How Scientology/Freezone warps reasoning

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

A person can be poisoned by something even though it taste good. They may enjoy every bite of it. But it can still poison them. In this post I wish to lay the groundwork to show how Scientology and the Freezone has a net destructive effect on people’s minds. I am not saying the Freezoners or Scientologists are bad people. I just think that the net result of using Scientology is harmful to a person’s reasoning ability. Scientology does not enlighten people; it contracts their capacity to understand.
This will be a tall order considering how many people have had wins and cognitions. But the wins and cognitions are just the flavoring. Scientology itself, is just heavily seasoned mental poison. It is mental thalidomide.
The seasoning which disguises the bitter taste of the poison is Scientology nomenclature. When people begin to accept Scientology nomenclature they are already swallowing the poison. And to be precise, what is being poison is their capacity to think rationally. Their thoughts, ideas, premises, and analyses are sabotaged by the acceptance of the nomenclature. Scientology nomenclature narrows the paradigm of the concept to which it applies. For example, take the term suppressive person. This term ignores all the nuances of actions and various factors and circumstances which determines a person’s actions. A person is either an SP or he isn’t. The term SP shuts off the capacity to understand the person or series of events in context. It narrows one’s view of how the world works when one thinks in terms of people either being SPs or not. Scientologists make this abstract idea, the SP, the actual cause of the action or situation, instead of being able to reason about the particular factors.
The same goes for a word like potential trouble source. The meaning of PTS is based upon its relationship to the meaning of an SP. Now a Scientologist judges people’s actions and the outcome of events, based on an abstract idea of an SP and a what PTS is. This is what I meant on another thread when I said that Scientologists have the tendency to treat abstract ideas as facts, and facts as abstract ideas.
The whole nomenclature of Scientology is so interwoven that one usually only speaks of specific actions in the abstract--“he committed an overt” or “she is ARC broken.” When pressed to follow a specific line of reasoning a Scientologist can’t because their ability to see nuances has been cut off and replaced by substituting abstract ideas for specific actions. This is why Scientologists generally have trouble articulating particulars.
I’ll have more on the decline in reasoning later, but everyone feel free to jump in.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Dulloldfart]

I’ll have more on the decline in reasoning later, but everyone feel free to jump in.

Splosh.

Paul

 

[Zinjifar]

Well stated. For me, it's a similar concept to 'The medium is the message', where the medium is actually more important than what's being said.

The *medium* of scientology is the paradigm/belief-system/nomenclature that is the mold that, once accepted, becomes a foreign suit of mental armor, both protecting against 'outside' ideas, and forcing 'compliance' to the wearer.

Compared to the paradigm, the various Scientology practices, processes and individual 'concepts' are mere distraction.

Zinj

 

[Pitbull]

I don't get the level of vehement "freezone" bashing here. I think the freezone gets a bad rep since some folks like to act they they have the "key" to the freezone, or their pet freezone group represents all the possiblilities.

This is crap. To put it mildly. There is no one "freezone" anymore than there is one "anonymous". Some folks in the freezone are nuts. Or LRH fanatics and try to push their brand of Scientology, but they sure as beans do not represent anyone but themselves.

Many people have found auditing outside of the church useful. Some merely as a transition when leaving the church. But that's not such a bad thing, is it?
Many people got into Scientology because they wanted auditing. Its nice to know one can get auditing without all the rest of the Church's garbage, BS and forced goals. Then one can go on to check out other things too.

I still think the best way to dissasemble the church is to support alternatives. What keeps many in the church, as public or sea org is the fear of losing their bridge. Well, if they felt they could get their bridge (if they really wanted it) without bending over to RTC and the Miscavige Mafia, then they might leave more easily.

Basically, the general consensus still seems to be that many really like the grades and some other types of auditing, but that the OT levels and endless sec checks are just BS and suppressive nonsense. Many folks learned a great deal in the church. Just because they had a hellish experience in the end, doesn't mean they should deny another the opportunity to explore auditing in a relaxed, affordable, client centered environment.

 

[Pixie]

A person can be poisoned by something even though it taste good. They may enjoy every bite of it. But it can still poison them. In this post I wish to lay the groundwork to show how Scientology and the Freezone has a net destructive effect on people’s minds. I am not saying the Freezoners or Scientologists are bad people. I just think that the net result of using Scientology is harmful to a person’s reasoning ability. Scientology does not enlighten people; it contracts their capacity to understand.
This will be a tall order considering how many people have had wins and cognitions. But the wins and cognitions are just the flavoring. Scientology itself, is just heavily seasoned mental poison. It is mental thalidomide.
The seasoning which disguises the bitter taste of the poison is Scientology nomenclature. When people begin to accept Scientology nomenclature they are already swallowing the poison. And to be precise, what is being poison is their capacity to think rationally. Their thoughts, ideas, premises, and analyses are sabotaged by the acceptance of the nomenclature. Scientology nomenclature narrows the paradigm of the concept to which it applies. For example, take the term suppressive person. This term ignores all the nuances of actions and various factors and circumstances which determines a person’s actions. A person is either an SP or he isn’t. The term SP shuts off the capacity to understand the person or series of events in context. It narrows one’s view of how the world works when one thinks in terms of people either being SPs or not. Scientologists make this abstract idea, the SP, the actual cause of the action or situation, instead of being able to reason about the particular factors.
The same goes for a word like potential trouble source. The meaning of PTS is based upon its relationship to the meaning of an SP. Now a Scientologist judges people’s actions and the outcome of events, based on an abstract idea of an SP and a what PTS is. This is what I meant on another thread when I said that Scientologists have the tendency to treat abstract ideas as facts, and facts as abstract ideas.
The whole nomenclature of Scientology is so interwoven that one usually only speaks of specific actions in the abstract--“he committed an overt” or “she is ARC broken.” When pressed to follow a specific line of reasoning a Scientologist can’t because their ability to see nuances has been cut off and replaced by substituting abstract ideas for specific actions. This is why Scientologists generally have trouble articulating particulars.
I’ll have more on the decline in reasoning later, but everyone feel free to jump in.

The Anabaptist Jacques

This is excellent and I fully agree. I have woken up only a short time, and I find it extremely difficult not to use sceintologeeze, I also still find it hard to go into a discussion about the 'tech'. Not that I believe any of it anymore, but my brain does hurt and I get very flumoxed and confused and I am still battling with that. Up until I started on this forum, I would have believed almost anything without verifying the truth, and if I did believe in something and someone asked for proof or a discussion, I'd be very flippant and say something ridiculous like, 'that's just the way it is'.

Looking back, I also noticed I used a lot of generalities, however I am realizing this when I read other's posts particularly from the freezerzoners, they remind me of what I was, where I was coming from, and I found this very difficult to stomach.

I agree though totally that it does chop a lot of definitions of words right down to the degree that you swallow the scientology definition and the rest gets dumped for sure. It left me feeling totally spaced out and unable to even barely communicate without stuttering because I was still thinking as a scientologist, and it wasn't until I came to the internet (I stayed away for ten years cos I thought I was going to die incase I read the ot3 details.. ) that I realized what was happening, and being given the opportunity to come here and try and talk about it as much as I am able to I am grateful for every single day.

Talking about it and discussing it is the only way that I for one am going to be able to get my head fully around how the brainwashing actually took place and perhaps one day be able to talk about it in more detail. I know I've posted a lot here, but scientology discussions about breaking it all down I still find excrutiatingly difficult, and I do try hard, but I do feel I have made the most incredible head way and am only now beginning to see where the freezerzoners are coming from. The 'tech' did a good job on them too.

 

[Oneflewover]

AJ.

I think you give people far too little credit, and nomenclature far too much.

I find your post sort of applicable to the Church of Scientology, but less so to Scientology, and little so to the Freezone areas I'm familiar with.

The Church of Scientology has developed into a "culture" where there is a tendency towards your descriptions.

Freezone groups tend to shuck off that culture.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

There are people from all philosophical walks of life who don't reason very well. It has to do with indoctrination which leads a person to accept ideas without questioning them.

However, most Freezoners and indie Scn'ists I know do question ideas to a great extent. And a lot of them study other things besides Scn and don't agree with everything Hubbard said. Those who've left Scn behind don't consider that this has happened, but it's just evaluation for other people. It stems from the fact that the non CofS Scn'ist in a given situation is not drawing the conclusion(s) that the other person has done. Therefore, it is assumed that the former's reasoning is faulty, but that's only a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Zinjifar]

Somewhere (somewhere) there's a 'theory' that the best people to ask about the esthetics of 16" nails pounded into eyeballs are those sporting the nails.

Universally, they say it looks fetching.

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

AJ.

I think you give people far too little credit, and nomenclature far too much.

I find your post sort of applicable to the Church of Scientology, but less so to Scientology, and little so to the Freezone areas I'm familiar with.

The Church of Scientology has developed into a "culture" where there is a tendency towards your descriptions.

Freezone groups tend to shuck off that culture.

I'll start this off by saying that I actually like AJ.

But...

The idea here is one that pops up on forums every now and again, and that is that Scn is irrevocably tainted. And that, not only that, but that other people- some of whom are often bitter and not terribly nice to other people on those forums- are in a position to ascertain that. Of course, they are not, unless, of course, one wants to join another cult led by one or more maladjusted people. In fact, there are a couple well known critics (Lerma, Wollersheim) who do, fact, seem to be trying to start their own cult(s) and who, while telling other people what to believe, don't manage to sound too balanced on the subject.

I would give about as much unquestioning obedience and credibility to anyone here or on any forum as I would to L Ron Hubbard, which is to say very little.

 

[Pixie]

Somewhere (somewhere) there's a 'theory' that the best people to ask about the esthetics of 16" nails pounded into eyeballs are those sporting the nails.

Universally, they say it looks fetching.

Zinj

 

[Free to shine]

I would give about as much unquestioning obedience and credibility to anyone here or on any forum as I would to L Ron Hubbard, which is to say very little.

Yet you will happily use Hubbard's "tech"?

 

[Free to shine]

I'll start this off by saying that I actually like AJ.

But...

The idea here is one that pops up on forums every now and again, and that is that Scn is irrevocably tainted. And that, not only that, but that other people- some of whom are often bitter and not terribly nice to other people on those forums- are in a position to ascertain that. Of course, they are not, unless, of course, one wants to join another cult led by one or more maladjusted people. In fact, there are a couple well known critics (Lerma, Wollersheim) who do, fact, seem to be trying to start their own cult(s) and who, while telling other people what to believe, don't manage to sound too balanced on the subject.

I would give about as much unquestioning obedience and credibility to anyone here or on any forum as I would to L Ron Hubbard, which is to say very little.

Well done on putting a couple of specifics in there.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Yet you will happily use Hubbard's "tech"?

Your post seems to have one or more assumptions in it...

No, I don't use anyone's tech. By the time I decide to utilize it, it's my own, in a way, if you get my drift.

I don't follow anyone, I don't obey anyone, and I do not believe in unquestioning belief whatsoever.

I also don't just confine myself to Scn, philosophy-wise.

 

[Mojo]

...
No, I don't use anyone's tech.

Come on Fluffy, 'you don't use anyone's tech'? Hello? For goodness sake you have been proclaiming yourself to be a 'scientologist' ever since the internet was born. Ok, that's a stretch, but please. You have been bragging about the 'usefulness' of Hubbards tech ever since you started posting on the ARS, years and years ago. And now, today, all of a sudden, in response to a post by Free to Shine, you don't use anyone's tech?

Can you not see how absurd such a statement is? Even if you attempt to qualifiy it (in hindsight)?

By the time I decide to utilize it, it's my own, in a way, if you get my drift...

Right. When I started driving a car I actually invented the car. I wasn't driving a Ford or a Chevy, I was driving a Fluffy. If you get my drift.

No. Many of us do not get your drift. Hubbard may have got your drift. But we do not get your drift. Does a Ford become a Fluffy when Fluffy drives it?

I don't follow anyone, I don't obey anyone, and I do not believe in unquestioning belief whatsoever.

Hubbard to the core. Or perhaps Hubbardarian would be better stated.

I also don't just confine myself to Scn, philosophy-wise.

That's beautiful. That's just friggin beautiful.

Now if you can just tell us what Scn is, philosophy-wise? Omitting of course all those nasty little aspects & details that you've realized aren't really Scn at all?

Really Fluff, if I could spiritually trade places with you for one hour I would do so in one second. Just to try to understand what it is that you believe, let alone what you understand.

Mojo

 

[olska]

A person can be poisoned by something even though it taste good. They may enjoy every bite of it. But it can still poison them. In this post I wish to lay the groundwork to show how Scientology and the Freezone has a net destructive effect on people’s minds. I am not saying the Freezoners or Scientologists are bad people. I just think that the net result of using Scientology is harmful to a person’s reasoning ability. Scientology does not enlighten people; it contracts their capacity to understand.

Great topic! thanks for opening up this discussion.

There are some differences between "official" Church of Scientology practices and what you're referring to as "freezone" scientology practices -- the most obvious being the many forms of blatant bullying of staff that goes on "behind the scenes" in the CoS and the coercive and bullying hard-sell tactics used by the offical CoS to extract money from its paying public. Neither of these is present to any significant degree outside the official CoS.

But here are some observations (my personal observations, my personal opinions) I think might help your analysis:

Inside the "official" Church of Scientology, amongst the staff, you'll see more application of Hubbard's "management" tech, which includes the green-on-white policy, the blue-on-white stuff (forget what it's called), and so forth. This encompasses the "ethics tech," and much (not all) of the "PTS/SP handling" stuff. Staff are trained on this, and aware of its use.

On its paying public, the official CoS openly practices more of the "Tech" (training and processing, directions for this found on the red-on-white bulletins and in Hubbard's books), and less of the "management" stuff; but "management" tech is much applied to paying public without their awareness of that being done.

Thus, embraced by the sphere of the "official CoS," you have two distinct groups of people who experience different applications and different effects: the staff, and the paying public. As well, within the category of "staff" are various subgroups: Sea Org, non-Sea Org, mission, volunteers -- distinctions which might also be useful to a thorough analysis.

In the "Freezone" and amongst the various non-CoS offshoots and "indy" groups and practitioners, expect to see more of the "Tech" stuff in practice -- the "pure" Hubbard tech as well as various "squirrel" (altered) versions created by non-CoS practitioners -- and less emphasis and enforcement of Hubbard's ideas and directives on "management."

While bullying and "hard sell" are seldom used outside the CoS, obviously the non-CoS practitioners use SOME of Hubbard's "management" ideas and directives, as those "techniques" are sometimes discussed and visibly in use on forums such as these.

I happen to agree with your premise that the net result of using Scientology is harmful to a person’s reasoning ability. Within or outside the official Church of Scientology.

For purposes of making a thorough analysis, it may be useful to show the differences in how and why that actually happens, as well as the differences in "result," in the two different environments: official CoS and non-Cos.

Otherwise, not only is the discussion likely to get bogged down by the insistence of non-CoS scientologists that because of the absence of intense bullying and hard-selling outisde the official Cos, "everything is fine," but important points of analysis can be missed. I think that for a complete understanding, you truly cannot lump the methods or the ultimate effects of the two (CoS and non-CoS) together.

IMO none of it is benign. As I see it, the basic core issue is that ALL of "scientology" was intentionally created to advance, and therefore is fatally permeated and corrupted with, Hubbard's personal intentions and agenda.

 

[gomorrhan]

A person can be poisoned by something even though it taste good. They may enjoy every bite of it. But it can still poison them. In this post I wish to lay the groundwork to show how Scientology and the Freezone has a net destructive effect on people’s minds. I am not saying the Freezoners or Scientologists are bad people. I just think that the net result of using Scientology is harmful to a person’s reasoning ability. Scientology does not enlighten people; it contracts their capacity to understand.
This will be a tall order considering how many people have had wins and cognitions. But the wins and cognitions are just the flavoring. Scientology itself, is just heavily seasoned mental poison. It is mental thalidomide.
The seasoning which disguises the bitter taste of the poison is Scientology nomenclature. When people begin to accept Scientology nomenclature they are already swallowing the poison. And to be precise, what is being poison is their capacity to think rationally. Their thoughts, ideas, premises, and analyses are sabotaged by the acceptance of the nomenclature. Scientology nomenclature narrows the paradigm of the concept to which it applies. For example, take the term suppressive person. This term ignores all the nuances of actions and various factors and circumstances which determines a person’s actions. A person is either an SP or he isn’t. The term SP shuts off the capacity to understand the person or series of events in context. It narrows one’s view of how the world works when one thinks in terms of people either being SPs or not. Scientologists make this abstract idea, the SP, the actual cause of the action or situation, instead of being able to reason about the particular factors.
The same goes for a word like potential trouble source. The meaning of PTS is based upon its relationship to the meaning of an SP. Now a Scientologist judges people’s actions and the outcome of events, based on an abstract idea of an SP and a what PTS is. This is what I meant on another thread when I said that Scientologists have the tendency to treat abstract ideas as facts, and facts as abstract ideas.
The whole nomenclature of Scientology is so interwoven that one usually only speaks of specific actions in the abstract--“he committed an overt” or “she is ARC broken.” When pressed to follow a specific line of reasoning a Scientologist can’t because their ability to see nuances has been cut off and replaced by substituting abstract ideas for specific actions. This is why Scientologists generally have trouble articulating particulars.
I’ll have more on the decline in reasoning later, but everyone feel free to jump in.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Your claim that practice of scientology auditing causes a decline in ability to reason is false, IMO. I don't see any evidence of that, at all. What I DO see is that the pressure of the group tends to push people towards ceasing asking questions, ceasing being critically minded, etc. Of course, this is specified in the organizational materials of scientology, and is part of it's practice. But it would be a wrong idea to think that auditing people made them dumb, or incapable of reasoning. That's another part of the philosophy in action. There are parts of the FreeZone wherein these additional parts of the philosophy are put into action (see "Keeping Scientology Working"), but there are others where they don't worry so much about any of that stuff, and instead strictly seek to apply whatever procedures will help a person confront the actual situations they are in, and help them bring resolution to them. Blanket statements about the FreeZone are not likely to have much accuracy, as there is not much homogeneity to the FZ, other than their belief that by implementing some or all parts of the philosophy they call scientology can improve conditions for themselves and those they are in contact with.

 

[gomorrhan]

Your post seems to have one or more assumptions in it...

No, I don't use anyone's tech. By the time I decide to utilize it, it's my own, in a way, if you get my drift.

I don't follow anyone, I don't obey anyone, and I do not believe in unquestioning belief whatsoever.

I also don't just confine myself to Scn, philosophy-wise.

I get your drift, Fluff. It is true that when you analyze an idea, take it apart, put it back together, and truly understand it, it becomes your own. In doing so, you may make changes in emphasis, decide on different applications, etc.

 

[Mojo]

I get your drift, Fluff. It is true that when you analyze an idea, take it apart, put it back together, and truly understand it, it becomes your own. In doing so, you may make changes in emphasis, decide on different applications, etc.

I understand what you are saying here. And consequently agree.

The part of the question I see being the most important is in regard to the reality of the prior conditioning of any and all human computations (called analysis, or taking something apart, or putting something together, or understanding it) which prior conditioning trumps the present analysis/cognition/expression et al, of all. By virtue of it's position.

Apparently both you and Fluffy either do not precive this reality, or you do perceive it and simply deny it's authenticity and or accuracy or meaningfulness. Of which one I am not sure.

Mojo

P.S. consider this a preamble, should you want to further engage. Lol. And if not consider it an end. Lol.

 

[gomorrhan]

I do perceive the prior conditioning as a problem, but I don't see it as insurmountable, because I surmounted it. Then again, that may have been due to prior conditioning as a reasoning human prior to getting into scientology. Then again, that may have only been possible because I had prior conditioning to resist having things shoved down my throat because I went to Catholic school.

Perception of the prior conditioning, in many cases, frees a person from that conditioning. There are cases of longterm conditioning (i.e.: living in a cult, growing up republican, etc.) which can be disabling, but even still, that prior conditioning can be addressed if a person is open to looking at it honestly, and considering what attitudes they adopted in order to survive and thrive in the conditioning environment, and what was happening to them just prior to this (*and YES, I'm aware that this is a similar concept to prep-checking a "prior confusion"*).

 

[Free to shine]

Your post seems to have one or more assumptions in it...

No, I don't use anyone's tech. By the time I decide to utilize it, it's my own, in a way, if you get my drift.

I don't follow anyone, I don't obey anyone, and I do not believe in unquestioning belief whatsoever.

I also don't just confine myself to Scn, philosophy-wise.

I'm bookmarking this post.