We're not done with the Church of Scientology yet.

[Johnd]

This is not to say that the ideas must be prevented from being disseminated; but the ideas must be challenged.

Right now people are beginning to see the Church as some crazy totalitarian space-opera cult.

And well they should.

But I don’t think people are criticizing the fundamental concepts of Scientology, like ARC, KRC, looking up words, etc.

It is inevitable that these concepts will get acceptance somewhere and possibly even grow into something larger.

I personally do not think that the problems in the Church of Scientology are due to Miscavige.

Nor do I think that it is because people have misunderstoods and are not following what Hubbard wrote.

I think the damage done by Scientology is inherent in the Technology itself, in admin and Tech and Ethics.



The Anabaptist Jacques

Exactly. Among many other things, the redefinition of the word 'reality,' in 'ARC,' endless clearing of words one already knows, 'demonstrating' wrong theories and false generalities, and many many more bad ideas (and perversions of good ideas). What you see now in the cult's behavior is mostly explicit or strongly implicit in writing in scn policy and tech bulletins, etc.

John

 

[themadhair]

Well known psychology experiments like the Milgram Experiment, the Asch conformity experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, etc. have demonstrated the potential for external influences to adversely affect us – even to the point of making us perform actions against our own moral judgements.

If a series of ideas were set up to induce these influences then how could they be sidestepped with the claim of ‘personal responsibility’? For example, one subtle idea in Scientology is that the objective environment is what everyone agrees is there, which is pretty much an exploitation of what the Asch experiment demonstrated. How many such subtle ideas would override the argument of ‘personal responsibility’?

It is even more pernicious than that. ‘Personal responsibility’ as a concept, on some level, assumes the person in question has a certain ‘capacity’ to exercise such responsibility. Suppose the person has adopted a sufficient number of toxic ideas and concepts to the point where the normal linguistic constructs needed for moral judgement have been overwritten – are they even capable of exercising ‘personal responsibility’?

This concept of ‘personal responsibility’ seems to be assuming a resilience of a person’s mental faculties that I just don’t believe exists given the available evidence to the contrary in the cult of Scientology’s history alone.

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

Thanks.

But I should have said 1800s instead of 1900s and 19th century instead of 18th century.

The cult were called Millerites.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Fuck, Hubbardtards, millitards, retards, what's the difference? Mili-tards?
Call in the 'Inch Wives!'

cdome on now, lets get the measurements straight! LRon!

 

[Johnd]

Well known psychology experiments like the Milgram Experiment, the Asch conformity experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, etc. have demonstrated the potential for external influences to adversely affect us – even to the point of making us perform actions against our own moral judgements.

Yeah, for sure. And history also shows how easy it is to 'override' moral judgement. War, lynch mobs, ethnic cleansing, racism, torture, caste systems, genocide and so on. One might 'even' think that our capacity for moral judgement is naturally puny. I think though, rather than prove how puny it is (easy), wouldn't it be better to strengthen it? That is, give people tools to help spot bad ideas, malicious ideas, malicious practice, manipulation, whether one is really making a decision or having it made by someone else with a parasitic agenda, etc.

john

 

[Idle Morgue]

Exactly. Among many other things, the redefinition of the word 'reality,' in 'ARC,' endless clearing of words one already knows, 'demonstrating' wrong theories and false generalities, and many many more bad ideas (and perversions of good ideas). What you see now in the cult's behavior is mostly explicit or strongly implicit in writing in scn policy and tech bulletins, etc.

John

The public will NEVER know about ARC - because they won't be coming into any Morgues due to the bad press that is constantly pounding the airwaves.

Thank is fine - just tell people about it - Like or love / talk to someone / what is real to them - will mend any scwable! Tell them that you made it up - don't charge them anything and be done with the fucking 'tech'.

Tell them to look up the words they don't understand in a dictionary and make sure you understand it - tell them to draw a picture of a concept and get to the car engine and put your hands on it if you are studying car engines.

Not rocket science folks - and certainly not worth $1,000,000 and your life for pete's sake! No need to work for free. I tell everyone I made it up and they are very grateful I pointed it out. NO CHARGE - just my HELP!!

 

[Gadfly]

. . . . 'demonstrating' wrong theories and false generalities

Yeah, while "demonstration" can be useful if one is demo'ing "useful" or "correct ideas", it rapidly turns into a "brainwashing tool" within organized Scientology.

What do you think happens when any person sits down and demos out the 10 points of Keeping Scientology Working?

I mean, try to "demo", "Scientology is Man's only solution to crime and war on planet Earth".

Demo'ing CRAZY ideas LOCKS IN the crazy ideas!

Sit down and demo out, "The only people who attack Scientology are suppressives".

See? Demo'ing out such absurd ideas actually causes the crazy notions to "set and fix more solidly" into your head. Demos do "balance mass with significance", but it CREATES ponderous "mass" in cases where the significance is patently ABSURD.

 

[Gadfly]

I understand what you're saying.

It just means that we are not yet done with Mark A. Baker yet either.

If we can make him see then we can convince anyone.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I suspect that you are correct.

But I am not talking about "convincing", or playing related games of reason and logic (which ONLY go so far, as they ultimately always depend on basic assumptions). Logic deals with the relationship and connections between IDEAS, and with consistency of IDEAS, but often, in my view, logic NEGLECTS how these ideas RELATE to observable behaviors of actual things, people and events. To often there is a gulf between the IDEAS and the realities that these the ideas claim/pretend to define, describe and delineate.

What we are here dealing with is a SOLID refusal to LOOK. Baker bows to the God of logic and reason. I do not. I bow down to careful & honest observations. And, I use my words to express what I have viewed. I don't use words to argue, debate or convince.

Or, he just likes playing a game that only he is even aware of. Like a person who tells jokes, who laughs at them excessively, but where NOBODY else "gets the jokes".

To me it simply becomes a distraction and that is largely why I don't even bother trying to have an intelligent conversation anymore with the poster known as MAB.

I could use THIS metaphor. It is useless to try to talk sense into a bag of hammers - sometimes it is better to just toss the bag into the corner and forget about it. :confused2:

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I disagree. You are reifying a concept of responsibility which I don't see existing in the manner you describe.

Theoretically, ideas do imply an opposite TO A FULLY RATIONAL PERSON WHO IS RATIONAL ALL THE TIME, but in real life there are few like that (not even you and me )

Pragmatically, this phenomenon of responsibility just doesn't come into the equation.

(Read William James, Charles S. Peirce, John Dewey, Richard Rorty)

Hubbard only used it as a way to blame a person for not succeeding.

(Read all of Hubbard's work)

But when you take the varying levels of consciousness a person goes through at various times each day, and all the unknown factors that effect a person, I'm not even sure you can positively make the case for free will, let alone personal responsibillity.

(Read Spinoza, Freud, Skinner, Derk Pereboom, Glen Strawson)

As I said earlier, ideas preceed actions.

(Read all of The Anabaptist Jacques' posts)

And quite possibly, the ideas themselves are more rather than less the effect of pre-determined causes.

(Read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica)

The Anabaptist Jacques

(Read Candide by Voltaire)

I particularly like the brief Pink Sheet reading assignments that you have given to Professor Baker.

Might I add just one tiny additional bit of reading?

Mark, kindly read the Library of Congress as well as the unabridged works of Herr Hubbard & His Haruspices, particularly the tech volumes on reading the entrails of dead space aliens.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Thanks.

But I should have said 1800s instead of 1900s and 19th century instead of 18th century.

The cult were called Millerites.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Yes, I believe they they have now fulfilled the prophecy to "come back" in the 21st century.

 

[PirateAndBum]

For example, one can't really take Hubbard's policy on Hard Sell and apply decently in ANY context? The IDEA itself cannot be applied in any way except INSANELY. The IDEA contains the notions that 1) "only Scientology can deliver total freedom", 2) "the reactive mind aims to STOP progress up the Bridge", and 3) "all concerns other than getting the Bridge are secondary and distractions to attaining the state of OT". These ideas themselves are DUMB.

I don't think so. The ideas are not in and of themselves dumb, they are just ideas. Ideas are evaluated according to a person's experience (and the beliefs derived therefrom.) It certainly could be applied sanely, that it almost never is, is another story having to do with other (some hidden) ideas of Hubbard.

The Muslim idea, "if one kills a bunch of heathens in a suicide bombing, then one will go to Heaven and be with Allah and the 71 virgins" is NUTS. It is NUTS regardless of any MIND that accepts and thinks with such nonsense. It is NUTS way before any person comes along to "responsibly" accept, adopt and use such an idea.

It's not nuts to some muslims. Whoever came up with this idea thought it was a good one. Just because you think it's nuts doesn't make it so. If your purpose is religious / political power and control then it's an idea that has some use to those that have such a purpose. One might even give an award of brilliance to the originator.

Take the idea inherent to KSW that "we have the only workable spiritual tech in existence". THAT idea sets the stage for a great many nasty and toxic related ideas and behaviors. How can that idea EVER be applied sanely? It can't. The IDEA itself is oof-the-wall. And , people who accept the idea also end up acting off-the-wall.

Again, I'd argue that it could be quite sanely applied. You harp on the absoluteness of the statements, and while I certainly don't agree with their "truth" either, that does not mean that the points of KSW could not be applied with good outcome. It is mainly the lie of it being the "only" and "complete" tech that causes the problems. It would require an underlying purpose that was not based on enslavement and entrapment and a refusal to be open to new and better ideas. But of course Hubbard wasn't interested in anyone's better ideas unless he could steal them and they fit in with his agenda.

Take the Scientology IDEA that "survival" is the BASIC key goal of any organism, and that the basis of ethics is the "survival and expansion" of any organism or group. Take the idea of how the EXPANSION & SURVIVAL of Scientology is the MOST important concern of Scientology. How can anyone accept and adopt THAT idea and NOT have it be totally NUTS?

See, there is no amount of responsibility that can be enacted to make such ideas anything other than toxicly STUPID. There is no possible application or practice that can be anything other than harmful and abusive.

The ONLY option is to DISCARD the IDEAS. That is the ONLY responsible behavior regarding a great many Scientology "ideas".

Too often the IDEA itself contains the PATTERN of abuse and harm.

I'm surprised that you attack the idea of survival as a basic goal of an organism. I certainly cannot agree that this is a nutty idea.

Take the idea of how the EXPANSION & SURVIVAL of MicroSoft is the MOST important concern of MicroSoft... I'd say that is an important concern of any business. Why is it nutty? Is it less nutty to say that the MOST important concern of MicroSoft is making money for its shareholders?

Hubbard's policies on "lying", "telling acceptable truths", and "garnering agreement to manipulate realities" delineates along NASTY lines. These are defined in ways that cannot be used in any other way except deceitfully and surreptitiously.

I could go on and on providing examples of IDEAS of Hubbard's that cannot be applied in any way except abusively or harmfully.

How about, "always attack and never discuss"? That is a really STUPID idea.

The idea itself, applied in just about ANY context, results in asinine behavior. Again, the idea itself contains the pattern of idiocy.

All idea are not created equal, and while people ARE responsible for how they interpret and use any IDEA, some ideas cannot be used in any other way except harmfully. THAT is the problem with a great many ideas of Scientology.

Yup, those are pretty stupid ideas in my view as well.

The only pattern I see is perhaps one of absolutism - always, only, never, etc.

There is no absolute from which you can stand and adjudicate every idea as to its goodness, badness, nuttiness or sanity.

Usually you do much better with your arguments Gad. This post surprised me.

 

[Gadfly]

Yes, I believe they they have now fulfilled the prophecy to "come back" in the 21st century.

Hoaxter, you gotta stop putting pictures of the Cowboy Hat Hubbard everywhere!

I am laughing so hard that I am afraid that I might form a new second asshole!



Here's a few more:

 

[PirateAndBum]

I think the most important things to keep hammering home is Hubbard's underlying purpose for his creation: To smash his name into history. To enslave others while purporting to free them.

The worst thing about scientology is how Hubbard intertwined some things that are useful and corrupted them with his own selfish evil purposes.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Hoaxter, you gotta stop putting pictures of the Cowboy Hat Hubbard everywhere!

I am laughing so hard that I am afraid that I might form a new second asshole!

Hey! The guy singlehandedly salvaged this sector. . .

What's not to like?

​

 

[Gadfly]

Hey! The guy singlehandedly salvaged this sector. . .

What's not to like?

​

Oh shit!!!!!!!

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I don't know why, but seeing Ron the Cowpoke's picture everywhere is just too funny!



The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

OK, even Leonardo Da Vinci recognized the pure genius of Mr. Hubbard, and created this masterpiece in his memory:

 

[PirateAndBum]

OK, even Leonardo Da Vinci recognized the pure genius of Mr. Hubbard, and created this masterpiece in his memory:

eee gads! if only it was just in his memory!

 

[Gadfly]

There is a new movie coming out folks. Just in time to "dead agent" that "SP movie" by Paul Thomas Anderson, "The Master".

 

[Lone Star]

 

[Gadfly]

You have been getting it up the ass from Scientology for these past many years. And, yes, it hurts, and it has some pretty nasty side-effects.

Now, Bridge Publications in conjunction with Johnson & Johnson is coming out with a new product.

Buy YOURS today, and start alleviating that pain in the ass known as Scientology.