not willing to do it, maybe someone else will point it out?

I thought Cat's Squirrel and I were having a discussion about our differing views on the practice of scientology and how it affects people, as well as on our (apparently differing?) views regarding the differences between reality, delusion, and hallucination and what criteria one uses to determine which is which -- and I'm still interested to know Cat's Squirrel's views on that (as well as the views of anyone else who wants to weigh in on that subject).

What part of that discussion are you interpreting as "making others wrong?"

Was it the joke? jeeze, I withdraw it! pardon me for trying to be funny, I promise I'll never again attempt it!

Terril park
20th July 2008, 03:28 AM
Claire,

are FreeZoners Scientologists?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Does the bear shit in the woods?

Yes.

Does the full moon bring out the loons - who the hell knows. There is a difference between expostulating the obvious and just stating an obvious observation.

Mojo
20th July 2008, 03:29 AM
Was it the joke? jeeze, I withdraw it! pardon me for trying to be funny, I promise I'll never again attempt it!

Too late. You're banned.

Just kidding.

Mojo

P.S. I love your wit and your sense of humor.

As soon as I get out of here I would love to come see you. The doctors say that'll be in a few years but the courts are still divided.

gomorrhan
20th July 2008, 04:18 AM
So apparently you were referring to things "Olska" said to "Cat's Squirrel" (to the former, by the latter) when you wrote



I said a lot of things to Cat's Squirrel -- I have no idea which things you're talking about.

Please please please if you're going to accuse me of "making others wrong," be more specific and quote what I said!

Or if you're not willing to do it, maybe someone else will point it out?

I thought Cat's Squirrel and I were having a discussion about our differing views on the practice of scientology and how it affects people, as well as on our (apparently differing?) views regarding the differences between reality, delusion, and hallucination and what criteria one uses to determine which is which -- and I'm still interested to know Cat's Squirrel's views on that (as well as the views of anyone else who wants to weigh in on that subject).

What part of that discussion are you interpreting as "making others wrong?"

Was it the joke? jeeze, I withdraw it! pardon me for trying to be funny, I promise I'll never again attempt it!

I'd be happy to weigh in on the subject of what criterion one uses to determine reality, delusion and hallucination. There is obviously an objective universe (or at LEAST inter-subjective) which we all perceive, and from which we receive feedback as we navigate the signals against the star-chart of our intentions and goals. To me, the determination of whether or not someone is hallucinating, delusional, or tracking with reality is the extent to which the plans that they make result in actions, and the results of those actions are in keeping with those plans. If a person says they are an artist, but they never do any artwork, and take lots of drugs that make them nearly non-functional, then you have a delusional person, a person who thinks they are an artist, when they are actually a recreational drug user. A person who is hallucinating actually believes things are happening that are not happening, and you can see this in their results, as well. If they intend to drive down the street, but can't get to the end because they believe that there is an alien vessel waiting there to destroy them or capture them, that's a pretty wild hallucination (and nothing I haven't heard before or seen analogs to in scio writings).

Sometimes, people who are delusional can still achieve positions of great power, but they still cannot bring about their desired objectives, because they aren't tracking with reality. Instead, something else happens, something that was unforseen/unpredicted, because the person doesn't actually track with reality.

Voltaire's Child
20th July 2008, 05:07 PM
What part of that discussion are you interpreting as "making others wrong?"



Several years' worth of posts.

Voltaire's Child
20th July 2008, 05:08 PM
Claire,

are FreeZoners Scientologists?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Does the bear shit in the woods?

Yes.

Does the full moon bring out the loons - who the hell knows. There is a difference between expostulating the obvious and just stating an obvious observation.

Ahh...but does the pope shit in the woods? Is the bear Catholic? :D :coolwink:

olska
20th July 2008, 06:43 PM
I thought Cat's Squirrel and I were having a discussion about our differing views on the practice of scientology and how it affects people, as well as on our (apparently differing?) views regarding the differences between reality, delusion, and hallucination and what criteria one uses to determine which is which -- and I'm still interested to know Cat's Squirrel's views on that (as well as the views of anyone else who wants to weigh in on that subject).

What part of that discussion are you [Fluffy, in previous post] interpreting as "making others wrong?"

Fluffy replies:


Several years' worth of posts.

Wow, as replies to questions go, that one is amazing! Were you hoping to wipe out any credibility I have on this discussion forum in one fell swoop?

Thanks for showing us your true feelings about real discussion, deconsruction, debunking, and criticism of scientology.:thumbsup:

Do we now get to once again read your rant about how you've criticized scientology and Hubbard more than anyone else on any forum anywhere? Or will it be the one about how we're all different and it's a big wide world and can't we all just get along? Can't wait!