Side effects of Scientology on exes.

[Infinite]

Right! So, if an ex wasn't in the SO, or maybe wasn't even in Scn, then he or she could still have some wisdom on the subject.

Yep. In fact, there's a sound argument to be made that the further away someone is from personal involvement, the more perspective they have and, thus, more wisdom when it comes to evaluation. This idea forms part of the basis for the dispensing of justice.

 

[LongTimeGone]

Right! So, if an ex wasn't in the SO, or maybe wasn't even in Scn, then he or she could still have some wisdom on the subject.

One could say that if a person wasn't in $cn, then that person is wiser than we were before we joined. A lot of people just scoff at the idea of joining the cult even with little knowledge of it.

Others, who might have been tempted to join, may have gained an insight by virtue of the stories of we exes and wisely avoided it.

In other words some people are innately wise and others gain wisdom through knowledge.

Of course there are those who have the knowledge before them and still join a cult – We could euphemistically classify them as unwise.

LTG

 

[guanoloco]

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm sure we can all come up with a heap of things other than entertainment, that Hubbard is a source of.

Namely: illegalities, insanity, mental anguish, suicidal thoughts and actions, anger, belittlement, family destruction, kidnapping, personal imprisonment, wrong targeting, severe punishment, financial insolvency, moral corruption, misappropriation of funds, brainwashing, false claims, dishonesty, deception, cover ups, malice, spite, hatred, sleep deprivation, malevolence, cruelty, vindictiveness, intimidation, persecution, harassment, physical attacks, no duty of care...

LTG

Mankind's Greatest Friend!!

 

[Gadfly]

Mankind's Greatest Friend!!

Did you mistakenly add an extra letter to that word, "friend".

It makes much more sense as:

Mankind's Greatest Fiend!!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

When I joined the SO I listened to the "Welcome to the Sea Org Tapes" there is one piece of tripe in those tapes that is probably responsible for more crash and burns than any other I know, and it goes something like this; "There is no excuse anywhere for not being able to do anything under the sun, moon and stars, no excuses! Not being trained in an area is no excuse, for we have done it all before..." The gist of this was, we will not accept any reason for failure on your part even if you haven't been trained in the area and what is so wrong with you that you cannot access your past life/lives training and get it done!

Great observation!

And, as in all Hubbard "datums" or "self-evident truths" (as he refers to axioms), there is an equal-and-opposite datum (ref: Hubbard Law of Commotion).

In a morning lecture, Ron could berate Scientologists for any failure, even if they had no education or training in the task that was set before them. Because, ...a thetan has done everything before" and therefore it is "suppressive reasonableness" to accept any excuse for not getting perfect results.

However...

In the afternoon lecture, Ron could berate the same Scientologists for failing to get properly hatted and drilled before attempting the same task. He would sermonize about study tech and the "out ethics" of attempting to do something without fully training/apprenticing on it first.

WHY DID HUBBARD CREATE THIS LUNACY OF TWO OPPOSITE SCRIPTURES ON EVERYTHING?

ANSWER: So he could always be right about everything and prove that others did not follow his tech. Here is the trick. No matter what outcome a situation had (good OR bad) Hubbard could point to his tech as the source of it.

* ON ANY FAVORABLE OUTCOME: Hubbard could point to people following his tech as the reason for their success.

* ON ANY NEGATIVE OUTCOME: Hubbard could point to people NOT following the opposite tech as the reason for their failure.​

This is Ron's best magic trick and it works 100% of the time to prove that "SCIENTOLOGY WORKS" (unless someone spots the fact that he has issued two completely opposite pieces of tech)

I have mentioned this spiritual legerdemain before, but nobody commented on it, leading me to conclude that I did not do a very good job explaining it. I might actually start an entire THREAD on how Hubbard used this brilliant subterfuge to trick honest people into thinking that "THE TECH WORKS!"

 

[GoNuclear]

Great observation!

And, as in all Hubbard "datums" or "self-evident truths" (as he refers to axioms), there is an equal-and-opposite datum (ref: Hubbard Law of Commotion).

In a morning lecture, Ron could berate Scientologists for any failure, even if they had no education or training in the task that was set before them. Because, ...a thetan has done everything before" and therefore it is "suppressive reasonableness" to accept any excuse for not getting perfect results.

However...

In the afternoon lecture, Ron could berate the same Scientologists for failing to get properly hatted and drilled before attempting the same task. He would sermonize about study tech and the "out ethics" of attempting to do something without fully training/apprenticing on it first.

WHY DID HUBBARD CREATE THIS LUNACY OF TWO OPPOSITE SCRIPTURES ON EVERYTHING?

ANSWER: So he could always be right about everything and prove that others did not follow his tech. Here is the trick. No matter what outcome a situation had (good OR bad) Hubbard could point to his tech as the source of it.

* ON ANY FAVORABLE OUTCOME: Hubbard could point to people following his tech as the reason for their success.

* ON ANY NEGATIVE OUTCOME: Hubbard could point to people NOT following the opposite tech as the reason for their failure.​

This is Ron's best magic trick and it works 100% of the time to prove that "SCIENTOLOGY WORKS" (unless someone spots the fact that he has issued two completely opposite pieces of tech)

I have mentioned this spiritual legerdemain before, but nobody commented on it, leading me to conclude that I did not do a very good job explaining it. I might actually start an entire THREAD on how Hubbard used this brilliant subterfuge to trick honest people into thinking that "THE TECH WORKS!"

OUTPHUGGENSTANDING OBSERVATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is going to be the great secret mystery that I do NOT give away free during my "Making Money With Cults" TV offer success kit for $39.95 + S&H It will be hinted at all during the infomercial, and it will be found in the separate booklet on "How To Create Infallible Doctrine." Of course, I will claim it as my own concept, since I am the guy who managed to crawl out of the human condition and find MasterMindThink on my own. Of course, we will not speculate here on how it is I was able to do this.

Pete

 

[guanoloco]

This is Ron's best magic trick and it works 100% of the time to prove that "SCIENTOLOGY WORKS" (unless someone spots the fact that he has issued two completely opposite pieces of tech)

I have mentioned this spiritual legerdemain before, but nobody commented on it, leading me to conclude that I did not do a very good job explaining it. I might actually start an entire THREAD on how Hubbard used this brilliant subterfuge to trick honest people into thinking that "THE TECH WORKS!"

Well I for one would very much appreciate said thread!

And to add to what was stated here the best one I remember was the reference from the 2D book where the missus keeps backing over the gate. In this gem of tech the husband never takes a fence (HA! HA!) but merely keeps replacing the gate...over and over and over and over and over.

Said piece of tech clearly demonstrates the "high road" of ARC and all that and not reinforcing the abberration by making the wife wrong, etc.

Masterful!

vs​

The reference in the Green vols where the dissem sec or letter reg or somebody has just smashed their 5th typewriter and nobody has deep sixxed the SP even though his head is jerking around from the R/Ses.

Huh? WTF??

Now "no case on post" isn't applicable because "husband" and "wife" are posts!

Another one you say? You want another example?

OK, the reference where the abberrated personality hoards money never to be spent. In conjunction with this is the "Affluence Attainment" reference or something like that where you FACTUALLY violate the Affluence Formula by borrowing money to strengthen the Affluence Attainment...yadda, yadda, yadda.

---BUT---

When it comes to running the org you build several reserves that you NEVER access. They are rainy day reserves that you NEVER tap even if Noah's flood occurs. The org NEVER borrows and ALWAYS hoards, etc.

---UNTIL---

The whole Flag structure gets built...then it's every last dime sent to Flag with FBOs enforcing the rule. Flag actually gets paid BEFORE local expenses and certainly long before staff.

 

[degraded being]

This may have already been said on this thread......it is one of the huge contradictions in scientology that you are supposed to just "make it go right'
you are not allowed to plead incompetence due to lack of training or "case".
And yet you have to be told how to do everything by LRH because you are too stupid to be trusted to do anything right all by yourself. Not even other people can tell you....that's off-source and they will get it wrong too. And you have of course
got all those "held down 7s" and the rest of your case that only LRH can unravel, including millions of spirits who interfere with every aspect of your life, who also have their "cases". You are totally fucked until you let Daddy hack your hard drive.
But you are also supposed to just make everything go right....or you will displease Daddy.
So it's "I can do anything and everything".
And "I can do nothing" Is that what they call a GPM?

 

[Operating Lambda]

There is nothing known by an individual that is actually objective.

I "know" that if I bang my head against a concrete wall it will hurt–subjective. I also "know" that if my wife bangs her head against the same concrete wall it will hurt–objective.

Thus there is/are something/s known by an individual that is/are actually objective,

Just saying.

JHW

 

[Petey C]

One could say that if a person wasn't in $cn, then that person is wiser than we were before we joined. A lot of people just scoff at the idea of joining the cult even with little knowledge of it.

Others, who might have been tempted to join, may have gained an insight by virtue of the stories of we exes and wisely avoided it.

In other words some people are innately wise and others gain wisdom through knowledge.

Of course there are those who have the knowledge before them and still join a cult – We could euphemistically classify them as unwise.

LTG

Sometimes a person who doesn't join $cn is just lucky too. While they may have been predisposed to joining something, the opportunity didn't arise. Whether some things happen or not is sometimes just a feature of the random universe.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I "know" that if I bang my head against a concrete wall it will hurt–subjective. I also "know" that if my wife bangs her head against the same concrete wall it will hurt–objective.

Thus there is/are something/s known by an individual that is/are actually objective,

Just saying.

JHW

Nope. Nice try. The 'knowledge' is itself 'subjective'. You might argue that the experience is 'objective' while the 'knowledge' is 'subjective', except that the experience is only ever known subjectively.

Still hurts though, subjectively speaking.


Mark A. Baker

 

[degraded being]

Thinking Critically About the "Subjective"/"Objective" Distinction

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

 

[degraded being]

Nope. Nice try. The 'knowledge' is itself 'subjective'. You might argue that the experience is 'objective' while the 'knowledge' is 'subjective', except that the experience is only ever known subjectively.

Still hurts though, subjectively speaking.


Mark A. Baker

What is an example of something that is objective?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

What is an example of something that is objective?

Can't think of any, which is rather the point.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Infinite]

Thinking Critically About the "Subjective"/"Objective" Distinction

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

From your link:

The words "subjective" and " objective" cause lots of confusion. Their misuse is responsible for subjectivism in ethics. Ethical subjectivism is the view that moral judgements are nothing but statements or expressions of personal opinion or feeling and thus that moral judgements cannot be supported or refuted by reason. Careless use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" also leads to odd views in metaphysics, e.g., the denial of material reality (idealism); and odd views in epistemology, e.g., the claim that all statements are equally warranted. In other words, if you're careless about how you handle the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, you can end up saying there's no such thing as morality, reality, or truth!

. . . a la Scientology!!

 

[degraded being]

Can't think of any, which is rather the point.


Mark A. Baker

So objective facts or reality exist but if thought about cannot be called objective?

EDIT: Or try this... what is an example of objectivity?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

So objective facts or reality exist but if thought about cannot be called objective?

EDIT: Or try this... what is an example of objectivity?

When people use the terms subjective and objective in different context things can get quite confusing.

Information may exist outside of a person. In one sense, that is objective.

But assimilation of information or experience can only be subject.

I may say that the Empire State building is taller than the Eiffel Tower.

And I can call that being objective.

But what I am saying is my conclusion (which is always subjective) is based upon objective data that I have about their relative heights.

Conclusions come from thinking, and thinking is always subjective.

So people call the information objective and believe they are being objective when they use that information.

But their thinking (using the information) is always subjective. Despite the nature of the information.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Let's make it simple:

SUBJECTIVE: "I just postulated doing my Bridge to Total Freedom."

OBJECTIVE: "My checking account is overdrawn by $500,000."​

 

[Type4_PTS]

This is Ron's best magic trick and it works 100% of the time to prove that "SCIENTOLOGY WORKS" (unless someone spots the fact that he has issued two completely opposite pieces of tech)

I have mentioned this spiritual legerdemain before, but nobody commented on it, leading me to conclude that I did not do a very good job explaining it. I might actually start an entire THREAD on how Hubbard used this brilliant subterfuge to trick honest people into thinking that "THE TECH WORKS!"

Sounds like a worthy thread.

Also how Hubbard does the same thing on the PR front as well. Didn't he release "What is Greatness?" right around the same time as the policies for Fair Game?

 

[Gadfly]

When people get "good results" it is ALWAYS "because Scientololgy works".

And, when Scientology fails to get good results, it is ALWAYS and ONLY "because YOU are a FUCK UP"!

What a "science"!!!!!!

I remember when I first got involved in Scientology back in 1976. I was on some course, and I asked the supervisor, "where can I get to see Hubbard's actual research into the mind, because while his claims in the book are interesting, to be a science, well there needs to be verifiable research". The supervisor looked at me, and with those wonderfully cold and glaring TRs said, "find your misunderstood word or symbol". See, in Scientology when you ask legitimate and honest questions, these get REFRAMED, per standard Scientology Course Supervisor policy, as "asking for unusual solutions or exhibiting strange ideas". ANY disagreement is viewed as a problem with YOU. Of course, how could it be otherwise, because Hubbard is viewed as 100% always correct and as the absolute pinnacle of all knowledge about everything on any topic or subject!