Scientology: There Can Be Only One

[uniquemand]

Scientology, for most of us, was an effort to understand reality, and our place in it. It starts with the idea that a person is, potentially, capable of causing matter, energy, space, time and life to exist, but is also capable of becoming a participant, and ultimately, a recipient of experiences, as well; furthermore, that most people find themselves more towards the recipient end of the spectrum rather than the participant or creator ends of the spectrum. Ron oversimplified and called it "at cause" or "at effect", which became common scientology jargon. Be, Do, Have.

The idea that a person could become more causative, by which I mean they could become more of a generator of experiences than the recipient of experiences, doesn't seem unnatural to me. I've seen people take charge of their lives and change the way they lived in just that sort of a manner. They became artists, scientists, businessmen, politicians, city planners, etc. I've seen others that have trained for those roles, but don't seem to have any creative vision of their own. I've seen others that are like pinballs in a machine, going whatever way circumstances outside their control dictate. Certainly I've seen people that are largely visionary fall, as well, and I've seen others improve, so it seems that there are ways to transition, some of which are under our control, others of which are not.

I go on at this length about it, because it's fundamental when trying to understand what Scientology "orgs" are trying to do, and generally, what each Scientologist is attempting to do, as well: place themselves in the position of absolute control over whether they will be the recipient of an experience or the generator of an experience for others, etc. It's inherent in the philosophy best expressed by Crowley himself: "Do what Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Scientology is about creating a great world for the able, while either eliminating disabilities or eliminating the disabled. It is a Left Hand path. Those that follow it die screaming at phantoms, alone with their power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AoOa-Fz2kw

 

[frhidden]

Scientology, for most of us, was an effort to understand reality, and our place in it.
...

The idea that a person could become more causative, by which I mean they could become ...

I go on at this length about it, because it's fundamental when trying to understand what Scientology "orgs" are trying to do, and generally, what each Scientologist is attempting to do, as well: place themselves in the position of absolute control over whether they will be the recipient of an experience or the generator of an experience for others, etc. It's inherent in the philosophy best expressed by Crowley himself: "Do what Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Scientology is about creating a great world for the able, while either eliminating disabilities or eliminating the disabled. It is a Left Hand path. Those that follow it die screaming at phantoms, alone with their power.
-------------------------------------

Hi Uniquemand,

I see eye to eye with your first two paragraphs but not with the third. Consider the scn concepts of "randomity" and "optimum randomity". There concepts introduce "out-of-control" and "an optimum balance of control versus out-of-control". I am pointing out here that you did not allow for these concepts when writing the third paragraph.

Frhidden

 

[uniquemand]

Scientology, for most of us, was an effort to understand reality, and our place in it.
...

The idea that a person could become more causative, by which I mean they could become ...

I go on at this length about it, because it's fundamental when trying to understand what Scientology "orgs" are trying to do, and generally, what each Scientologist is attempting to do, as well: place themselves in the position of absolute control over whether they will be the recipient of an experience or the generator of an experience for others, etc. It's inherent in the philosophy best expressed by Crowley himself: "Do what Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Scientology is about creating a great world for the able, while either eliminating disabilities or eliminating the disabled. It is a Left Hand path. Those that follow it die screaming at phantoms, alone with their power.
-------------------------------------

Hi Uniquemand,

I see eye to eye with your first two paragraphs but not with the third. Consider the scn concepts of "randomity" and "optimum randomity". There concepts introduce "out-of-control" and "an optimum balance of control versus out-of-control". I am pointing out here that you did not allow for these concepts when writing the third paragraph.

Frhidden

That's because that is not really something which is emphasized in Scientology. Hubbard did do several bulletins on randomity, effort, etc., and they were interesting to me, but the Bridge Scientology sells is not very consistent with allowing other people to have creative control and co-operating. Rather, the emphasis is on battle-planning, tactical engagements, elimination of counter-intention, etc.

While there certainly are and were Scientologists who are happy to really "grant beingness" to others, that is not the product sold. The product sold is the path of the Sith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjpx8YPeHds

 

[frhidden]

I guess that my basic understanding of scn stems from the mid 1970ies when the seeds of heavy control, though already planted, had not yet grown into the widespread control that started to flourish in the early 1980ies and continued to spread since then.

 

[uniquemand]

Well, I think "Tech Types" (auditors, C/Ses, examiners, word clearers, book one auditors) tended to read all of the Tech Volumes material, which actually does have a lot more to offer than what ultimately ended up in "The Bridge", on display in organizations. I think the first three tech vols were very worth reading, even if you don't believe all the concepts. You can see Hubbard groping for a way to unify the various parts of his "workable system" into a coherent theory. I think a lot of people who worked for him thought he actually had one. I think he didn't. However, I do think that he was very close with the concept of line plots and goals problem masses, but he failed in his effort to get those into a shape where you could do your "GPM Rundown" at some point, and due to the complexity of the materials that he couldn't sort out, he decided to quit shy of the mark, and substituted NOTS and Implantology for an actual solution. Hubbard's problem, IMO, was the need to create a mystery to sell magick, when in reality, all of the various complexities are formal procedures aimed at solving a specific condition, rather than simply attending to whatever a person wanted to address, and help them remove the anchors that prevent them from being able to change their self-definition.

That sort of thing, including all the interesting stuff about effort, intention, beingness, etc., tended to disappear in favor of the "streamlined Bridge" of services and the machines he wanted to create to deliver them, the "orgs".