Apparently, you can't read either. I said, clearly, $cn needs a bottom up and top down review.
And you assign liability? OMG.
THESE PEOPLE ARE TREASONOUS!!!!!!!! Forced abortions? Forced labor? Child labor?
I'm not trying to salvage $cn practices. I could care less about practices.
I care about theory and the number one theory is that the Creator created laws which regulate human affairs. However, we must discover them and apply them, to a greater or lesser extent.
Meaning, you cannot force people to observe such laws, but you can encourage them and set examples.
$cn, is an EXTREMELY poor example.
However, it does possess a great deal of resources, which could be put to better use and by the people who helped create them, and had them taken away or nearly destroyed.
Oh, I'm serious. I'll burn the place to the ground.
But, what comes out of the ashes, is the question.........LOL
The opening line of your conceited rebuttal betrays a level of self-absorption that smacks of a self-righteous fundamentalism seen in only the outer fringes of extremist interpretations of philosophy and theology.
Why do you insist that others cannot read your words? We are using a common language after all. So how is it that others are not reading what you are saying correctly? It is an unbelievable solipsism and I fear that any argument you thereafter posit is compromised.
I take it upon myself to waste a few precious moments of my life on this sweet earth to respond. I do so in the hope that I may encourage you to partake in an exercise that is clearly unfamiliar to you. It might at first be a bit painful, but I assure you that once you have practiced it a bit you will find it liberating and indeed healthy. It is called self-criticism; the art of the reflective, the realm occupied by the most courageous of thinkers. (A category from which Hubbard is most definitely excluded.)
The Hubbard penned conditions of existence are not workable, they are self-contradictory. The scientology perverse formula for treason is ridiculous. Scientology knows exactly what it is. My contention is that we as the body of humanity that suffered scientology have been ripped off. Scientology has been a liability in our lives. If you wish to use Scientology to right wrongs, ask how Scientology might make up the damage it did to thee and me.
The theoretical exercise of the steps of liability by the cult and even by its 'tech' toward anyone who has ever partaken in the practice would logically lead to the dissolution and the dismantling of not merely the corporate entity, but the tenants upon which the same was founded.
You move on the to postulate of a creator, and from other posts you have made I take that you mean by that the creator in an Abrahamic, monotheistic sense. Were you to extract the dubious content of the Christian Holy Book and by various relativistic contortions filter it down to a christian-Scientology effort at redemption I can assure you that you would only come up with another contorted form of primitive superstition with which the credulous could be misdirected and fleeced.
There is perhaps a subject, a body of thought, a body of peer reviewed and endlessly evolving 'technology' if you will. It is know as the field of psychiatry and its divergent splinter movement under the gestalt heading, broadly known as psychology. Having studied in these fields at university level I can assure you that the theory of the engram has been long since disproved. Jung and Freud found the galvanometer to have very limited therapeutic application and dispensed with it in practice.
Past lives are of course wishful thinking. The experiences under Hubbard's hypnosis that are interpreted as such are emotional constructs, expressions of the non-verbal, often the pre-verbal. Jung explored this in his archetype theory and exploration of the inner space. I am not necessarily a proponent, but extract from this a useful paradigm.
You seem to be, in your opening post, proposing societal application of the conditions formulas, with some slight rejigging, to correct the wrongs of the world. I go back to my earlier accusation. You betray the solipsistic fringe mindset seen in the religious fanatic. It may have escaped your attention that there are such things as the International Court of Human Rights. There is such a thing as the American Bill of Rights and the American Constitution. There exists a body of thought that comprises European law. If you are dismayed by by its ineffectiveness, I ask whether you have ever attempted to engage in and with such such systems, or do stand outside of it and rage against it as a 'victim of injustice' as so many others on the fringes tend to do?
Every aspect of Scientology is derivative. In the main made up of poorly derived plagiarisms from well known and well thought of thinkers, psychologists and philosophers. Why you would hope to extract anything useful from this heap of garbage is beyond me. You fail to convince me of this in any of the proposals that you have made to date. I assure you that it is not from lack of my efforts to 'read your posts.'
Notwithstanding the unconvincing creationist stance, your wish to extract laws that might lead us to some kind of wished for nirvana is well covered is the Sciences, Astrophysics, genome research, medicine, psychology, sociology ad infinitum.
What is valuable in Scientology is the material wealth that the corrupt system has extracted from the slave labour of staff and Sea Org people and the wealth extorted from the 'parishioner'. A class action law suit that would dissolve the corporation, liquidate assets and use resulting funds to compensate those that have suffered and those that have sacrificed under the regime would be the most logical direction of effort. were you proposing something along that line, then you might garner some support and not make yourself look ridiculous. I fear that this is the sum result of the pages of fevered ramblings that you have to date polluted the unfortunate reader with.
Despite reading, and yes, I can read, thank you, your extensive postings I still have very little idea of what it is you think you are advocating; I might surmise that the same might be true of your good self. You ramble and do not make a single convincing, not to mention, substantive point.
Perhaps you might take it upon yourself to try to respond in a less self-congratulatory vein. You might try to actually state explicitly what it is that you are proposing?
And please, knock off the sickly patronizing tone will you? Please.
