freedom_fighter
Patron
I moved my reply to your post, SchwimmelPuckel, over from my introduction thread. I thought it probably belonged here, more than there.
Yes, I'm very familiar with your viewpoint and those of similar. It's your absolute right to have that viewpoint. There are those people, though, who do have a hard time reconciling within themselves "why" they felt good and that they were helped by this thing that turned out to be so terrible and evil, perpetrated by this despicable con man. This may be true especially for the ones who have left more recently and discovered all the information on the net. Although long gone and recovered from the trauma of leaving Scientology and getting declared, I did a little self-searching in that area too upon reading "the truth" about LRH and the CofS. It is for those other that people I post my viewpoints, and also for people who still might be "in" who read these boards looking to sort through their own confusion.
I give you this - the tech is no doubt dangerous as it is applied in the CofS today. Once I had an acquaintance ask me about Scientology because she was being pressured by friends to join up. I told her if she was curious to read a book or two, but under NO circumstances have anything whatsoever to do with the organization.
Well, by observation and participation in the world at large, one can draw the conclusion that "something" is up with the minds of many humans, or the world wouldn't be the way it is. People wouldn't be so gullible, for instance, as to get into these things in the first place, and the CofS would not have been able to become the powerful entity that it has been. The lie is that Hubbard's way is the only way to get better.
This is actually a time-honored tradition in our world, one which LRH just seized upon and perpetuated. The masses of humanity have, throughout recorded history, been led around with a ring in their nose by the religions, which say "If you do not do it our way you are doomed." The doctrine of original sin is the granddaddy of this whole premise, IMHO. It stipulates that humans are just naturally imperfect and incapable of attaining any salvation or knowledge of their maker without an intermediary. To force people to adhere to a particular set of doctrines and practices "or else" has been, and still is a modus operandi of organized religions.
Hubbard set himself up as a messiah as many others did before him. I still do not think this was his original intent, but he seized upon it quickly enough. When he was writing DMSMH, do you really think he had a clue how popular it would become? I don't. I think he was just trying to write something that would make him some money. The difference, in the 20th century, is that LRH had a "tech" rather than a set of belief systems. This appealed, I think, to vast numbers of people alienated and disgusted with the religions and enamored of the possibilities of science and technology. The premise of a "fix-all" for the human mind and the problems and uncertainties of life which is not based upon worshipping the right God or laying on the psychiatrist's couch is undeniably tempting. People are still looking for it in droves.
As I said before, obviously "something" is up with the human mind for the world to be the way it is. There seems to be a part in most of of us which does not always function sanely and which seeks to sabotage our attempts to create the life we want and to destroy that which we feel threatens us. I am not sure that LRH had it exactly right with the "reactive mind" premise, but surely there is something along those lines at work.
The trap is in buying into the "messiah" idea, that we have no power over our minds, emotions lives, or eternal future without "the intermediary" - be it person, technology or belief system. So yes, I think that the premise that we cannot trust our own minds and must do Hubbard's exact tech to get clear so we can is a lie and a marketing ploy. To my mind, though, that isn't directly relevant to whether or not some people benefit from the tech in some way.
Hubbard also was very "black and white". "Sane" and "insane" are relative and subjective terms, which he tried to define absolutely. Life, and the human psyche are not like that, so black and white. Now I know it is not possible to create a "tech" that will work for everyone, or even all of the "able". Humans are not wired that way. Everyone has areas of life that work and areas that don't, and to say they are insane unless they do Dianetics and Scientology processing is preposterous, of course. I never bought that, even being a devotee. I was simply about becoming more able myself and helping others to do so, if I could. I would like to live in a world with no war, criminals or insanity, if it be possible to create such. I now know such a world will not be created by a totalitarian regime with a "tech" though.
I agree with you entirely that believing one's mind is flawed is not good for one's mental health. Neither is believing that one is inherently evil because of some lady taking a bite out of an apple in the dim reaches of human history particularly good for one's mental health, IMHO.
See above, we don't need a totalitarian anything. Yet there must be a set of universal truths that will enable humanity, individually and collectively, to better itself and evolve into higher, and more civilized states of consciousness. I never bought that we are just random acts of evolution, or that we are descended from clams.
We do not necessarily have to condemn all that we have been and to view ourselves as "flawed" in order to desire to create something better. That is what Hubbard put there with his black and white definitions of things. He just fed into the already existing concept that humans need someone or something to "save them from themselves."
I never bought LRH's entire cosmology and history of Earth, either. Yet if one observes human behavior from a place of objectivity, one will see that some of the things he said about the reactive mind appear to be true. People do often seem to be "restimulated" by sights, sounds, sensations and similarities that remind them of painful events in their past. "Reliving" past painful experience is part of other therapies besides Dianetics and Scientology. Viewing the painful experience again in a safe setting seems to be quite beneficial for some people and stops some areas of "restimulation." Even some of the doctors are starting to admit to the emotional component of illness and recovery. Once again, I think LRH had part of it, but not all of it, and he really should have realized that. Maybe he does now, from the afterlife, wherever he is.
This is time-honored behavior in operation again. The religions have tried to force everyone into the battle to eradicate all opposition and still do, in more subtle ways now than torture and death for non-compliance. This is the same old thing dressed up in new, contemporary garb. Still, the great battle at hand is not entirely relevant, IMHO, to whether or not Hubbard had a few things that actually worked for people. Some people find spiritual fulfillment in the religions, too, albeit their earthly organizations are into the exact same power and control games as Scientology.
Nope, obviousy LRH had a concept of Homo Novis that he was unable to live or to bring about through his organization. That does not necessarily mean that the concept of Homo Novis is not possible. We are nothing if we cannot imagine and dream of greater things. We do not have the right, however, to enforce our imaginings and dreams on everyone else.
This is Hubbard's messiah complex at work, clearly.
We could, perhaps, or some could. A lot of people had good results working with Dianetics just from the book, so it seems. That is how, I assume, that LRH got the idea to create a formal organization to deliver the service, and from there eased into the role of messiah.
If people were of a mind, they could do co-audits and not exchange money at all. I am of the opinion that the upper level tech may be highly questionable. That which is in LRH's early books is usable by people, if they want, without their having to go to an organization and be trained for it or seek out a "certified practitioner". No one should be "forced" to do anything, of course. In my world it's kind of simple now - if it works, do it but don't force anyone else to do it your way. If it doesn't, or quits working, stop and move on.
One of the fundamental truths of existence that I am certain of now is that we do ALL have the inherent power within us to better ourselves if we choose to do so. We do not NEED a specific religion, tech, system or intermediary to do that. If people do not have the discipline, perseverance or commitment to seek that power within and tap into it on their own and have to have somebody "help" them, then an exchange is in order. If you cannot fix your own car, for instance, you have to pay the mechanic. As I said previously, though, I never found ANY justification for the high prices of Scientology. I didn't have that kind of money, but if I did have it, they wouldn't have gotten it all. There would have been a point where I would have said "Deliver what you promised or you don't get another dime." I sure the hell would not have paid for my own periodic mandatory sec checks.
Hubbard way overstepped himself making grandiose claims for the states of Clear and OT, absolutely. His "black and white" viewpoint is obvious. "Clear" had to be an absolute, a "this, this and that." The concept of "clearer than before" wasn't in his realm of possibilities as a viable end result, I assume. Early on, it was proved pretty conclusively that "Clear" as he described and marketed it did not actually exist, for anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear. Neither did OT's have all the fantastic abilities he promised. Yet many people did experience marked personal change through Dianetics and Scientology processing. I was one of those.
If you compare this marketing strategy with advertising in the real world - how many companies make exaggerated claims for their products which cause people to buy them up? So many that the government had to pass laws to regulate it. You buy something on that basis, from watching the infomercial or whatever, and you find out that it works, but probably not so great as the sales pitch said. Maybe you learn, after a while, not to fall for the sales hype. Because Hubbard engaged in the deceptive selling of intangibles, is his offense greater than anybody else who misrepresents their product? Is the product totally worthless because it doesn't actually do all that? That's a matter for each individual to decide.
I really do not wish to change anyone's mind - just simply put alternate viewpoints there for those who would find them useful. People have some responsibility to watch out for potholes in the road, too, and to exercise some common sense and discernment, now more than ever with so many people jumping on the self-help/new age gravy train.
I stayed in Scientology as long as it continued to work for me, and as long as I felt I might be doing something that would help humanity. I actually spent less than $10,000 cash in eleven years in Scientology and feel it was more or less a fair exchange for what I got out of it. When it wasn't working anymore, when I was seeing and experiencing things that I just was not cool with, I left. It was hard leaving. "The Bridge" had become a big, big part of my life and I was scared that I had tossed away my only chance at freeing myself from my own demons and having a happy life. I no longer, in my mind, had a cause or purpose to align with or much hope of finding a higher truth. I lost some good friends, too, when I got declared - fortunately not family or livelihood. But you know, LRH had taught me well; "Never compromise your own reality." These are actually wise, wise words. If people would follow them, they wouldn't get into cults, or would get out of the ones they're in. When I saw clearly that the CofS was not being true to its stated aims and purposes, I had to leave.
Organizations like Scientology would not perpetuate themselves if people didn't buy into the hype so blindly. Paradoxically, I used abilities that I had gained through my auditing and training to re-evaluate the organization and decide I no longer wanted to be a part of it. Through my auditing, I became much less of a blind sheep than I was before, and much less tolerant of hypocrisy. In that respect, LRH did me a favor, although maybe not the one he intended.
I don't think anyone will be able to codify the human experience in exact terms or fully explain "consciousness" because we are not "the same" any of us. We are not microchips coming off the assembly line. The great mysteries of the cosmos can only be known in the way that we, as individuals, relate to and understand our life experience.
Meanwhile, each of us are free to find value, and worthlessness, as we like, and to be nasty bastards, if we want. The frustrating part of "black and white" though, is that you get really pissed when others cannot see your version of it.
It takes two to tango. If people did not so readily buy into the hype, if they would take what worked and leave the rest, these organizations would not become so large, powerful and abusive. Let others fight with picket signs, masks, youtube, etc. That, too, has its place. Injustice is injustice, whether it is hiding behind the cloak of "religion" or not, and it needs to be exposed. However, unless the other side of the coin is addressed; what makes people get into these groups in the first place and be turned into mindless automatons, there will always be another person with a messiah complex, and another mind and body controlling cult just around the corner. My fight is to liberate the power of the human spirit.
Yes, I'm very familiar with your viewpoint and those of similar. It's your absolute right to have that viewpoint. There are those people, though, who do have a hard time reconciling within themselves "why" they felt good and that they were helped by this thing that turned out to be so terrible and evil, perpetrated by this despicable con man. This may be true especially for the ones who have left more recently and discovered all the information on the net. Although long gone and recovered from the trauma of leaving Scientology and getting declared, I did a little self-searching in that area too upon reading "the truth" about LRH and the CofS. It is for those other that people I post my viewpoints, and also for people who still might be "in" who read these boards looking to sort through their own confusion.
I give you this - the tech is no doubt dangerous as it is applied in the CofS today. Once I had an acquaintance ask me about Scientology because she was being pressured by friends to join up. I told her if she was curious to read a book or two, but under NO circumstances have anything whatsoever to do with the organization.
Well, by observation and participation in the world at large, one can draw the conclusion that "something" is up with the minds of many humans, or the world wouldn't be the way it is. People wouldn't be so gullible, for instance, as to get into these things in the first place, and the CofS would not have been able to become the powerful entity that it has been. The lie is that Hubbard's way is the only way to get better.
This is actually a time-honored tradition in our world, one which LRH just seized upon and perpetuated. The masses of humanity have, throughout recorded history, been led around with a ring in their nose by the religions, which say "If you do not do it our way you are doomed." The doctrine of original sin is the granddaddy of this whole premise, IMHO. It stipulates that humans are just naturally imperfect and incapable of attaining any salvation or knowledge of their maker without an intermediary. To force people to adhere to a particular set of doctrines and practices "or else" has been, and still is a modus operandi of organized religions.
Hubbard set himself up as a messiah as many others did before him. I still do not think this was his original intent, but he seized upon it quickly enough. When he was writing DMSMH, do you really think he had a clue how popular it would become? I don't. I think he was just trying to write something that would make him some money. The difference, in the 20th century, is that LRH had a "tech" rather than a set of belief systems. This appealed, I think, to vast numbers of people alienated and disgusted with the religions and enamored of the possibilities of science and technology. The premise of a "fix-all" for the human mind and the problems and uncertainties of life which is not based upon worshipping the right God or laying on the psychiatrist's couch is undeniably tempting. People are still looking for it in droves.
As I said before, obviously "something" is up with the human mind for the world to be the way it is. There seems to be a part in most of of us which does not always function sanely and which seeks to sabotage our attempts to create the life we want and to destroy that which we feel threatens us. I am not sure that LRH had it exactly right with the "reactive mind" premise, but surely there is something along those lines at work.
The trap is in buying into the "messiah" idea, that we have no power over our minds, emotions lives, or eternal future without "the intermediary" - be it person, technology or belief system. So yes, I think that the premise that we cannot trust our own minds and must do Hubbard's exact tech to get clear so we can is a lie and a marketing ploy. To my mind, though, that isn't directly relevant to whether or not some people benefit from the tech in some way.
Hubbard also was very "black and white". "Sane" and "insane" are relative and subjective terms, which he tried to define absolutely. Life, and the human psyche are not like that, so black and white. Now I know it is not possible to create a "tech" that will work for everyone, or even all of the "able". Humans are not wired that way. Everyone has areas of life that work and areas that don't, and to say they are insane unless they do Dianetics and Scientology processing is preposterous, of course. I never bought that, even being a devotee. I was simply about becoming more able myself and helping others to do so, if I could. I would like to live in a world with no war, criminals or insanity, if it be possible to create such. I now know such a world will not be created by a totalitarian regime with a "tech" though.
I agree with you entirely that believing one's mind is flawed is not good for one's mental health. Neither is believing that one is inherently evil because of some lady taking a bite out of an apple in the dim reaches of human history particularly good for one's mental health, IMHO.
See above, we don't need a totalitarian anything. Yet there must be a set of universal truths that will enable humanity, individually and collectively, to better itself and evolve into higher, and more civilized states of consciousness. I never bought that we are just random acts of evolution, or that we are descended from clams.
We do not necessarily have to condemn all that we have been and to view ourselves as "flawed" in order to desire to create something better. That is what Hubbard put there with his black and white definitions of things. He just fed into the already existing concept that humans need someone or something to "save them from themselves."I never bought LRH's entire cosmology and history of Earth, either. Yet if one observes human behavior from a place of objectivity, one will see that some of the things he said about the reactive mind appear to be true. People do often seem to be "restimulated" by sights, sounds, sensations and similarities that remind them of painful events in their past. "Reliving" past painful experience is part of other therapies besides Dianetics and Scientology. Viewing the painful experience again in a safe setting seems to be quite beneficial for some people and stops some areas of "restimulation." Even some of the doctors are starting to admit to the emotional component of illness and recovery. Once again, I think LRH had part of it, but not all of it, and he really should have realized that. Maybe he does now, from the afterlife, wherever he is.
This is time-honored behavior in operation again. The religions have tried to force everyone into the battle to eradicate all opposition and still do, in more subtle ways now than torture and death for non-compliance. This is the same old thing dressed up in new, contemporary garb. Still, the great battle at hand is not entirely relevant, IMHO, to whether or not Hubbard had a few things that actually worked for people. Some people find spiritual fulfillment in the religions, too, albeit their earthly organizations are into the exact same power and control games as Scientology.
Nope, obviousy LRH had a concept of Homo Novis that he was unable to live or to bring about through his organization. That does not necessarily mean that the concept of Homo Novis is not possible. We are nothing if we cannot imagine and dream of greater things. We do not have the right, however, to enforce our imaginings and dreams on everyone else.
This is Hubbard's messiah complex at work, clearly.
We could, perhaps, or some could. A lot of people had good results working with Dianetics just from the book, so it seems. That is how, I assume, that LRH got the idea to create a formal organization to deliver the service, and from there eased into the role of messiah.
If people were of a mind, they could do co-audits and not exchange money at all. I am of the opinion that the upper level tech may be highly questionable. That which is in LRH's early books is usable by people, if they want, without their having to go to an organization and be trained for it or seek out a "certified practitioner". No one should be "forced" to do anything, of course. In my world it's kind of simple now - if it works, do it but don't force anyone else to do it your way. If it doesn't, or quits working, stop and move on.
One of the fundamental truths of existence that I am certain of now is that we do ALL have the inherent power within us to better ourselves if we choose to do so. We do not NEED a specific religion, tech, system or intermediary to do that. If people do not have the discipline, perseverance or commitment to seek that power within and tap into it on their own and have to have somebody "help" them, then an exchange is in order. If you cannot fix your own car, for instance, you have to pay the mechanic. As I said previously, though, I never found ANY justification for the high prices of Scientology. I didn't have that kind of money, but if I did have it, they wouldn't have gotten it all. There would have been a point where I would have said "Deliver what you promised or you don't get another dime." I sure the hell would not have paid for my own periodic mandatory sec checks.
Hubbard way overstepped himself making grandiose claims for the states of Clear and OT, absolutely. His "black and white" viewpoint is obvious. "Clear" had to be an absolute, a "this, this and that." The concept of "clearer than before" wasn't in his realm of possibilities as a viable end result, I assume. Early on, it was proved pretty conclusively that "Clear" as he described and marketed it did not actually exist, for anyone with the eyes to see and the ears to hear. Neither did OT's have all the fantastic abilities he promised. Yet many people did experience marked personal change through Dianetics and Scientology processing. I was one of those.
If you compare this marketing strategy with advertising in the real world - how many companies make exaggerated claims for their products which cause people to buy them up? So many that the government had to pass laws to regulate it. You buy something on that basis, from watching the infomercial or whatever, and you find out that it works, but probably not so great as the sales pitch said. Maybe you learn, after a while, not to fall for the sales hype. Because Hubbard engaged in the deceptive selling of intangibles, is his offense greater than anybody else who misrepresents their product? Is the product totally worthless because it doesn't actually do all that? That's a matter for each individual to decide.
I really do not wish to change anyone's mind - just simply put alternate viewpoints there for those who would find them useful. People have some responsibility to watch out for potholes in the road, too, and to exercise some common sense and discernment, now more than ever with so many people jumping on the self-help/new age gravy train.
I stayed in Scientology as long as it continued to work for me, and as long as I felt I might be doing something that would help humanity. I actually spent less than $10,000 cash in eleven years in Scientology and feel it was more or less a fair exchange for what I got out of it. When it wasn't working anymore, when I was seeing and experiencing things that I just was not cool with, I left. It was hard leaving. "The Bridge" had become a big, big part of my life and I was scared that I had tossed away my only chance at freeing myself from my own demons and having a happy life. I no longer, in my mind, had a cause or purpose to align with or much hope of finding a higher truth. I lost some good friends, too, when I got declared - fortunately not family or livelihood. But you know, LRH had taught me well; "Never compromise your own reality." These are actually wise, wise words. If people would follow them, they wouldn't get into cults, or would get out of the ones they're in. When I saw clearly that the CofS was not being true to its stated aims and purposes, I had to leave.
Organizations like Scientology would not perpetuate themselves if people didn't buy into the hype so blindly. Paradoxically, I used abilities that I had gained through my auditing and training to re-evaluate the organization and decide I no longer wanted to be a part of it. Through my auditing, I became much less of a blind sheep than I was before, and much less tolerant of hypocrisy. In that respect, LRH did me a favor, although maybe not the one he intended.
I don't think anyone will be able to codify the human experience in exact terms or fully explain "consciousness" because we are not "the same" any of us. We are not microchips coming off the assembly line. The great mysteries of the cosmos can only be known in the way that we, as individuals, relate to and understand our life experience.
Meanwhile, each of us are free to find value, and worthlessness, as we like, and to be nasty bastards, if we want. The frustrating part of "black and white" though, is that you get really pissed when others cannot see your version of it.
It takes two to tango. If people did not so readily buy into the hype, if they would take what worked and leave the rest, these organizations would not become so large, powerful and abusive. Let others fight with picket signs, masks, youtube, etc. That, too, has its place. Injustice is injustice, whether it is hiding behind the cloak of "religion" or not, and it needs to be exposed. However, unless the other side of the coin is addressed; what makes people get into these groups in the first place and be turned into mindless automatons, there will always be another person with a messiah complex, and another mind and body controlling cult just around the corner. My fight is to liberate the power of the human spirit.
I actually spend a whole lot of time trying to clue people in on that. That is one of my reasons for being here, I suppose, to be another voice putting forth the message that "the power lies within you." People, by and large, do NOT want to see this, though, that they have the power within their own selves to change whatever they want about self/life. They will say "Gee, thanks for telling me that!" and run off to find the next -ism, -ology, guru, activation, psychic reader, whatever. Then, when they feel that they have been harmed by the whatever, they blame and cry foul. The message "the power lies within you" has been around a long, long time. If I recall, Jesus even said something about it. "Seek the Kingdom of God within you."
)
