Because die hard proponents are so blind.
It goes like this:
- Hubbard makes outlandish claims of Scientology’s perfection, infallibility and being the Only True Path.
- Someone counters the claims by finding errors in the work
- Hubbard and the church goes defensive by attacking
- The critic tries to enforce the criticism
As long as there are proponents of Scientology that refuses to see its obvious faults, there will be vehement critics.
If Scientologists would instead openly admit faults in Scientology, the polarization would subside and more constructive discussions on the subject may ensue.
There is less polarization where there is more chill. Witness Islam vs. Buddhism.
Geir Isene - uncut 
“There is less polarization where there is more chill. Witness Islam vs. Buddhism.”
I don’t understand. What do you mean by “chill”?
Being “chill”; Relaxed.
Discussions on Islam is heated. Discussions on Buddhism tends to be more rational.
Thanks. I didn’t have a suspicion that you had used slang here and therefore it didn’t occur to me to check the Urban Dictionary.
Buddhist philosophy tends to the discouragement of passionate displays or pursuits and encourge reliance on reason. Note the Three Poisons and emphasis on meditation and reflection.
Monotheisms tend to glorify the expression of passion as an expression of “ardor in pleasing god”. Basically a “nice” form of “sucking up” to divinity.
Mark: Monotheisms tend to glorify the expression of passion as an expression of “ardor in pleasing god”. Basically a “nice” form of “sucking up” to divinity.
Chris: Yes, and also glorify the “individual” which seems to be the source of human emotion, reaction, and fighting.
About Islam, it strongly depends who discuss and what exactly…Remember Salman Rushdie 🙂
My take: the few who do take it to excess are still stuck on “Clearing the Planet”.
They just flipped polarity on their previous little game. Trite perhaps, but I suspect it remains basically true.
This is exactly my view too.
I could be accused of doing this too in the discussion about LRH lies, but the truth is that I got started because I just didn’t manage to confront idealgoal’s invention of what I think and invalidating my judgement because of that.
Mark: My take: the few who do take it to excess are still stuck on “Clearing the Planet”.
Good view and agree!
“The mission of Scientology is not conquest – it is civilization. It is a war upon stupidity, the stupidity which leads us toward the Last War of All.
To a Scientologist, the real barbarism of Earth is stupidity. Only in the black muck of ignorance can the irrational conflicts of ideologies germinate.”
–Quotes from Fundamentals of Thought
Ignorance: lacking in knowledge, training, awareness, information.
Stupidity: lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull, in a state of stupor
Mark: I thought the war was on ignorance and stupidity. What I didn’t understand was that you simply can’t declare war on ignorance and stupidity. How do you fight something that is a “lack?” You can’t. Its not present. It is the lack that is the problem. So then all that is left is fighting people who are lacking. The idea of clearing was to remove the barriers that would prevent the remedy of that lack — i.e. fixed ideas.
Wow… You are on a roll here and the other threads.
And it is VERY cool.
Maria: The idea of clearing was to remove the barriers that would prevent the remedy of that lack — i.e. fixed ideas.
Good one!
Note that I am not here talking about criticism of the Church of Scientology and its human rights abuses. That is an entirely different reason for critics to go ape-shit.
No, U! 🙂
Geir,
I don’t think it has a lot to do with Scientology. Some people are on a mission to have losses and then fight against someone about it. Look around the planet and on Facebook at all the people fighting AGAINST something. If it wasn’t L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology they would be fighting against, they would be fighting against something else. (Where there is little danger of anyone fighting back.) You don’t see people up in Spanish Harlem harassing people leaving the Catholic Church, they know they can’t get away with it. You don’t see people standing on the front yard of the Nation Of Islam either. They fuck with the Scientology people because it’s a free ticket to harm attack suppress and not get their ass kicked. Sometimes that does not always work out so well.
Purpose defines a person’s life. They are exactly what their purpose is. Do you think if the Church closed tomorrow, they would all wander away and live happily ever after? They would find another cause. Another cause to harm attack and suppress. And the Church of Scientology is the same way. If all the psychiatrists dropped off the planet tomorrow, they would go after target 2. You address the nature to op term on L12. Not that you never op term again. But it’s not obsessive, and connected to purposes that make sense in the present time. You can “let it go” “walk on by” or load up your semi automatic at full cause if you are having a home invasion. You are on top of it and it is making sense. You are more likely to assist things that assist survival and inhibit things that inhibit survival. And not found butting up against a cement wall that does not matter to anyone. You can take all of that energy and refocus it into harmony that matters somewhere.
I think it has much to do with Scientology – as I have not seen any other group get that much polarization per member.
And what about the degree of polarization per critic? 😉
That too of course. More polarization than any other group methinks.
Geir: I think it has much to do with Scientology – as I have not seen any other group get that much polarization per member.
Chris: There are, maybe just not in our vicinity. (e.g. Taliban)
Oracle
Same wavelength and viewpoint here.This what you are writing about just crossed my mind among other perceptions yesterday. (purpose, wavelenght, energy, viewpoint – they are the basis, not the manifested significances of different forms). One thing I disagree with: your last sentence. In the “big picture” noone can know for sure whose action and which action will have a huge effect and when. (an ongoing wonder for me to see how it works in life)
And many of the people in the Freezone / Independent field are the same way too. A change of a playground or sides doesn’t itself guarantee getting rid of polarization.
OT: You are more likely to assist things that assist survival and inhibit things that inhibit survival. And not found butting up against a cement wall that does not matter to anyone. You can take all of that energy and refocus it into harmony that matters somewhere.
Dee: Does that mean close your eyes and look away at abuses and lies that endanger people? Sincerely, Dee
The above was to oraclemysticism
“Dee: Does that mean close your eyes and look away at abuses and lies that endanger people? Sincerely, Dee”
Every word I have ever written as a critic, should have been written by a Scientologist.
Alanzo
So you should have stayed in scientology while writing those criticisms 😀
profant wrote:
So you should have stayed in scientology while writing those criticisms.
Heh. I did.
My first criticisms of the Church of Scientology were written while I was on staff as the Executive Director of the Peoria Mission in 1988. I investigated the policies on pricing that LRH wrote and found that a lower issue, an SOED, had superseded those LRH HCOPLs on the pricing of auditing and training, and raised the prices to idiotic levels that almost no one could afford.
After following all the lines and terminals necessary to get this corrected, since HCOPL Seniority of Orders said that writing or following lower level policies that contradicted HCOPLs was a high crime, I wrote High Crime Reports on every single member of Int Strata, including and especially David Miscavige, and FEDEXED it to them.
I was investigated as an SP, forced to go to SMI in LA for brainwashing, and taken off my post.
Criticism of Scientology is not allowed in Scientology.
No Scientologist is ever allowed to take enough responsibility for Scientology to criticize it. Scientology is always senior to the Scientologist.
The Scientologist is always the effect of Scientology, never the other way around.
This is what makes Scientology a totalitarian brainwashing cult.
Alanzo
I see. Kudos for your integrity. The seniority of issues thing reminds me Theo Sismanides’ story, only it’s about translations, not pricing. http://www.freezone.org/reports/theo_01.htm
Not only that Alanzo, but Scientology positions itself as above all human institutions. Above the law, above the government, above other human groups, above the entire MEST universe, above the perceived mechanisms of living things. Ultimately, LRH envisioned that Scientology centers would be the political centers of the world.
This alone is enough to make a critic vehement. It made me vehement. I remember exactly when this happened. I had attended an event, which I rarely did, and David Miscavige was discussing how Scientology was going to take over the world and the new order would prevail, an order where Scientology policy was the the policy of the world and sanity would at last reign supreme. I have paraphrased what he said, but that was the gist of it. In the moment I became a critic and a foe, not of auditing per se, but of any effort to rule the world, for the last thing on earth I wanted was for that Church or anything resembling that Church to rule the world. It would be the end of all dissenting voice and any create by anyone else. I left that event saying: not on my watch. Never.
Yes. Target 1 becoming a Sea Org Planet would be completely horrifying.
No way.
Alanzo: Yes. Target 1 becoming a Sea Org Planet would be completely horrifying.
Chris: Similar to NAZI Germany in the 40’s.
Not only that María, but Scientology positions itself as above life.
That is another hard hitting post Alanzo.
Profant: stayed in scientology while writing those criticisms
Laughing! 😉
Alanzo: Every word I have ever written as a critic, should have been written by a Scientologist.
Chris: Precisely. Now we are talking about responsibility.
Chris: Precisely. Now we are talking about responsibility.
Exactly. Hubbard was able to pre-define a “critic” for Scientolgists as a low-toned criminal, an armchair PIG FUCK! (from “The Master”) who never really did anything.
But the purpose of criticism is to improve something. This is what Hubbard was trying to do – some of the time – when he criticized everything from the government to psychs.
Criticism is taking responsibility in many ways.
But no Scientologist will ever believe that. Within the Scientology mindset, criticism was always a sign of OVERTS, MUs, or MISSED WITHHOLDS. They can only begin to believe that criticism is an attempt to improve something once they can step outside of the Scientology mindset and start seeing things for themselves.
Alanzo
Your awesome is showing.
Alanzo : They can only begin to believe that criticism is an attempt to improve something once they can step outside of the Scientology mindset and start seeing things for themselves.
And it happening every day, and for many years, new ex’s seeing the truth and can admit they and the tech, especially admin, were wrong or conflicted in many ways Being out, to be able to open your mind and see what’s wrong are the first steps.
THAT’S IT!
I have an announcement to make.
I do believe that Marty has pierced the veil.
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/the-enemy/
Alanzo
Yep.
I do believe he read this blog post:
https://isene.me/2013/01/26/ot-8-follow-up/
Yes, I do believe you are right about that. I noticed he approved your link to it as well.
SUPAH!
Alanzo: I do believe that Marty has pierced the veil.
Chris: Calm down! It’s a long road . . . I hope you are right. I am waiting for his tooth smile to reach his eyes.
Chris: I am waiting for his tooth smile to reach his eyes.
Laughter. I could hardly believe it.
ve·he·ment
/ˈvēəmənt/
Adjective
Showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense: “vehement criticism”.
Synonyms
violent – intense – passionate – hot – fierce – keen
My first reaction in reading the OP is that some people are made wrong and just can’t be, even when facts show them otherwise. They have stable datums from scientology they cannot get past or look at in a new unit of time. My quarter! Yes, I’m upping it Chris.
Now I’ll read what y’all say. 🙂
I came across this quote a few days ago and thought it was pretty interesting:
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
– Jonathon Swift
Now that makes sense, thanks for a new thought! Which leads to a question. So what’s the answer?
deElizabethan wrote:
Now that makes sense, thanks for a new thought! Which leads to a question. So what’s the answer?
Heh. Good question!
Alanzo: It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Chris: I never saw that Swift quote before but it is just brilliant. I already loved that guy and wrote my own form of “Modest Proposal” geared toward abortion… He taught me to love satire.
Hubbard closed the door on ANY REAL discussion by Scientologists when he “formulated” KSW#1 😉
As some other cults have done in the past, by 1965, and with the issuing of KSW, official C of S doctrine was “We have the one way, everyone is only as good as they are demonstrably in lockstep with every utterance of our divine and supreme leader, it is blasphemy to suggest that anyone else could be qualified to correct or contribute to his great work, and anyone who dares to state otherwise is evil/insane/stupid/misguided”. Interestingly, there are those who leave the organization, yet with that mentality fully intact- “The only problems are the result of failing to faithfully follow the great writings to the letter”. The continually reinforced indoctrination of this brings about a long lasting vicious attitude toward any “other intentioned” or “counter intentioned” individuals. When a great enough upset occurs that a person finally breaks from the ultra-dogmatic thinking, they often remain so indoctrinated that instead of breaking from the mentality that they merely apply the same vicious attitudes in now opposing the cult. Some of us are highly entertained, to the point of daily belly laughs, observing various “Indie-dependent” internet groups ranting against “squirrels” with grandiose pretensions of “righteous indignation”, and saluting each other for their demonstrations of “stringent loyalty to the cause, with zero tolerance for the infidels”. Its not that there’s anything wrong with whatever modality of processing resonates with the individual, but it is fascinating to see the incompatible and basically obscene mixture of “seekers and promoters of enlightenment” with such dramatization and promotion of a vicious and brutal attitude toward others for merely thinking or practicing differently- fascinating like watching a train wreck.
Well said Dexter 😉
I had to shake off that “know best” attitude when I left and when I did a whole new world of knowledge opened up to me. I now deliver mostly Idenics to my pcs and of course would be labeled a squirrel ~lol
But, having been an auditor for 20 years and now running Idenics I can clearly see the results of both. Idenics has cleared up case in people – including myself – in a few sessions that many years of auditing didn’t. I got up to OT8 and I experienced no long term value in that. I hear things like “oh that’s because the church has altered ALL the tech and so there was something wrong and it was out-tech that was delivered to you”
Yeah? I call bullshit on that one and won’t waste another moment of my valuable time on it ~lol
Phil
I have great respect and appreciation for John Galusha, and his insights that culminated in his formulation of Idenics. He saw through the surface of “too much creative processing beefs up the bank”; his revelation that what really happens is that the identities (“valences”) we envelope ourselves in, being artificial constructs of specific one dimensional beingnesses cannot stretch beyond their preconceived limitations, and so, any creative processing will eventually “hit the wall” of those limitations, and thus the solution is to process out the unconscious replication of the identities. I haven’t had the opportunity to learn the specific procedure, but I successfully address this case material with Alan Walter’s “Presence Three” Identity Handling procedure, and the results are routinely remarkable. I suspect Alan and John interacted regarding this material, and I wonder how similar the techniques might be. I’ve heard great things from the few people I know who shared with me their enthusiasm over their experiences with Idenics.
Dexter: There is a very long thread in Nov 2010 over at ESMB where Roger lays out his matrix handling tech, and seems to have been giving you, in particular, that information and those processes. Did you ever work with those processes? If so, how did you find them?
Dexter: … fascinating like watching a train wreck.”
Put together pretty well. It can be fun but most of all educating and interesting, like life.
After I escaped from the org where I worked, I still believed the “statistics” about how corporate Scientology was steadily expanding, etc., and I was absolutely horrified that I would end up living under an administration of them again. So, until I figured out that the opposite was true, I was very motivated to do everything in my power to keep this from happening. Some more recent escapees are still stuck in this mindset, I would imagine. People ignoring them makes them more insistent.
Also, I agree with what Dexter just posted–there are a flood of people who seem to be insisting that their interpretation, not only of Scientology, but of almost everything of a religious or philosophical nature, is the only correct interpretation.
Jack: Also, I agree with what Dexter just posted–there are a flood of people who seem to be insisting that their interpretation, not only of Scientology, but of almost everything of a religious or philosophical nature, is the only correct interpretation.
Chris: Good post Jack. I would take your comment one step further… That is the nature of religion. Religion is invited where philosophy has failed.
If one is not willing to perceive something about ‘him’self, he can put another to show him.
We seek truth in one way or another.
Are all the things that get criticised ‘facts’? What is ‘fact’ in one moment, doesn’t have to be fact in another. Also, don’t ommit to consider the 3 universes and their dinstict ‘facts’.