Scientology is all bad

[Mark A. Baker]

... To use another (maybe better) analogy, in legal writing you don't ever want the reader to have to fill in any logical gaps in reasoning. Most people don't speak or write like that, and it takes a huge amount of effort to pull off. But when dealing with the newly out, those logical gaps may end up filled in with the black/white cult-think. Failure to handle = entheta. That's what I was trying to avoid having happen in those lengthy posts.

Not just legal writing. Any well-formulated argument is constructed in that fashion. What seems 'obvious' to some most frequently reflects the private prejudice of the advocate. Commonly they fall apart with a more thorough & accurate analysis.


Mark A. Baker

[shadow]

For me, the main reason for thoroughly describing Scientology is to help others to avoid, or recover from, being fooled by Scientology. And it's not possible to thoroughly describe Scientology without, occasionally, mentioning the positives - and the positives are a key element of the mind-trap.

Yep, that is the key. Discuss the good, bad, ugly and other options. My nephew had done lots of research into different philosophies and when he found where much of scn had been pirated from, he started providing info on the alternative philosophies along with his criticism.

[Purple Rain]

Thanks!



Fair enough. My motivation for acknowledging the positives is this:



Others might actually believe in the positives. In that regard, I agree that the categories are crude. The bottom line remains that there are other entheta sites that are maybe better suited for people who want the wheat/chaff exercises or continuing to practice Scientology.

To use another (maybe better) analogy, in legal writing you don't ever want the reader to have to fill in any logical gaps in reasoning. Most people don't speak or write like that, and it takes a huge amount of effort to pull off. But when dealing with the newly out, those logical gaps may end up filled in with the black/white cult-think. Failure to handle = entheta. That's what I was trying to avoid having happen in those lengthy posts.

I am interested in what you think were the logical gaps in my posts to that person.

[HelluvaHoax!]

That behavor is mirrored in Hubbard's PTS handlings:

Handle or Disconnect

There is no other option available "per the tech".

Hubbard talked about "two-valued logic", and how his "multi-valued logic" (gradients) was senior and better.

Except Hubbard often ENFORCED two-valued logic in Scientology. This is just another of many examples of the blatant contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard's world of Scientology is often very "digital", where the only options are either "0" or "1".

If this then do this.

If that, then do that.

It is entirely ROTE and no other options are available.

In many ways, Scientologists ARE like machine robots, following exactly the programming of the Scientology "software" (policies, tech, orders, "data", etc.).

Scientologists very badly want to go back to their "home" (universe).

They are simply following the instructions that came with the tech.

"Follow the Yellow Brickdge Road."

[PirateAndBum]

Yeah but,,,,

but....

I wanna go home...

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker
Only for those, such as yourself, who see things that way.

No. Only for Scientologists.

Aside from Baker's condescension, there is another reason his posts are so "off".

He does not actually agree with the definition of Scientology, as subscribed to by Scientologists and defined by the Founder himself, in every HCOPL, HCOB, tape, book and the Scientology dictionary.

Baker has actually re-defined the word for himself. Scientologists call that a "crashing misunderstood". Wogs call it "confused".

It is noteworthy that the re-definition of terms is what Hubbard and other cult propagandists do.

[Gadfly]

Aside from Baker's condescension, there is another reason his posts are so "off".

He does not actually agree with the definition of Scientology, as subscribed to by Scientologists and defined by the Founder in every HCOPL, HCOB, tape & book.

Baker has re-defined the word for himself. Scientologists call that a "crashing misunderstood". Wogs call it "confused".

Thank-you for finally clearing up MY OWN confusion with the poster known as Mark Baker. You are entirely correct. I feel like a heavy weight has been lifted from my shoulders and head.

When a person chooses to use a different definition of a term than just about everybody else involved, naturally, he or she will appear "odd" (at least), and really strange or even nuts (at worse).

Note: Though, to some degree, many or all "indie Scientologists" also suffer from some similar version of this same sort of redefining of what is Scientology and a Scientologist (in direct contradiction to Hubbard's own overly clear HCOBs, HCOPLs, tapes and books).

[HelluvaHoax!]

Yeah but,,,,

but....

I wanna go home...

Yeah, but you are home.

Earth is not a "prison planet". This is where we live.

Oh well, if you are bummed out. . .

1. Fly a Rud.

2. Have a beer.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Thank-you for finally clearing up MY OWN confusion with the poster known as Mark Baker. You are entirely correct. I feel like a heavy weight has been lifted from my shoulders and head.

When a person chooses to use a different definition of a term than just about everybody else involved, naturally, he or she will appear "odd" (at least), and really strange or even nuts (at worse).

Ergo...

I am a strict "vegetarian" but I had eggs and bacon for breakfast, a hamburger for lunch and steak for dinner.

I am a devout "Christian" but I do not believe in Christ, his teachings or the Bible-- and I attend Koranic studies with a Mullah and worship in strict accordance with Mohammed's teachings--in a Mosque with an Imam.

I am a Non-ESMBer; a person who does not read, participate in any way or post on the message board known as ESMB. I am not posting this, I am just communicating it in writing to let you know.

[Gadfly]

Scientologists very badly want to go back to their "home" (universe).

This whole thing about "home universes" is so STUPID. It is like the Scientology version of the Garden of Eden (which I also think is entirely stupid). A "spiritual being" in decent shape woudn't care about ANY of that.

Ones attention, if one were actually in "good shape", would being happily and calmly IN PT (not stuck on some PAST "home universe").

But then, most Scientologists are not actually "in good shape" - they are over-indoctrinated human beings who falsely imagine themselves to be other than a human beng (i.e. Homo Novus, OT, etc.).

If anyone here has studied the PDC tapes (I did), Hubbard pretty much makes it clear that ANY universe exists because of considerations and agreements. Even if there was some wonderful long-gone and forever-missed "home universe", it is really only just "another universe" - of course, with LOTS of "added significance" by the various Scientologists who pine for it.

It really cracks me up how amazingly convoluted and inherently contradictory the subject of Scientology is. On the one hand Hubbard talks about how considerations, agreements and significance need to be AS-ISED (or at least let go of) to "free the thetan" (I think there is some truth to that idea - when greatly reinterpreted from a Buddhist perspective), but then on the other hand he plants so MUCH MORE added significance & considerations about so many things into the mushy little heads of his over-zealous Scientologists.

And, so so many don't or can't see this - that they have bought into a whole new bundle of exaggerated significances & considerations.