Gadfly
Crusader
When I got involved in Scientology I took to heart the idea that I would try it and see whether it worked for me. I also took seriously the idea that what was going to be accepted as true for me was what I observed to be true for myself.
For the most part, I always had great experiences with the auditing, so that was what it was. I liked it. It felt good. It was true for me that it was doing something that affected me in a major positive way.
But there were many other things that I did not like or agree with. These had mostly to do with the mission of Scientology and the purposes and actions of the Scientology organization as set out by Hubbard.
For example, when I read KSW, to me, it was totally fine and okay to go out and chase butterflies. I took that as a sort of analogy to "smelling the roses", and to me, that was always a GOOD thing. So, based on my own observations and experiences, I didn't agree with Hubbard. Looking further it became clear why.
The notion is that it is not okay to be chasing butterflies when you should be auditing. The judgment here is that one should be always and only doing something along the lines of Scientology. This hinges on these beliefs and agreements that Hubbard peppers all throughout the subject materials of Scientology which create and justify the constant urgency and demand:
1) Only we, the Scientologists are doing something about it. (whatever "it" is)
2) Only we, the Scientologists can do something effective about it. (whatever "it" is)
3) This is our last chance to get out of the trap. (whatever this "trap" is)
4) If we don't make it this time, we will forever be consigned to an eternity of pain, failure and death.
So, IF it were true that there was a trap as described by Hubbard, IF it were true that Scientology provided the only current workable way out of this trap, IF it were true that planetary SPs were always conspiring to destroy Ron and Scientology, and IF, IF, and IF for a great many more claims, well then there might be some slight sense to it all. Using Hard Sell and tricking people with manipulative ARC might sort of be justified IF all these claims of Hubbard's were true.
But, for me, as I saw it, according to my own observations, the claims were not necessarily true, and there really was no way to prove these things. In the end, followers accept all of that on FAITH. They operate as true believers, believing in a great many things that are probably NOT actually true at all. Scientology rests upon all of these fantastic and arrogant claims and assertions.
The idea that you were supposed to "do what Ron says", or ask yourself "what would Ron do", seemed so absurd to me. What I should do was whatever my own honest observations, knowledge and conscience told me to do!
When I study or read anything, I read the claims, the statements, and the assertions, and then I try my best to observe the relevant realities that are being discussed, and I make up my own mind. THAT is what any subject of knowing should teach you to do. But with Scientology, instead, it fills your mind with a very specific bundle of content of ideas, beliefs, biases and opinions. It never actually provides you with a set of tools to ascertain the truth of any claim, the validity of any statement, or the worth of any idea. Hubbard just hands you a big bundle of convoluted ideas to you and tells you, accept and adopt THIS!
Scientology claims to provide a system of knowing how to know. THAT is rubbish. It is an empty claim. I have been digging into the philosophy books, thanks to TAJ, and I am finding out what real honest thinking beings have come up with in terms of what knowledge is, how can it be found, what are the problems of arriving at accurate knowledge, and so forth. Part of the problem is how can we and do we arrive at knowledge, about anything, that we accept with a degree of certainty.
For example, we are each quite certain that heavy moving objects will continue moving in a certain direction unless acted upon by another force (law of inertia). That IDEA is knowledge. But how did we arrive at that? How is (accurate) knowledge acquired? How do experiences of various aspects of reality operate to bring about understanding? Are some understandings there separate and before any experience (such as math or logic)?
Hubbard NEVER gets into ANY of this stuff. He was a loud-mouthed arrogant blowhard.
I should have been reading philosophy books instead of Fundamentals of Thought!
For the most part, I always had great experiences with the auditing, so that was what it was. I liked it. It felt good. It was true for me that it was doing something that affected me in a major positive way.
But there were many other things that I did not like or agree with. These had mostly to do with the mission of Scientology and the purposes and actions of the Scientology organization as set out by Hubbard.
For example, when I read KSW, to me, it was totally fine and okay to go out and chase butterflies. I took that as a sort of analogy to "smelling the roses", and to me, that was always a GOOD thing. So, based on my own observations and experiences, I didn't agree with Hubbard. Looking further it became clear why.
The notion is that it is not okay to be chasing butterflies when you should be auditing. The judgment here is that one should be always and only doing something along the lines of Scientology. This hinges on these beliefs and agreements that Hubbard peppers all throughout the subject materials of Scientology which create and justify the constant urgency and demand:
1) Only we, the Scientologists are doing something about it. (whatever "it" is)
2) Only we, the Scientologists can do something effective about it. (whatever "it" is)
3) This is our last chance to get out of the trap. (whatever this "trap" is)
4) If we don't make it this time, we will forever be consigned to an eternity of pain, failure and death.
So, IF it were true that there was a trap as described by Hubbard, IF it were true that Scientology provided the only current workable way out of this trap, IF it were true that planetary SPs were always conspiring to destroy Ron and Scientology, and IF, IF, and IF for a great many more claims, well then there might be some slight sense to it all. Using Hard Sell and tricking people with manipulative ARC might sort of be justified IF all these claims of Hubbard's were true.
But, for me, as I saw it, according to my own observations, the claims were not necessarily true, and there really was no way to prove these things. In the end, followers accept all of that on FAITH. They operate as true believers, believing in a great many things that are probably NOT actually true at all. Scientology rests upon all of these fantastic and arrogant claims and assertions.
The idea that you were supposed to "do what Ron says", or ask yourself "what would Ron do", seemed so absurd to me. What I should do was whatever my own honest observations, knowledge and conscience told me to do!
When I study or read anything, I read the claims, the statements, and the assertions, and then I try my best to observe the relevant realities that are being discussed, and I make up my own mind. THAT is what any subject of knowing should teach you to do. But with Scientology, instead, it fills your mind with a very specific bundle of content of ideas, beliefs, biases and opinions. It never actually provides you with a set of tools to ascertain the truth of any claim, the validity of any statement, or the worth of any idea. Hubbard just hands you a big bundle of convoluted ideas to you and tells you, accept and adopt THIS!
Scientology claims to provide a system of knowing how to know. THAT is rubbish. It is an empty claim. I have been digging into the philosophy books, thanks to TAJ, and I am finding out what real honest thinking beings have come up with in terms of what knowledge is, how can it be found, what are the problems of arriving at accurate knowledge, and so forth. Part of the problem is how can we and do we arrive at knowledge, about anything, that we accept with a degree of certainty.
For example, we are each quite certain that heavy moving objects will continue moving in a certain direction unless acted upon by another force (law of inertia). That IDEA is knowledge. But how did we arrive at that? How is (accurate) knowledge acquired? How do experiences of various aspects of reality operate to bring about understanding? Are some understandings there separate and before any experience (such as math or logic)?
Hubbard NEVER gets into ANY of this stuff. He was a loud-mouthed arrogant blowhard.
I should have been reading philosophy books instead of Fundamentals of Thought!
Last edited:
We've all been damaged haven't we. I've been out since 2007. I am still sloughing off the crap.
