Scientology concepts that still "make sense" to you.

[Mick Wenlock]

I neither agree nor disagree at this point, but it's worthy of further investigation. The church's goons do accept it however, and will use it wherever they can to disrupt any discussion they don't like.

Bill, yes they will try to use it but, because it is total tripe it won't work as 'they' expect it to. it never does. it never has. They have tried it against every enemy the cofs has. It doesn't work because Hubbard's 'law' is not a law of any kind.

Sorry if I seemed worried Just thought it would be better to shed light on some tactics they're likely to use against this forum.

Bill

naah you didnt sound that worried... Its more my expression of impatience with the seemingly endless go round of "what is OSA doing". Personally I do not think it matters in the least what they do.

They are stuck applying the tenets of a bloated bloviating idiot. It doesn't matter what they do, it's irrelevent.

As long as the rest of talk about what we are interested in, what we feel passionate about and as long as we argue, discuss, fall out, fall in then we are proof positive that Scientology is full of "you know what" .

One of the best and most potent antidotes to totalitarianism is vigorous freedom of speech.

 

[Zinjifar]

It's phony. One more attempt by Hubbard to try and sound like he had some sort of clue.

It's all of that, but, I think there's a more interesting element in play too. An essential element of Scientology is the implication that Scientology cannot be wrong. The thread runs everywhere through 'The Tech'; from 'misunderstood words' being the sole reason for disagreement with Hubbard to the PTS/SP 'Tech', it's all about the proposition that Scientology (and Hubbard) cannot be wrong. (without saying so openly)

It's a reversion to 'magical thinking'. If there's an argument, it's some dire and concealed 'outsider' who's causing it. If you're sick (which you can't be with 'The Tech') then you're 'PTS' to some evil hidden 'suppressive'.

Naturally, it's nonsense, but, it's nonsense that's fairly easy to sell, since it seems to be a default setting (pre-science) for all human cultures.

If the milk goes sour, it's not bacteria, it's *witches* in the village next door. It's the 'evil eye'.

Simple answers requiring nothing but absolute certainty in nonsense and requiring no 'causal' demonstration.

Zinj

 

[spbill]

Bill, yes they will try to use it but, because it is total tripe it won't work as 'they' expect it to. it never does. it never has. They have tried it against every enemy the cofs has. It doesn't work because Hubbard's 'law' is not a law of any kind.

I'm afraid it does work sometimes. It doesn't work once the targets become aware they are being manipulated. Scientific laws *describe* the way things are, religious laws *prescribe* the way things ought to be. If Hubbard said it was a law, the faithful will act on it as though it were true. Unfortunately a lot of us have enough built-in unconscious agreements to make this "law" workable to some extent.

As long as the rest of talk about what we are interested in, what we feel passionate about and as long as we argue, discuss, fall out, fall in then we are proof positive that Scientology is full of "you know what" .

One of the best and most potent antidotes to totalitarianism is vigorous freedom of speech.

Well said!
Bill

 

[Mick Wenlock]

It's all of that, but, I think there's a more interesting element in play too. An essential element of Scientology is the implication that Scientology cannot be wrong. The thread runs everywhere through 'The Tech'; from 'misunderstood words' being the sole reason for disagreement with Hubbard to the PTS/SP 'Tech', it's all about the proposition that Scientology (and Hubbard) cannot be wrong. (without saying so openly)

It's a reversion to 'magical thinking'. If there's an argument, it's some dire and concealed 'outsider' who's causing it. If you're sick (which you can't be with 'The Tech') then you're 'PTS' to some evil hidden 'suppressive'.

Naturally, it's nonsense, but, it's nonsense that's fairly easy to sell, since it seems to be a default setting (pre-science) for all human cultures.

If the milk goes sour, it's not bacteria, it's *witches* in the village next door. It's the 'evil eye'.

Simple answers requiring nothing but absolute certainty in nonsense and requiring no 'causal' demonstration.

Zinj

Yeah I would agree with that.

Personally I think that Hubbard was forced into an every growing series of ad hoc hypotheses that grew increasingly bizarre and weird to try and explain away why his stuff never ever produced anything. he released Dianetics - and could not produce any results so then he came up with scientology and when all his "research" never yieled anything better than "well I feel better" he came up with "SPs" "Drugs" "Misunderstood words" . Each of them yet another hypothesis as to why his theory never worked.

You are so right, 'magical thinking' is a requirement to stay a scientologist.

 

[spbill]

It's all of that, but, I think there's a more interesting element in play too. An essential element of Scientology is the implication that Scientology cannot be wrong. The thread runs everywhere through 'The Tech'; from 'misunderstood words' being the sole reason for disagreement with Hubbard to the PTS/SP 'Tech', it's all about the proposition that Scientology (and Hubbard) cannot be wrong. (without saying so openly)

I don't see it quite so cut and dry. Most Scientologists would say Hubbard could be (and *was* on many occasions) wrong. It's another matter to prevail in getting something corrected. Due to the "mustn't alter it" insanity, even suggesting something the old man wrote should be revised runs into a solid emotional brick wall and can get you declared. Of course it was fine for Hubbard himself to admit he was wrong about something and make a change, just let someone else try that!

It's a reversion to 'magical thinking'. If there's an argument, it's some dire and concealed 'outsider' who's causing it. If you're sick (which you can't be with 'The Tech') then you're 'PTS' to some evil hidden 'suppressive'.

There's certainly a lot of that still in the organization and it makes it difficult to see the truth. I don't know if it is an aspect of human nature LRH simply overlooked or if he elected to let it stand to emphasize his different approach and decrease the probability of going into agreement with what he considered aberrated notions. In my opinion there is no place for coercion in any genuine effort to find (or communicate) the truth and the church would be well-advised to handle it.

Naturally, it's nonsense, but, it's nonsense that's fairly easy to sell, since it seems to be a default setting (pre-science) for all human cultures.

If the milk goes sour, it's not bacteria, it's *witches* in the village next door. It's the 'evil eye'.

Simple answers requiring nothing but absolute certainty in nonsense and requiring no 'causal' demonstration.
Zinj

Agreed.
spbill

 

[Mick Wenlock]

I'm afraid it does work sometimes. It doesn't work once the targets become aware they are being manipulated. Scientific laws *describe* the way things are, religious laws *prescribe* the way things ought to be. If Hubbard said it was a law, the faithful will act on it as though it were true. Unfortunately a lot of us have enough built-in unconscious agreements to make this "law" workable to some extent.
Bill

I don't disagree with you -it certainly is true that it is possible to create disagreements between other people by judicial use of gossip and innuendo.

But - and this is a big but - provoking people in arguments is not third party. If I troll you in order to get a rise out of you and succeed and get others to join in the flame war, I have not third partied anyone.

But let's get back to our initial point - let's say an OSA person ( I have decided that an OSA person should be called a "Thrush" - a bird whose Latin family name is Turdus..) trolls a list and sets off a flame war between other participants.

What "good" has that done Scientology? And what harm has it done to people who enjoy spirited debate on-line? I have been posting on ARS since 1994/95 I have gotten into my share of arguments over things that have nothing much to do with Scientology and I am still around.

I think sometimes that people (and I am not aiming this at you by any means) have an over-exagerrated view of things like ARS or this message board or OCMB. Its not some points competition, it's not a text book - it's just people talking.

The best antidote to Scientology is to watch Scientologists trying to debate the subject.

As soon as they open their mouths they show themselves to be intolerant ignoramuses. Once they get cornered they bluster and waffle and, inevitably they disappear.

 

[spbill]

I don't disagree with you -it certainly is true that it is possible to create disagreements between other people by judicial use of gossip and innuendo.

But - and this is a big but - provoking people in arguments is not third party. If I troll you in order to get a rise out of you and succeed and get others to join in the flame war, I have not third partied anyone.

But let's get back to our initial point - let's say an OSA person ( I have decided that an OSA person should be called a "Thrush" - a bird whose Latin family name is Turdus..) trolls a list and sets off a flame war between other participants.

What "good" has that done Scientology?

If the public sees critics arguing among themselves and generally in disarray it reduces the chances they'll be taken seriously. Within the cult mentality anything done to reduce the effectiveness of critics is considered a win.

And what harm has it done to people who enjoy spirited debate on-line? I have been posting on ARS since 1994/95 I have gotten into my share of arguments over things that have nothing much to do with Scientology and I am still around.

Mick, I too love a spirited debate. Problem is, many folks aren't easily able to concede another's point of view, especially when it means they'll have to give up a long-held belief or opinion. I think that may stem from religious indoctrination where adherents are warned evil forces will try to "shake" their faith and they should be vigilant, never give an inch. Believing everything we're told (by our parents e.g.) without question is a bad habit and leads to a deep rut which isn't easy to climb out of. Makes it much harder to reach for the truth. More than once I have made the mistake of assuming I was discussing something in a group of intelligent peers with thick skins in great debating condition (words will never hurt me) only to find someone in the group had taken offense at something I said, taken it as a personal attack instead of the way it was intended. My response to this has been to back off discussing anything *too* controversial or where I felt the other participants had buttons I might inadvertently push. Another response has been to seek safer groups in which I could feel free to be myself without worrying about upsetting people. I touched on this in another post - Zinj brought up the emotional insanity in Scientology when it comes to challenging anything Hubbard wrote. It certainly exists and no doubt makes it harder for followers to ever realize (or communicate) the truth.

I think sometimes that people (and I am not aiming this at you by any means) have an over-exagerrated view of things like ARS or this message board or OCMB. Its not some points competition, it's not a text book - it's just people talking.

It's hard to separate competitiveness from the purpose of a debate which is presumably to get down to the truth. It's only natural to defend one's position for as long as possible before acknowledging the other guy is right. We need to make sure we don't go on defending something after we've already conceded the point has been lost.

The best antidote to Scientology is to watch Scientologists trying to debate the subject. As soon as they open their mouths they show themselves to be intolerant ignoramuses. Once they get cornered they bluster and waffle and, inevitably they disappear.

Maybe that's why Scientologists are told they shouldn't debate the subject
Bill

 

[Mick Wenlock]

If the public sees critics arguing among themselves and generally in disarray it reduces the chances they'll be taken seriously. Within the cult mentality anything done to reduce the effectiveness of critics is considered a win.

OK - what evidence are you basing this assumption on? I have never, in 13 years, seen any sort of proof or even flimsy evidence of this.

It's an assumption and I do not think it has any validity. I take part in many other discussion groups both on usenet and on private lists. I may come and go depending on whether there is something to interest me but I have never bothered to "judge" anything other than what I am interested in discussing.

I am mystified a little - you refer to "if the public" - what public? Some vast, nameless, unquantifiable audience of some kind that is watching ARS and evaluating whether criticism is valid based on the behavior of posters??? I have heard this mantra often but I think it is a mistake to subscribe to this Scientology driven paradigm.

Mick, I too love a spirited debate. Problem is, many folks aren't easily able to concede another's point of view, especially when it means they'll have to give up a long-held belief or opinion. I think that may stem from religious indoctrination where adherents are warned evil forces will try to "shake" their faith and they should be vigilant, never give an inch. Believing everything we're told (by our parents e.g.) without question is a bad habit and leads to a deep rut which isn't easy to climb out of. Makes it much harder to reach for the truth. More than once I have made the mistake of assuming I was discussing something in a group of intelligent peers with thick skins in great debating condition (words will never hurt me) only to find someone in the group had taken offense at something I said, taken it as a personal attack instead of the way it was intended. My response to this has been to back off discussing anything *too* controversial or where I felt the other participants had buttons I might inadvertently push. Another response has been to seek safer groups in which I could feel free to be myself without worrying about upsetting people. I touched on this in another post - Zinj brought up the emotional insanity in Scientology when it comes to challenging anything Hubbard wrote. It certainly exists and no doubt makes it harder for followers to ever realize (or communicate) the truth.

I see your point and I too have had my share of treading on peoples' feelings with a too strong riposte or counter. But I differ from you in my reaction - if someone takes it personal when it isn't, well I write them off as someone to debate with. One thing I got out of Scientology with is a firm belief that I will speak my mind and try to argue my case. I have found through the years that this has given me the time and space to actually look at Scientology and examine all those things that I took for granted.

I realized - and continue to realize - that nothing in Scientology holds up when you start to examine it - from study "tech" to "policy" to auditing. Take this "third party law" we are discussing on this thread. When I was in, I never tried to examine this thing with sceptical thinking in mind. But when i did, it started to fall apart. You were right, of course, in that they will try to use it but as it is worthless I really don't see too much to be concerned about.

Maybe that's why Scientologists are told they shouldn't debate the subject
Bill

LOL - yeah but the sad fact is if Scientologists do try to debate the subject it will start to open up their critical thinking skills - and if that starts to happen the whole charade unravels. Hubbard was smart enough to know that.

 

[spbill]

OK - what evidence are you basing this assumption on? I have never, in 13 years, seen any sort of proof or even flimsy evidence of this.

It's an assumption and I do not think it has any validity. I take part in many other discussion groups both on usenet and on private lists. I may come and go depending on whether there is something to interest me but I have never bothered to "judge" anything other than what I am interested in discussing.

Well, maybe you're right about that. I don't have any tangible evidence that seeing critics arguing with one another will lead a reader to take their points less seriously. But my opinion is that some individuals make up their minds about a thing based upon how many others support/decry it, and the standing of those others in the eyes of the beholder. Seems pretty clear to me that if the "experts" don't agree on something it's better to wait before making a judgment but if there is a broad concensus something is a scam, folks would believe it. We could take global warming as an example. If *all* scientists
agreed we're wrecking the planet governments would have little choice but to do something about it whereas if the scientific community is split 50-50 and cannot agree on the *facts* it makes it a lot easier to justify doing nothing, saying "the jury is still out on that." If the experts are fighting among themselves it naturally leads one to question their expertise. Personally, I think it's the height of stupidity to evaluate *anything* based on what others think of it or to take a vote and make a decision according to the preponderance of other-opinion. That's letting others do my thinking for me, which would make my evaluations and judgments less intelligent (well, certainly no more intelligent) than theirs. Nevertheless, I see people using this mode of "thinking" every day.

I am mystified a little - you refer to "if the public" - what public?

The set of potential new recruits who might be won over to Scientology, that public. If they're rich and gullible, so much the better.

Some vast, nameless, unquantifiable audience of some kind that is watching ARS and evaluating whether criticism is valid based on the behavior of posters??? I have heard this mantra often but I think it is a mistake to subscribe to this Scientology driven paradigm.

I think you're projecting *your* ability to evaluate arguments and separate the bs from the facts onto everyone else who reads ARS. In my opinion
there is a considerable audience of so-called "raw meat" out there who don't have your discerning skills. These are the ones the cult seeks to influence.

I see your point and I too have had my share of treading on peoples' feelings with a too strong riposte or counter. But I differ from you in my reaction - if someone takes it personal when it isn't, well I write them off as someone to debate with.

Ouch! I'd see that as a failure to communicate. I used to feel just that way myself. Realized that no matter what I said or how I said it, someone was still free to take offense. But I've mellowed a lot in my old age Nowadays I regard such situations as a challenge and try to get my points across anyway. Writing someone off because they're not "worthy" to debate with doesn't make me any better or smarter as a debater.

One thing I got out of Scientology with is a firm belief that I will speak my mind and try to argue my case. I have found through the years that this has given me the time and space to actually look at Scientology and examine all those things that I took for granted.

Great. See, Scientology isn't all bad

Take this "third party law" we are discussing on this thread. When I was in, I never tried to examine this thing with sceptical thinking in mind. But when i did, it started to fall apart. You were right, of course, in that they will try to use it but as it is worthless I really don't see too much to be concerned about.

Well, the point I was making was just that: they'll try to use it. You don't have much to be concerned about, of course. But is that because the law
itself is worthless or because you have a personal immunity? I think maybe we shouldn't be calling it a law - maybe that's the part that rubs? Perhaps we can call it a conjecture or an observation - one which doesn't occur in all cases or all the time.

LOL - yeah but the sad fact is if Scientologists do try to debate the subject it will start to open up their critical thinking skills - and if that starts to happen the whole charade unravels. Hubbard was smart enough to know that.

The old geezer didn't tell everything he knew
Bill

 

[Zinjifar]

The old geezer didn't tell everything he knew
Bill

He didn't tell where the money was hidden, and, the people who know, and probably helped Him to his new 'post' off in the galaxies doing research are'nt talking.

Zinj

 

[Nec_V20]

spbill,

It doesn't work once the targets become aware they are being manipulated. Scientific laws *describe* the way things are, religious laws *prescribe* the way things ought to be.

You are wrong in that, what you should have said is that, "religious laws *proscribe* the way things ought to be". Proscribing inherently carries the threat of sanctions.

I'm not wanting to nitpick, but much of the discussion since then could have been laid to rest.

 

[spbill]

spbill,
You are wrong in that, what you should have said is that, "religious laws *proscribe* the way things ought to be". Proscribing inherently carries the threat of sanctions.

I'm not wanting to nitpick, but much of the discussion since then could have been laid to rest.

Okay Nec, I stand corrected.
Bill

 

[Nec_V20]

spbill,

you're sound, but don't give the buggers a way in.

 

[freet43]

Well, did I say that or did you just advance a strawman argument? I used the word quarrel - which is a word I am familiar with. Believe it or not "which definition of the word are you using.." is another Hubbardian misdirector. .

Don't worry - I do know that. I was having a little fun. Sorry to have pushed some buttons - I couldn't help myself...

You may find it useful to try and find which definition helps you try and make this piece of rubbish 'work' but that does not take you very far.

What I find useful, is that if something works, use it...

The interesting thing about this "discussion" is that I had similar thoughts about this PL when I first read it over 30 years ago

Even after having the MUs cleared - I had no reality on it.

It wasn't until years later, when I had been out of Scn for many years, did circumstances come up where I observed this going on.

Oh really? Wow you must work in a very strange place. Forgive me if I sound less than convinced. <snip>.

No stranger than any other large academic department at one of the top universities in the world.

But, it wasn't until I became manager of this large group- there are over 200 faculty, academics and staff in our department - including many world-renowed scientists - did I actually notice this law in action.

There were factions, within the faculty, and also within the staff, and feuds that had festered and escalated over many years. It was not a pleasant place to step into and it seemed like all I was doing was handling personnel issues and crises all day long.

Although I was not actively looking for a third party, I stumbled upon one, and that was the cause. I was able to deal with it, because I was able to see that was what was going on.

There was actually more than one situation, and at least 1 third party per situation.

Of course, if one can't notice something, one cannot do anything about it.

I had not read or thought of that PL for years - but, all of a sudden it became real and useful.

I certainly would never be so stupid as to try to find some mythical Third Party merely because people were quarrelling.

I wouldn't either. That's not what I was talking about.

Since then, I've recognized and dealt with other examples that have happened since, and thought of others which had occurred in the past - I just hadn't noticed it... but I won't belabor the point.

Just because it is not real to you, does not mean that it does not work.

I find this a useful thing to watch out for while managing people - and a valuable tool in creating harmony.

M.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Just because it is not real to you, does not mean that it does not work.


M.

roflmao. The usual comment from a believer - "just because its not real to you" - well I guess we can all move on to throwing bones to predict the future, we can consult astrologers to see how we are going to do today and perhaps consult Sylvia Brown so she can "talk" to our dead relatives.

Allow me to correct you - if it worked, it would be real "to me".

It doesn't "work" and, by mere examination of the proposition free of 'belief' it should be fairly obvious that it doesn't.

Now that does not mean that a conflict cannot be caused by a third party. It certainly can, but does that make it the prime cause or even the fifth most likely cause? I doubt it. We could, possibly, profitably argue where this proposition lies on the scale of possible reasons for a conflict/argument/quarrel I guess but this "law" of Hubbard's is of marginal use at best.

 

[spbill]

Example on this board

Looks like we have an example of the Third Party Law in action right on this board. Check out page 2 of the guestbook.

Look at posts #16, #17 - notice the person who posted these messages one right after the other was anonymous. How convenient. Obviously someone wanted to stir up s..t and it worked like a charm.

In deference to Mick, I should stop calling it the 3rd party "law" and start calling it the 3rd party conjecture

Bill

 

[freet43]

roflmao.

Allow me to correct you - if it worked, it would be real "to me".

It doesn't "work" and, by mere examination of the proposition free of 'belief' it should be fairly obvious that it doesn't.

???

I don't think I'm the only person around that has used this law to deal with an ongoing conflict.

(And, I'm not talking about creating conflicts - that would go against my integrity - I'm talking about dealing with it, if you see others causing such conflict).

This has nothing to do with belief.

You don't know me - and I don't appreciate your bashing.

History is full of examples of where people were sure something was one way, only to later find out that they were completely ignorant of the truth. I'm sure you've heard, even the earth was considered to be flat not that long ago? And, I'm sure you've heard how those, that dared to bring up a different viewpoint, were treated?

I'm just saying, keep your eyes open, you might find something useful.

btw- I know nothing about you. Would you mind sharing your story?

M.

 

[Nec_V20]

freet43,

History is full of examples of where people were sure something was one way, only to later find out that they were completely ignorant of the truth. I'm sure you've heard, even the earth was considered to be flat not that long ago? And, I'm sure you've heard how those, that dared to bring up a different viewpoint, were treated?

There was a thousand year epoch where theology reigned supreme - it was called the dark ages.

The only major advance in those thousand years was an improved horse-collar. The advance that medical science had to boast was the drilling of holes in people's heads to release the "demons".

Ignorance was fostered nay demanded of the plebeians by religion for only through ignorance could the masses be controlled. Isaac Newton and Leibnitz marked the transition from a theocracy controlled environment to an age of enlightenment. Isaac Newton it must be said was a Puritan and still carried the curse of that heritage.

What did Isaac Newton's religion give us? Nothing.

What did Isaac Newton give us? The ability to land a man on the Moon in 1969. Einsteinian physics had supplanted Newtonian physics in the early part of the last century, but Newtonian physics was still accurate enough and easier to implement on the small scale (for instance the Earth and the Moon).

Scientology is a throwback to the dark ages, and they use many of the same methods - control the language and you control the thoughts. Bush a born again chimpanzee does the same thing - it is not torture, it is "extraordinary rendition" as a for instance.

All religion has ever done is to make morons feel complacent in their own incompetence. Exactly where is the "Love thy neighbour as thyself" in the gay-bashing rhetoric of work-shy idiots such as Falwell, Dobson, Robertson or Ted Haggard? The latter has been found out for the liar and hypocrite that he is - the rest will follow.

Gandhi? He was a racist who denounced blacks in South Africa (whilst he was living there) as "animals". And Mother Theresa? NONE of the funds she extorted through moral blackmail went to the poor.

ElRon is no different - his lies and hypocrisy are well documented for all to see.

Where I object to Scientology is for the simple reason that ElRon and his minions want to, "dispose of quietly and without sorrow", of approx. 1.2 Billion of the population of the Earth.

In the "Scooter" Libby trial (and won't Bubba just love riding his Scooter around the washroom) it was introduced that he "forgot" that he was committing treason in a time of war by not only outing a NOC but also the cover company (thus potentially many dozens of covert operatives), because he was getting a visitation from Tom Cruise - the moron who "knows" psychology and psychiatry - on the basis that Germany will not allow their scam there.

In fact if Scientology tried to erect a concentration camp (or in Scienoborg parlance RPF) in Germany they would find themselves in jail for a very long time. We had the motto "Arbeit macht Frei" once and we live with the shame ever since - we will not have it visited upon us again.

 

[Romuva]

Scientology just seems like a totalitarian organization with alot of
the language and concepts used as a means to basically control
people.Some people might even like some of the concepts because
they provide solutions and control of a situation through a certain
mode of thought,

I know this is a simplistic assertion that's why I've enjoyed reading the
discussion.

 

[Terril park]

The third party law is not the universal cause of Quarrels IMO.
The concepts of opterming and GPMs seem to me to be at odds with this law.

However, there are third parties. It might be easier to look at this on
a more third dynamic scale. For example what wars had opponents whose weapons were supplied by the same country? Yes I know a crude simplistic example. Others may wish to be more detailed.

http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs

http://internationalfreezone.net