Spiritual Introspection Not Ecouraged In Scientology

[Gadfly]

I began writing this as a response in another thread, but I thought that it might be important enough (to some) to start a new thread on the idea.

Introspection, while a member of Church of Scientology, is heavily discouraged.

I remember how the definition of "introversion" in the Tech Dictionary showed a picture of a fellow, head heavily weighing in his hand, staring off into some distance (internally). Hubbard also describes it as:

introversion: a looking in too closely; having one’s attention and interest directed upon oneself. (Google: "tech dictionary introversion Scientology")

He gives the word itself a negative slant, a negative bias that most accept without question - this bias slips into the C of S member's subconscious, where from there it controls his or her viewpoint.

Look at how Hubby Dub the Tubby Flub uses the word "introversion":

Introspection Rundown - This is a procedure that is intended to handle a psychotic break or complete mental breakdown

Again, Hubbard covertly hijacks the word entirely by associating it with "a psychotic break or complete mental breakdown". What an idiot.

How is ANYONE going to ever REALLY "Know Thyself" if "looking in with an aim to learning and growing" is disabled, because the concept doesn't even exist within the framework of Scientology (except with negative connotations that the Church member let slip in unknowingly)?

From Wikipedia:

Introspection is the self-observation and reporting of conscious inner thoughts, desires and sensations. It is a conscious mental and usually purposive process relying on thinking, reasoning, and examining one's own thoughts, feelings, and, in more spiritual cases, one's soul. It can also be called contemplation of one's self, and is contrasted with extrospection, the observation of things external to one's self. Introspection may be used synonymously with and in a similar way to self-reflection. It is used greatly as a spiritual examination.

Well, it is greatly used as a spiritual examination in places OTHER than Scientology!

In fact, ALL legitimate forms of spiritual enlightenment rely on some form of honest, somewhat objective "looking in" as a way to LEARN ABOUT YOURSELF. "Know Thyself" is impossible when you have a FIXED IDEA that you should not ever spend any time "looking inward".

Hubbard didn't want THAT! You should ask yourself WHY that might be. Why would he NOT want people looking inside, when this approach has ALWAYS been the way towards gaining self-knowledge and increased personal awareness? :confused2:

It seems Hubturd would be quite happy if every Church member was an enthusiastic extrovert, happily and unthinkingly accepting his conceptual model of "self", and working tirelessly to produce for the Church of Scientology.

And quite possibly, if an honest survey could be completed, MOST people who get into Scientology are really not much concerned with "knowing thyself".

Though I could be wrong on that last.

Hubbard extols LOOKING as the highest method of gaining knowledge, and I largely agree. Yet, quite strangely, if you honestly take a look at this, he basically forbids any person from looking inward! Minimally, he tricks and manipulates you into always "trying to be extroverted - stuck with ones attention always directed outwards. In a very real sense, failure to look might be a fairly decent explanation for what causes any and all mental or spiritual disability. Of course, this valuable looking is directed INWARDS.

+

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Looking? You wanta talk about looking?

And where is you-know-who- when his topic comes up?

Hey ! Hey ! Hey !

 

[Div6]

Well, if you take the level 0 info re: the auditing comm cycle" you see that "looking inward" is expected in standard auditing. The introspection rundown was (originally) for people so over-restimulated that they had a psychotic break.

Further, when I was "in", we were required to look up words in regular dictionaries as well as the Tech. Dictionary, in order to decide which definition best fit. I have heard it said that now with The Basics (and attendant glossaries) one no longer needs dictionaries. If that is in fact true, then it would go far in explaining how the pin-headed fanatics are creating insanity and selling it as a "religion".

 

[Dilettante]

So true

Gadfly-awesome point. It would be nice to reclaim the english language.
Some (not all) of the most highly "trained" individuals I know could use some "introversion". I wish they would look at themselves. It might be a good start to shake off all that "training".
Dil

 

[Gadfly]

Well, if you take the level 0 info re: the auditing comm cycle" you see that "looking inward" is expected in standard auditing. The introspection rundown was (originally) for people so over-restimulated that they had a psychotic break.

Yes, you "look in" during auditing, obviously, but ONLY in a very limited and controlled way, and only under the specific conditions established by Hubbard in how and what to audit. He drew up the map for a country of his own creation - but, there is a whole WORLD outside of the country that he gave you the map for.

He determines where and in what way you are "allowed" to look inward. It might have a usefulness in some limited way, for some people, at some point in thier lives, but at some point the whole idea of controlled looking in, along the lines of Scientology auditing, needs to be abandoned for a more "free and wider approach" taken towards introspection.

Obviously, with the negative spin Hubbard gives the words "introspection" and "introversion", he most definitely does NOT want anyone doing these things on their own, outside of his highly controlled framework, with their own "C/sing" as it were. A big problem with Scn is that there is an external C/S (case supervisor). You don't need to simply get to a point where you "Solo Audit", you also need to grow up to a point where you "Solo C/S", and write your own programs! (Stated somewhat metaphorically using Scio-terms)

I am coming from a viewpoint not too far akin from Buddhism here, where the idea is to willingly LOOK at anything and everything, both in and out, without fear, without bias, with an aim towards total objectivity, and with an aim to dissolve all mental, emotional and physical attachments.

Of course, that cannot happen if one accepts and practices much of what exists with the subject of Scientology.

+

 

[Dilettante]

Looking in

That would be the file clerks job. NOT you. The auditor gives the file clerk a command. I guess if YOU actually went to get the file you might get lost or worse, look around. Thank goodness you have a structure like the auditor using a meter, C/S, D of P, ethics officer and all the rest to manage your little pea brain-sorry, reactive mind. Thats why you pay all that good money.

 

[Infinite]

Gadfly-awesome point. It would be nice to reclaim the english language.

Some (not all) of the most highly "trained" individuals I know could use some "introversion". I wish they would look at themselves. It might be a good start to shake off all that "training".

Good point - control the language and you control the thinking. I agree with your call for people to look at themselves. The trouble is, the more highly trained they are not to, the more difficult it is for them and the more they have to lose. Who wants to admit that everything they have studied so hard for, which gave them some sort of respect and standing turns out to be complete bollocks? Not me.

 

[Gadfly]

That would be the file clerks job. NOT you. The auditor gives the file clerk a command. I guess if YOU actually went to get the file you might get lost or worse, look around. Thank goodness you have a structure like the auditor using a meter, C/S, D of P, ethics officer and all the rest to manage your little pea brain-sorry, reactive mind. Thats why you pay all that good money.

+

 

[Dilettante]

But now thats just for all that feel good stuff.
pts =introvert
lowers =introvert
Feel free to introvert on the damging aspects. It's required.
Pull it in much?

 

[Gadfly]

Good point - control the language and you control the thinking. I agree with your call for people to look at themselves. The trouble is, the more highly trained they are not to, the more difficult it is for them and the more they have to lose. Who wants to admit that everything they have studied so hard for, which gave them some sort of respect and standing turns out to be complete bollocks? Not me.

Again, that is true for ANY PERSON who has spent a great portion of his or her life working towards something in life (like a profession). Nobody likes to admit that what he spent years of life and "education" on is "wrong".

I mean I am sure that some psychiatrist who happily dispenses all sorts of drugs to people as a way to "solve the mental illness", using the excuse of whatever is voted into the DSM-IV (and soon to be DSM-V) as "mental disorders" by a committee of APA members, might have a difficult time just abadoning all the wealth, status and comfort he or she may have worked many years obtaining, when beginning to possibly question the legitimacy of such a rampant "drug them" approach to handling what are many often than not simply of the nature of "problems with life" (and NOT "mental disorders" at all as defined by the APA members on the commmittee that DETERMINES the psych's "nomenclature"). They hijack meaning of woprds and ideas just as much as Hubbard does - just in a different way.

And, there could be many more non-threatening examples provided.

The problem with the "terminology", and how Hubbard has hijacked meanings of words, and subtly enabled one to often (unknowingly) accept very subversive meanings for some words, is an entirely unrelated and real situation.


+

 

[FoTi]

Gadfly-awesome point. It would be nice to reclaim the english language.
Some (not all) of the most highly "trained" individuals I know could use some "introversion". I wish they would look at themselves. It might be a good start to shake off all that "training".
Dil

I agree!!! I also think this applies to those who were born into the cult or who grew up in it even if they aren't highly trained, because those also were trained to keep their attention extroverted and not look inward or do any soul searching unless of course they were in session with an auditor and paying for it one way or another. From the time I started in Scientology, almost 40 years ago, I was always made wrong for looking at my own stuff by myself...it just wasn't okay to do that without paying an auditor to be there with me while I did it. All it did was make me feel guilty for doing it....it didn't really stop me.....I just didn't tell them about it anymore.

It's my mind....I'll look at it if I want to.

 

[Gadfly]

I agree!!! I also think this applies to those who were born into the cult or who grew up in it even if they aren't highly trained, because those also were trained to keep their attention extroverted and not look inward or do any soul searching unless of course they were in session with an auditor and paying for it one way or another. From the time I started in Scientology, almost 40 years ago, I was always made wrong for looking at my own stuff by myself...it just wasn't okay to do that without paying an auditor to be there with me while I did it. All it did was make me feel guilty for doing it....it didn't really stop me.....I just didn't tell them about it anymore.

I got it completely!

Yeah, and look at what you do when you do "lower conditons"? Sure, you look inward, BUT ONLY in exact alignment with the tight, rigid little box of Hubbardian concepts and ideas.

You are lookng inwards "through a restrictive belief system". You are looking with the very heavy burden of a very distorted lens of a very thick pair of eye-glasses. Without the metaphor, and in easy Scientology terms that we can all easily understand, you look inwards while harboring incredibly "massy" FIXED IDEAS based on Hubbard's paradigm.

You can't LOOK when you are thinking, and Hubby Dub the Tubby Flub made sure that you were ALWAYS preoccupied with "thinking" (and thinking HIS set of created notions and ideas about all-that-is).

+

 

[Atalantan]

I began writing this as a response in another thread, but I thought that it might be important enough (to some) to start a new thread on the idea.

Introspection, while a member of Church of Scientology, is heavily discouraged.

I remember how the definition of "introversion" in the Tech Dictionary showed a picture of a fellow, head heavily weighing in his hand, staring off into some distance (internally). Hubbard also describes it as:

introversion: a looking in too closely; having one’s attention and interest directed upon oneself. (Google: "tech dictionary introversion Scientology")

He gives the word itself a negative slant, a negative bias that most accept without question - this bias slips into the C of S member's subconscious, where from there it controls his or her viewpoint.

Look at how Hubby Dub the Tubby Flub uses the word "introversion":

Introversion Rundown - This is a procedure that is intended to handle a psychotic break or complete mental breakdown

Again, Hubbard covertly hijacks the word entirely by associating it with "a psychotic break or complete mental breakdown". What an idiot.

How is ANYONE going to ever REALLY "Know Thyself" if "looking in with an aim to learning and growing" is disabled, because the concept doesn't even exist within the framework of Scientology (except with negative connotations that the Church member let slip in unknowingly)?

From Wikipedia:

Introspection is the self-observation and reporting of conscious inner thoughts, desires and sensations. It is a conscious mental and usually purposive process relying on thinking, reasoning, and examining one's own thoughts, feelings, and, in more spiritual cases, one's soul. It can also be called contemplation of one's self, and is contrasted with extrospection, the observation of things external to one's self. Introspection may be used synonymously with and in a similar way to self-reflection. It is used greatly as a spiritual examination.

Well, it is greatly used as a spiritual examination in places OTHER than Scientology!

In fact, ALL legitimate forms of spiritual enlightenment rely on some form of honest, somewhat objective "looking in" as a way to LEARN ABOUT YOURSELF. "Know Thyself" is impossible when you have a FIXED IDEA that you should not ever spend any time "looking inward".

Hubbard didn't want THAT! You should ask yourself WHY that might be. Why would he NOT want people looking inside, when this approach has ALWAYS been the way towards gaining self-knowledge and increased personal awareness? :confused2:

It seems Hubturd would be quite happy if every Church member was an enthusiastic extrovert, happily and unthinkingly accepting his conceptual model of "self", and working tirelessly to produce for the Church of Scientology.

And quite possibly, if an honest survey could be completed, MOST people who get into Scientology are really not much concerned with "knowing thyself".

Though I could be wrong on that last.

Hubbard extols LOOKING as the highest method of gaining knowledge, and I largely agree. Yet, quite strangely, if you honestly take a look at this, he basically forbids any person from looking inward! Minimally, he tricks and manipulates you into always "trying to be extroverted - stuck with ones attention always directed outwards. In a very real sense, failure to look might be a fairly decent explanation for what causes any and all mental or spiritual disability. Of course, this valuable looking is directed INWARDS.

+

I really think you're reaching here. For one thing, you seem to be confusing the word "introspection" with the word "introversion". They do not mean the same thing at all.

For another, "introversion" is not original with Hubbard and has been for decades, or even longer, been used by psychologists, psychiatrists,and other "mental hygiene" type people to refer to an undesirable state, depending on degree of "introversion". In general it refers to this kind of definition:

"Marked by interest in or preoccupation with oneself or one's own thoughts as opposed to others or the environment; shy or reserved."

Especially in it's extreme, it has always been considered somewhat unhealthy as it suggested a fixation of attention and a lack of ability to be social and deal with the outside world. I think Hubbard was just using it in it's commonly used sense, and you are putting a slant on it just to dig at Hubbard.

 

[Infinite]

Again, that is true for ANY PERSON who has spent a great portion of his or her life working towards something in life (like a profession). Nobody likes to admit that what he spent years of life and "education" on is "wrong".

Not so much in medicine and the sciences generally - questioning goes on all the time. There are huge public battles as academics test their ideas - its considered a healthy practise in wog world - but, eventually, with evidence and peer review comes consensus. 1950s psychiatry was certainly primitive but, unlike Scientology, its moved on and provides a more effective and humane method of dealing with mental illness. This development was due entirely to practitioners who spent years in study having constantly to review their position and shift according to the evidence. Even operating outside of the cult, some highly trained Scientologist cannot do this. They are "holding their position in space" which, as we all know, is just the same as being stuck.

 

[Opter]

When a PC= Pre Clear has a session he/she is supposed to look at his/her case with the help/guidance of the auditor. however,after the session is ended it is a no no to continue and look at the case - to try and work out why or when etc. something happened - because,as per LRH it can spin the PC in in a big way. This "rule" is supposed to be only for the benefit/protection of the PC.

Opter

 

[Gadfly]

Not so much in medicine and the sciences generally - questioning goes on all the time. There are huge public battles as academics test their ideas - its considered a healthy practise in wog world - but, eventually, with evidence and peer review comes consensus. 1950s psychiatry was certainly primitive but, unlike Scientology, its moved on and provides a more effective and humane method of dealing with mental illness. This development was due entirely to practitioners who spent years in study having constantly to review their position and shift according to the evidence. Even operating outside of the cult, some highly trained Scientologist cannot do this. They are "holding their position in space" which, as we all know, is just the same as being stuck.

I wasn't talking about some scientific field's willingness to question existing theories, though for anyone who has looked into these areas, while there may be an IDEAL to remain open to all questioning in certain fields, this does not necessarily happen as even "scientists" grasp onto and are often umwilling to let go of his or her pet theory (that many facts may contradict). Scientology holds no monopoly on self-delusion.

I was talking about an individual's often difficult time when it comes to invalidating any part of some set of ideas when ones status, income or happiness may be at stake. For example, in Scientology, Church members are often kept in line by the threats to one or more of status, income or happiness. Many C of S members are involved in a Scientology business. If he or she "sees too much", and admits too many contradictory facts, well he or she might lose that "steady income". It can be scary.

Many C of S members have many Scientology friends. If he or she "sees too much", and admits too many contradictory facts, well he or she might lose those friends. It can be scary.

Many C of S members have many Scientology family. If he or she "sees too much", and admits too many contradictory facts, well he or she might lose those family members. It can be scary.

Fear of losing status, income or happiness can be a strong deterrant towards LOOKING at the truth. It surely is in the Church of Scientology where expulsion and SP declares are an ever-present threat. That threat does not exist to any major degree in the "Free Zone". It is what it is.

+

 

[Gadfly]

When a PC= Pre Clear has a session he/she is supposed to look at his/her case with the help/guidance of the auditor. however,after the session is ended it is a no no to continue and look at the case - to try and work out why or when etc. something happened - because,as per LRH it can spin the PC in in a big way. This "rule" is supposed to be only for the benefit/protection of the PC.

Opter

So he/they claim . . . .

+

 

[me myself & i]

Looking? You wanta talk about looking?

And where is you-know-who- when his topic comes up?

Hey ! Hey ! Hey !

He V, is banned. Either by objective or subjective forces. For the time being.

I'm pretty sure it's a subjective thing.

If so the restraints are more pliable than are those for our friend Z.

 

[Gadfly]

Additionally, notice that Hubbard is very strong on forbidding "other practices". He is very against "doing other things with the mind" (a question on more than one correction list):

Doing other things with the mind between sessions? 2 W/C to E/S, F/N, VGIs, Cog

While involved with the Church of Scientology I was often sent to Ethics for experimenting with "other practices" (that generally involved looking inward or playing with some aspect of ones mind). And, usually when I was NOT on auditing lines. There was/is simply a very clear (largely unspoken) directive NOT to do it. The idea "not to introspect on your own" being one of the many ideas members unconsciously absorb while involved in the Church of Scientology.

Doing anything other than Scientology with your mind is not encouraged. It is heavily discouraged. Hubbard also set in motion the attitude that "the mind is a dangerous place to dig around in without MY well-taped path (ref: HCOB Technical Degrades)". Members often accept the notion that they "shouldn't explore around in there", because it (the mind) contains unknown nasty dangers.

+

 

[Dilettante]

The suggestion is that introverting is BAD. Not. If I said I was a an introvert during my college days, one could assume I was lonely OR I was contemplative. :confused2: Maybe it depends on what's in here? Hubbard preached against it, what with all he had going on maybe that was bad for him. Not me.
Dil