ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



The most fundamental Flaw in scientology

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by MattD, Jan 11, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. MattD

    MattD Patron with Honors

    I've long since parted ways with the Church and moved on from hopes for the tech outside the church, but still always had the nagging unknown of why it didn't all work. I think I have finally come to understand.

    I had thought that its just that very few people really truly did scientology right, it would work if only.. Well even that is hard to maintain as a belief with the abundance of evidence.

    The tech was good, it was the people. Well wrong. There is a fundamental flaw in the whole gestalt of scientology and that is the imbalance inherent in the tech toward being cause. The tech is based on the idea that survival is the root motivation of man. BUT scientology is supposed to be about the animating spirit OF man. Something that is inherently unable to do anything but survive, at least in human terms.

    The incessant drive to increase "cause levels" and not be the effect, (SP's, life problems etc) has created a culture and a body of people who are wholly unbalanced.

    It shows. You have a church supposedly based on communication that can only yell, but not be yelled at, or even listen if it is to something that puts them at effect.

    People or spirits or life needs to do both, be able to experience effects and cause them in some roughly equal measure. Scientology tech does not promote balance, but trains and rewards imbalance.

    I know that there are plenty of examples of Hubbard himself making this very point, and that man is inordinately effect, but scientology fails to remedy this. It creates imbalance in the direction of cause, and negates the ability to receive effects. Most discrete parts of scientology tech do work, but as a whole there is a fundamental flaw.
     
  2. GoNuclear

    GoNuclear Gold Meritorious Patron

    I think it goes way beyond that. First, there is the yet unanswered question ... how far can ANY tech take a person in the direction of, say, higher IQ, better ability to visualize, ability to perceive intuitively, ability to project intention, etc. Scientology was always sold with a lot of hype and nonsense. Clams are told it is all scientific and based upon research. What research? Never happened. Then there was the money motivation, and then there are all the problems that occur with people going on power trips.

    Pete
     
  3. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    In my view the flaw was that people confined themselves to what The CofS presented to them. They called that Scientology. What they should have done is go much much broader and deeper than what the CofS presented.

    Scientology is presented as being the subject of "Knowing how to know". I consider that a better statement is "Knowing the one who knows", or "Knowing the knower".

    This would make it a VERY broad subject, and ALL of its breadth and depth is relevant. One must fully understand the context of a subject as well as its antecedents and its opposites. Anyone who wishes to understand Scientology must also be ully conversant with Hypnotism, Brainwashing and Implanting. Otherwise how could one ever be able to differentiate?

    So, in short, it is by limiting oneself to what the CofS presented the subject as being that one missed what the subject really is.
     
  4. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    I think this is a significant point. Another aspect of it is maybe this: there seems to be a bias in Scientology 'tech' towards focusing on the things that anyone can control.
    Anyone can shout; anyone can postulate; anyone can decide for themselves that something is true; anyone can feel that they have had an epiphany. But does anyone else understand what you say? Do your wishes have any effect? Are the phenomena that convince you real, or illusions? Do your insights offer any lasting benefit?

    To check any of those things, you have to switch over from being cause to being effect. If you never do that, then you can easily have the illusion that 'the tech' all works much better than it really does.
     
  5. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    Matt, you made some good and interesting points as concerns scientology.

    To me, the *most* fundamental flaw is that scientology doesn't do what it promises to do which is to free people. Perhaps some individuals feel that the subject did work for them in that regard but they are the exception to the rule.

    The subjects failure in this regard isn't due to bad research or no research. I wouldn't even characterize it as a 'failure'. In my opinion, Scientology works exactly as was intended and it has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its founder.

    Our thinking of Scientology as being "flawed" assumes that it was really designed as a 'road to total freedom'. It was designed to LOOK like that, but it's all an illusion imo.
     
  6. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    There is a lot in Hubbard's writings about the benefits of being willing effect too. What comes to mind is the Cause/Effect Scale where the top of the scale includes giving and receiving at cause and effect and the bottom of the scale neither. And also his basics of communication where someone is alternately willing cause and willing effect when talking and listening.

    An auditor is trained to be willing effect, being willing to listen to his pc. I know this doesn't apply to Scios being willing to listen to anything that contradicts Hubbard, but that qualification isn't included in auditor training!

    Paul
     
  7. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    As a "spiritual practice", I agree that the fundamental flaw is Hubbard's total fixation on SURVIVAL!

    The Hindu Vedas explain that there is the Unmanifest, which could be correlated somewhat to "Theta" (i.e. Static), and then there is the Manifest, or everything else that exists as part of the illusion (Maya), and exists in terms of endless "cycles". The idea is that the Unmanifest is Spirit - invisible, out of time and space, pure "mind", and the BASIS of all else. The idea is that the Manifest includes MEST, but as that it is always changing, waxing and waning, becoming something else.

    When Hubbard focused on SURVIVAL, he took the middle part from "create - survive - destroy". The Hindu trinity is of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are respectively the creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. Hubbard switched "preservation" to "survival". And, Hubbard exaggerated it way out of importance and significance in terms of ANY cycle. Thereby he concentrated and gave undue attention to MEST (thus fancy buildings, make money, make more money, expand, persist, etc.). Most Scientologists I ever knew had very LOW sense or display of any type of "spirituality" and were VERY obsessed with MEST.

    For me, I found that SOME of the auditing helped ME contact the spiritual aspect, the observer behind what is being observed, the Silence that underlies all movement and action. But, the culture of Scientology, based on the organizational materials and especially on the ETHICS TECH (which focuses on "helping things to survive") forces a person away from any sense of Spirit and towards MEST.

    There is no doubt that an urge to survive is a very basic aspect of what underlies the ILLUSION part of it all - the cycles of action - the entire range of universes. But THAT does NOT have anything to do with becoming more aware of Spirit, self or awareness.

    It is part of Hindu ideas that one learns about BOTH, the nature and behavior of the invisible Spirit that underlies all else, and nature and behavior of the endless cycles of action. But, it makes a great difference what one focuses upon and spends the majority of their time "looking at" or "thinking about".

    For me, I can conceive or a version of Scientology that might be okay, granted it would take a GREAT DEAL of editing, removal of crap, and added explanations. A large majority of that crap has to do with the purpose and behavior of the Scientology organization. See here is the problem:

    The top goal of Scientology is the survival and expansion of Scientology.

    That is based on Hubbard's own statements, assertions and claims, and this TOP CLAIM links directly to a great many other LRH statements about the validity and sole workability of Scientology (Ref: KSW).

    Once Hubbard set up the Church of Scientology's SURVIVAL as the TOP GOAL, far above all else, then everything else he ever wrote gets INTERPRETED with THAT in mind. Ethics is defined as "removing counter-intention from the environment", and "removing other-intention from the environment". Thus, anything that distracts or takes away from expanding Scientology becomes "unethical". And, as we know Scientology has a GROSS EXTREMELY OVER-EXAGGERATED FOCUS on "ethics". With how Hubbard set it all up, any adherent MUST become obsessed with "ethics", which REALLY is ONLY "making Scientology survive".

    Hubbard's organization "tech" (OEC) is all about making his group survive and expand. The Data Series, and all Management Series are ONLY about that same thing. A very LARGE realm of data and active concern and behavior FOCUS almost exclusively on the middle aspect of the illusion (as defined by the Hindus). He gets Scientology adherents all terribly worked up about SURVIVAL.

    The sad truth is that if one has a more balanced understanding of the "way things are" in this universe, one would grasp that nothing lasts, everything changes into something else, all things must pass, and NOTHING can be coaxed into "expanding forever" (example - study the recent stock market crash). A more balanced "spiritual" groking of all of this leaves one CALM and RELAXED about "making things survive", and one does NOT get all horribly insanely dedicated to making ANYTHING survive. The frantic manner of the Sea Org, staff and many Church members was always so distasteful to me.

    This is a far better "basic truth" than Hubbard's dumbass notion of "survival is the basic":

    All Things Must Pass

    But, even over-attention on that line can cause one to settle into too much focus on MEST.

    That is why I like and enjoy forms of meditation. Meditation practices provide daily time each day where I settle into the Silence behind the Activity. I also enjoy reading writers who talk of the Invisible Source of It All.

    I like the analogy of food and dieting. You ARE what you eat - and this is also very true when it comes to what you focus mental attention and action upon. When one is constantly obsessed with making something survive, this "diet" of ideas and behaviors takes over. That is surely the case for many over-indoctrinated Scientologists.

    That is why I live on a small mountain surrounded by Nature, read "spiritual stuff", and do my best to "be in the now".

    Now, if one wants to use Hubbard's crap on survival and succeeding like one would use any "achievement-oriented subject", well there is probably some value to THAT BY ITSELF. But linking together a "spiritual practice" (some auditing, OT TR0 & TR0) with a decidedly "success practice" (OEC volumes, management series) was INSANE! They push any person in opposite directions, though of course, THAT may have been Hubbard's intention too. :confused2:

    As a "spiritual practice", when taken as a whole, Scientology is USELESS.

    Just look at the qualities and characteristics of the people who heavily support it. They are often arrogant, pushy, self-serving, ego-obsessed and often nasty people (pretty much just like Hubbard himself). Then look at a fellow like the Dalai Lama who exudes compassion and love. :ohmy:

    See that difference? That is because of how and what one focuses on as valid and important.

    A person who is locked into MEST, into survival, FIGHTS and wants to WIN against others. Life is seen as a battle - just as it is with Scientology versus the World.

    But, a person who focuses on the Spirit sees and feels the calm Silence behind it all, brings THAT into every behavior and relationship, grasps the deep connection we all have, and NATURALLY exhibits love and compassion. THAT is NOT at all evident in most Scientologists.

    Is genuine Love and Compassion there, visibly evident in the person? If not, the Path is probably NOT "improving one spiritually".

    The utter lack of any mention of the concepts of compassion and/or love in Scientology is very telling. I mean the "higher love". And, when coupled with the extreme obsession of "making Scientology survive", it is truly a dog's breakfast as ANY sort of "spiritual practice".

    I have thought of Scientology as a "spiritual practice" for self-obsessed people who want to pretend that they are "spiritual" when really they are almost entirely immersed in MEST.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2012
  8. MattD

    MattD Patron with Honors

    Yes I agree with you. That potential is there in the basic ideas that make up scientology. But that is not what scientology is, taken as a whole scientology skews a person in the wrong direction, and scientology is designed to be taken as a whole. (And to some degree excluding a more broad frame of reference).

    The tools in form of ideas that are in scientology, put into a larger context such as you suggest, would be better.

    Maybe it is at the point that the context is defined, the point when scientology becomes a group, separate from society at large, rather than a philosophy, is the point where the value of the tools break down?
     
  9. MattD

    MattD Patron with Honors

    Yes! One can be total cause of a very limited sphere of influence.
     
  10. MattD

    MattD Patron with Honors

    I think it is a fairly subtle bias in the tech, this "cause as more important than effect". It would have to be to have taken so many of us for the wild ride. But over the years it became more and more prominent to the current state of affairs where an auditor must be perfect before even trying it on a live person.

    Look at how auditing is structured for the auditor, he must achieve result or there are penalties and the only rewards are for the "cause" he has been the vehicle for. Are there any rewards for the effects he experienced?

    And the PC is rewarded for acts of self determination and active perception, confronting, not for just being there.

    I'm not saying I could integrate it better though! It could just as easily be structured that effects were validated and a martyr religion/cult came into being.

    If you talk to current church scientologists and you have been around for a while, it is striking how "out tr's" they are in terms of them listening and fully duplicating, and it being a give and take. It is usually feels like they are just waiting for you to finish so they can say their bit.

    The individual discrete portions of scientology do make sense, but the whole of is is subtlely skewed imo. Of course the whole thing was built up to solve a problem of too little cause, and too much effect, with the notion of SURVIVE as its prime motivation.
     
  11. MattD

    MattD Patron with Honors

    Nice. :clap:
     
  12. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Don't get too stuck on the Survive! bit. All it means is that a being who is alive wants to continue living. Its efforts are directed to that end.

    And it is a Dianetic axiom, not a Scio one. So it pertains to the body. So therefore the view that it is only the middle portion of Create-Survive-Destroy, while correct, is not really relevant.

    Don't get stuck on it as being an error. It was a datum which was useful in its time and that is all it is.
     
  13. SchwimmelPuckel

    SchwimmelPuckel Genuine Meatball

    Yes.. But Hubbard's 'Tech' and 'Philosophy' has created a totalitarian cult, complete with 'members' reporting '(thought and face) crimes' on each other, believing they are called to be 'psychoanalysts' and judge for everyone they know..

    The intire Scientology 'community' indoctrinated to detest 'false reporting' on 'case gains', yet every single one of 'em has false reported on precisely that! - Nobody has eidetic and/or photographic memory, or ability to 'exteriorize', or has gained one poinbt in IQ per auditimg hour! - Hell, I know a guy who 'should' have an IQ of around 2500! - He doesn't.. He's a banky basterd just like me!!

    :yes:
     
  14. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I am not stuck on it. But, Hubbard and Scientology are VERY STUCK on SURVIVAL. The obsession with survival (and expansion) is interwoven DEEPLY throughout the entire "philosophy" of Scientology. It has to do with the urge to "make mockups persist through space and time" (a key idea of Scientology lifted from Magick). It has a great deal MORE to do with things than just "bodies".

    As I pointed out, this notion of survival and expansion is the BASIS of all green policy. Try to think of Scientology without the Green volumes and without the insane Scientology organization that is carefully built on Hubbard's exact orders and philosophy on group survival. It would be unrecongizable.
     
  15. Ogsonofgroo

    Ogsonofgroo Crusader

    In my eyes there's more than a few fundamental flaws in Cos, not the least of which is that it shouldn't cost anything (other than tokens of appreciation etc.) to become 'enlightened', buying your eternity~that is, being convinced you even can, seems to me about as flawed as it gets and so far removed from the idea of basic humanity as to be dangerous to the beings falling into the pit of LRon.
    Fundamentally Hubbard was flawed, abberated in so many ways, a sociopathic charlatan of the nth degree~ other than paying lip-service to a few fundamental/universal truths (and generally claiming them as his own brilliant ideas), he mashed (as opposed to 'smashing his name into history') in his long-con of hypnotical conditioning for only the gains of power over people and their finances.
    Maybe at some point he had bouts of altruism and even convinced himself of an altruistic core for the benefit of mankind, but the reality is is that Hubbard, on a universal level, was a crude type of conscienceless barbarian and only in it for the game and his own gain.

    Mini-rant over~ :grouch::grouch::grouch:

    :carryon:




    :cheers:
     
  16. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Hubbard was writing and lecturing about "Theta" being absorbed into "MEST" as early as 1951. By 1952 came the dwindling spiral, and the descent onto bodies and then "MEST," and "out the bottom," etc. Is it really necessary to go over it again? The "next endless agonized trillions" as a "wog" or "Homo Sap" (and then as a "BT" and then as "MEST") vs "knowing immortality" as an "OT" (1960s) etc., "Some religions talk abut hell. It's an understatement of what really happens," etc. (1978), 'From Clear to Eternity', etc., etc., etc.
     
  17. Mystic

    Mystic Crusader

    This is an easy one. The most fundamental FLAW in scientology is:

    L. Ron Hubbard :grouch:
     
  18. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    It would indeed. And be so much the better for it.
     
  19. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    Fund a mental

    Fundamentally you are a "Thetan".

    Copyright L. Ron Hubbard.
     
  20. Sindy

    Sindy Crusader

    The first fundamental flaw is that a Schizophrenic, narcissistic, and sometimes very, very cruel, and psychotically paranoid man was trying to tackle such lofty and all embracing subjects as love, sanity, righteousness, ethics, etc.

    How could a man who never really ever loved another (witness his treatment of even those closest to him) ever, in the end, develop any system to "pull man out of the mud"? One would have to have a deep love and understanding of man in order to do that.

    Though he sounded quite certain and obviously fooled many, his insights were shallow and not personally profound as they would apply to himself. Had they been, he would have striven to be sincere and would have become more and more genuine. Instead, he became a complete mental, emotional, and social cripple only caring about himself and finally going completely insane.

    Ron's paranoia, wrapped up with the beautiful parts of Scientology (wherever those came from) makes the subject a lethal combination of good and evil that very effectively traps the mind by making it continuously ping pong itself into a jello-like mush. A very strong and concerted effort must be made to extract oneself from it and many are unable to do so.

    The second fundamental flaw is that we, ourselves, were irresponsible in that we let another think for us and did not ensure that we, ourselves, were always our own authorities. It really did take two to tango.