A rerun of an epic post by Jeff

This one deserves a rerun (link to original post by Jeff Hawkins)

Non-Scientologist: So, tell me about Scientology.

Scientologist: Well, it’s a religious philosophy which contains tools that anyone can use to improve their life. These are workable tools that have been proven to be uniformly successful if they are applied correctly.

Non-Scientologist: OK, but forgive me if I question your statement about being uniformly successful. I’ve seen some disturbing things online. Apparently the head of Scientology is a sociopath who is physically and verbally abusive to his staff, many staff are treated no better than slaves, the organizations put incredible pressure on their members to come up with more and more money, people are forced to disconnect from their families, the Scientology organizations are failing, emptying out, and there are a lot of defections, including top level OTs. There have even been OT suicides. That doesn’t seem to indicate uniform success.

Scientologist: Well, you have to understand that people running the Church are not correctly applying Scientology. They’ve altered the technology. What they are doing is not Scientology.

Non-Scientologist: I’m sorry, you’re saying that Scientology doesn’t apply Scientology?

Scientologist: No. the official Church doesn’t apply Scientology.

Non-Scientologist: I see. Well, if alteration of the technology is such a major problem, maybe Hubbard should have warned people about it. Maybe he should have written an issue alerting them to the dangers of altering the technology, and had every Scientologist read it at the beginning of every course. And maybe he should have set up a part of the organization as a sort of Quality Control to police this sort of thing.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did those things.

Non-Scientologist: Oh. Well, then, why didn’t that work?

Scientologist: Well, that’s because people have misunderstoods. They can’t duplicate what they are reading. They even have something called Crashing Misunderstoods.

Non-Scientologist: I see. That sounds like a serious block. Maybe Hubbard should have written something warning people about the importance of understanding words. Maybe he should have developed a technology of how to study, and how to handle these “Crashing Misunderstoods.”

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did. It’s called Study Tech.

Non-Scientologist: OK. Well, why didn’t that work?

Scientologist: Well, people don’t apply it! They don’t clear their words. They’re out-ethics! They are just blinded by their own overts –transgressions – and they have withholds.

Non-Scientologist: Well, I can understand that could be a problem. Hubbard should have invented a technology of ethics to help people be more ethical and disciplined. And maybe he should have directed some of his counseling techniques to help people become more honest and ethical.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did. There’s a whole book on Ethics and a lot of auditing procedures to address that.

Non-Scientologist: OK, well, why don’t people apply that?

Scientologist: It’s hard to get anything standard done in orgs these days! The Orgs are a mess! They are off-purpose, more interested in money than really helping people. They are understaffed and harassed and insolvent and desperate!

Non-Scientologist: Sure, I can see how that would be a problem. Well, maybe Hubbard should have developed a technology of organization; how to keep organizations on-purpose and functioning properly. Maybe he should have written up all of their duties in detail so they know exactly what they should be doing.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did do that. It’s been published in ten big volumes.

Non-Scientologist: Well, then, why doesn’t that work?

Scientologist: Staff don’t have time to study it. There’s too few of them and they are desperate. They can’t make enough on staff so they have to moonlight. There are just not enough public in the orgs!

Non-Scientologist: Oh, I see. Well, then, maybe Hubbard should have developed a technology of how to promote and market Scientology. Maybe he should have provided drills telling people how to effectively disseminate Scientology.

Scientologist: Well, actually he did do that.

Non-Scientologist: Ok, why isn’t that used?

Scientologist: You don’t understand! Scientology has terrible PR. It’s hard to disseminate to people because Scientology is so disliked in society.

Non-Scientologist: That is definitely a problem! Maybe Hubbard should have developed a technology of Public Relations so staff could learn how to create a good public image and good relations with the public.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did that.

Non-Scientologist: Then why is there a problem?

Scientologist: Nothing standard can get done in the Church! The whole of the Church of Scientology has been taken over by Suppressive Persons. They are perverting the tech! They are destroying the Church! Everyone is PTS to them!

Non-Scientologist: Goodness, that sounds serious! Well, maybe Hubbard should have developed a technology to show people how to spot Suppressive Persons, and how to handle them once you’ve spotted them, so you don’t go PTS.

Scientologist: Well, actually, he did that too.

Non-Scientologist: Oh! Well, then, why doesn’t that work?

Scientologist: There are so many other factors I haven’t even mentioned! These Suppressives overwhelm people! They use implant technology!

Non-Scientologist: Well, why didn’t Hubbard develop some advanced techniques to give people freedom from being overwhelmed and proof them up against the effects of these implants?

Scientologist: He did! He did! But you don’t understand! This is Planet Earth. It’s a crazy place! You can’t get technology correctly applied when you have people who are not rational, who are stupid, who are not sane, who are low on the Tone Scale, who are aberrated…

Non-Scientologist: Well, maybe Hubbard should have developed a technology to make people rational, sane and intelligent, to raise them on the Tone Scale, to get rid of aberration…

Oh wait. Isn’t that what Scientology is supposed to do?

Summary

OK, this is a fictional, contrived conversation. But how many of these explanations have you heard in real life? And how often have you seen this kind of circular logic?

In my opinion, the most basic of Scientology’s system flaws is that Scientologists are trained not to see system flaws. Even when failure is obvious to everyone else, fundamentalist Scientologists will refuse to inspect the system. They will interpret all failure as individual failure. They become experts in explaining away failure.

Doctrinaire Scientologists can neither see nor correct systemic flaws, and thus Scientology is incapable of correcting itself.

And maybe we’re getting closer to a real Why.

103 thoughts on “A rerun of an epic post by Jeff

  1. I mostly agree.

    Ethics tech is currently reversed. You mostly get out-ethics by applying it that way. Ethics is supposed to be self determined, or else it is morals which is not necessarily ethical. People are basically good, ethical, according to LRH. You normally would use morals only on extreme occasions where ‘you’ yourself are incapable to use ethics. The code of honor -being the only ethics code in SCN- is pretty much aligned with self determinism, and it’s not to be enforced.

    Red tech is only partially used. Some of it is even made up by others than LRH.

    I don’t know much about green tech.

    I got flanked by people on KSW1 many times, who didn’t apply KSW1.

    In this fashion of course it cannot go right.

    1. Also orgs are not self determined. Directives come from the highest orgs on how to deal with things. Example: When we translated some relatively useless stuff (after another directive), the ED was ordered to train us staff within half an hour to sell it. And we HAD to do it. It was ‘duty’ (my behind). And we got trained to force the sale to happen (eventually, I skipped that one). The org became PTS to another org. At worst, eventually, it can become PTS to itself –SP.

      1. Correction: Maybe in that instance it was the ED’s decision to enforce the sale. But directives do come from other orgs. Plus, it never occurred to them to promote (in a self determined manner) some actual SCN thing –some red tech. We translated first all kinds of non LRH (based on LRH stuff like a book about why SCN is a religion) and GREEN TECH. Yes! What matters is admin. 40+ staff and only 2-3 auditors. That should be included in ‘What is Scientology?’ –that it is about controlling people, not setting them free.

    2. Spyros,

      “Ethics,” in Scientology, has a publicized part, a behind the scenes part, a deeper into the subject part, and a central part.

      You’re describing the publicized part – the window dressing – and ignoring the rest.

      The over-all subject of Scientology follows the same pattern.

      It’s devious.

  2. “Doctrinaire Scientologists can neither see nor correct systemic flaws, and thus Scientology is incapable of correcting itself.

    “And maybe we’re getting closer to a real Why.”

    If that’s the Why, maybe the handling is to wage a campaign among Scientologists on this precept of “The Way to Happiness booklet”:

    “What is true is what is true for you. No one has any right to force data on you and command you to believe it or else. If it is not true for you, it isn’t true. Think your own way through things, accept what is true for you, discard the rest. There is nothing unhappier than one who tries to live in a chaos of lies.”

    1. Yes Marildi, oddly in (most popular) SCN you can find considerations that both validate and invalidate that.

      Let’s take logic as an example. If a logical conclusion is not true for me, then why accept it as truth? Is truth the product of logic? To create a datum>to evaluate data. But that’s OT stuff –we’ll do that some time after we reach OT 74 😛

      1. Is truth the product of evaluation of things that contains lies (time) aka the MEST universe? That’s a funny idea.

        1. Know I say most of my stuff in a funny mood, not hostile, when I point out something contradictory. If I’m angry, I’m very obvious, I don’t add sauce to it, nor do I fancy 1.1 much 😛

          I think ‘what’s wrong’ with SCN is funny stuff –contradictions in relation to it’ basics. So, I point it out, not to degrade the subject, but to point it out.

          1. Spyros: “I think ‘what’s wrong’ with SCN is funny stuff – contradictions in relation to its basics. So, I point it out, not to degrade the subject, but to point it out.”

            And I try to do the same – pointing out the contradictions to its basis. Except that I like to put more attention on the basics. But your efforts to point out the contradictions are worthwhile too – especially since they are not blind to the value of the basics.

            Btw, I never thought for a moment that your “stuff” is 1.1. It’s just your little devilish self who enjoys poking fun at the ironies. 😛

            1. It depends on who I talk with. Marildi. If I talked with a critic, I would point out my more positive towards SCN stuff, as them would be the stuff he is unwilling and doesn’t know. Although there must be some basic agreements, there is no game in agreeing about everything 😛

            2. Okay, if you want to look at it that way, I’ll quotean old saying: “May the devil take the hindmost”. 😉 😛

            3. malrildi: “May the devil take the hindmost”. ;

              DeE: May our glass always be half full 🙂

            4. Marilidi: Mine always is.

              Dee: Happy to hear. Have been listening to “Love Never Dies” by Andrew Lloyd Webber and after I wrote, it came on the “May the devil take the hindmost” part. So neat if that’s where you got it from. Wonderful music and words, my take. Nice!

            5. marildi. Thank you so very much, that video was wonderful and never get enough of the operas with his music.
              Also the definition given was great as I only had an idea of it. I can appreciate it more now 🙂

            6. “May the devil take the hindmost” means “Let each person follow self-interest, leaving others to fare as they may.”
              http://www.thefreedictionary.com/the+devil+take+the+hindmost

              I was just messin’ with ya, considering you are a little devil.

              And once and for all, will you please stop messing with ME and start using the reply button at the bottom of the email notification of the comment you wish to reply to – so that I don’t have to figure out which post you are replying to! ;P (You too, Marianne – though you wise in just about every other way. ;))

          1. The definition of datum: anything that ONE can be aware OF. Anything one can be aware of means that one can also create it. Or uncreate it.

            Truth=Source. Truth-Source creates a datum and of course can be aware of it.

            Truth was not found among data (it’s in 88008).

            The WHAT is true for YOU is true for you means that what you CAN create, you will be aware of. What you cannot create you won’t be aware of.
            One doesn’t need to be an ‘official’ OT, let’s say, to create a new fragrance in a perfume – which is a new ‘datum’ in this case. It’s the ability of Life, a kind of knowingness.

            1. Yes, ‘one’ is ‘OT’ anyway. What can change is whether he knows it or not/whether he identifies with things or not.

            2. I think the truth is that there is no spoon. I didn’t get it when I watched the movie but I get it now. What body perceives, you don’t perceive. Body perceives. You can perceive too, but that’s another story –that perception doesn’t have to persist. There is no time for a being, unless it is created consciously.

        2. Spyros: “If a logical conclusion is not true for me, then why accept it as truth? Is truth the product of logic?”

          Good rhetorical questions. I think the following may be what you are saying:

          “Logic is a gradient scale of association of facts of greater or lesser similarity made to resolve some problem of the past, present or future, but mainly to resolve and predict the future. Logic is the combination of factors into an answer. The mission of the analytical mind when it thinks, is to observe and predict by the observation of results. Easily the best way to do this is to be the objects one is observing: thus, one can know their condition completely. However, if one is not sufficiently up the scale to be these objects it is necessary to assume what they are. This assumption of what they are, the postulating of a symbol to represent the objects and the combination of these symbols when evaluated against past experience or ‘known law’, bring about logic.” (Scn 8-8008)

          1. Yeah I agree with that but I meant something else (yes, it was rhetorical). That ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ are different things. MEST facts contain time (lies), so cannot be truth. So you cannot have truth by evaluating facts. During as-isness there is not evaluation made just creation/perception –the basics that a being can do.

            1. In the “real world” (i.e. “reality”) which, as you are basically saying, is not truth (i.e. actuality), then we do have facts. It just depends on the frame of reference or on what level you are operating and communicating. Let’s not jump from one to the other, you little trouble maker. 😛

            2. No, YOU are a devil in angel’s clothes 😛 I didn’t say anything different than you. I said truth is no product of evaluation. Now, agree with me or else…

            3. Thanx M & M. I would post back some songs about the devil too, but it might look like some strange joke, considering you probably don’t fancy my metal tastes :p

            4. Hey Spyros, did you note the fabulous fiddle playing on that video I posted – or didn’t you even watch it? 😛 Here it is again. And do post a “devil metal” for us. I’d like to hear it! 😉 🙂

            5. But I see you as a cheerful devil. 😛

              Anyway, let’s hear the metal. Believe me, I got used to it when my son and his garage band would jam every day – always at our house. I got a daily dose of heavy metal. 😉 😛

            6. Spyros, I didn’t see that you had posted a video! On the email notification it doesn’t show up. But I saw it later and watched it – I thought it was a lot of fun! What do you think about this video as a compromise between us?

        1. I’m sure we all can deE, unless we think otherwise. It’s the same as what we were saying about clears/preclears –that the reactive mind is an additive, not truth.

          1. Spyros: I’m sure we all can deE, unless we think otherwise.

            Dee: There ya go! 🙂

  3. To make another guilty (assume he has crimes, is SP etc, and wish he gets punished) just because he keeps his integrity, and expresses a different view than yours, is up there on the tone scale near 40.0. It shows responsibility, acceptance level etc. It has nothing to do with suppression.

    In the case of SCN, it is a contradiction too large and dumb for words.

    If one wishes to be right SCN-wise he can help himself to know his own truth. That is his duty, mine too. Truth is not to impose one universe onto another. That’s called an implant. Discussion can occur to exchange ideas freely, but not imposing ideas.

    All make-guilty and sect-making and guild wars in SCN are not there for a good cause. It’s there to create chaos and conquer.

    One has the right to separate himself and be with like minded people and do his thing, whatever that is. But to make others wrong for not following it is hostile –misemotion, irresponsibility, domination, overt etc.

    One can get caught into this mode of operation and force himself to follow it because he believes he will reach truth/freedom this way. If somebody achieves that, let me know, it must be a wonder.

  4. As I see it, here’s the real why (courtesy of Chris T):

    https://isene.me/2013/03/17/hubbard-lied/#comment-39628 :

    “Chris: Scientology is a complete subject. Covers everything. Has an answer for everything including how to correctly wash a window and how to feather-dust an automobile. And it is inconsistent.”

    Scientology, as developed, tries to be complete and answer everything. It doesn’t attempt much to integrate with the surrounding environment and be real to external viewers. Sure, there’s mention of “knowing how to know” and “what we expect of a Scientologist” but how much focus really gets applied to those? What are the comments and factoids that *really* stick in people’s minds when they study this subject? What I observe is that the bits about “wogs” and how backwards they all are and how psychology has it all wrong and /Christ/Buddha/Mohammed/Confucious/Lao/Einstein/Newton/Lorentz/The Pope/ all fell short of the mark but LRH managed to wrap it all up … those are the ideas that stick in people’s minds. Therefore Scientology becomes the only thing, every other thing can be discarded, and as Scientology asserts that it is complete, one never has to look elsewhere.

    This invariably means that the answer to the question “Was Scientology applied correctly in this case?” can only be whatever Scientology says the answer is – as the subject is complete. And that answer can change, and did change many times over the years.

    How many debug and repair lists are there with the last item being “this list is incomplete” or “the subject is wrong”? If the subject wants to be falsifiable, those items must be there, but they are not. What IS there in practice (but not necessarily in written policy), is “Oh well, you must be a ess-pee, here’s your goldenrod, welcome to FairGame City!”

    The statement “Scientologists are trained not to see system flaws” is true enough, but it is not the cause of anything – it is an inevitable consequence of dealing with a system that asserts it is complete. The system has all the answers, it has all the outputs down pat for all possible inputs, and therefore personal observation is no longer required. All backed up with the fallback default answer “you must then be an ess-pee”.

    Do note that David Miscavige did not bring this about, neither did Marty Rathbun, Geir Isene or Alan McKinnon. Heck, for that matter, neither did Alonzo!

    L. Ron Hubbard did that, he created that system, asserted it was complete and furthermore asserted that he was it’s sole creator.

    If Scientology (the subject, not the Church) wants to survive, it’s only hope is to freely admit it doesn’t have all the answers.

    Alan

    1. Splog : Scientology (the subject, not the Church) wants to survive, it’s only hope is to freely admit it doesn’t have all the answers.

      Hear, hear!

        1. Spyros: If you and me and some others call ourselves Scientologists, then it will admit it 😛

          Dee: Not sure what you mean, but I won’t call myself a Scientologist. I will have no part of the aberration, since I know what it consists of. Wins can be many and hey it changed my life at a period, but then something else could’ve done the same. Who knows. As it stands i have no use for the organization or what elron wrote and am happy to have learned of other ways for improvement while not being surpressed or controlled or even confused with his aberrated writings. Altho did learn some from him, tho he took from others and can be found elsewhere. That study was just a stepping stone which was just part of my learning, on my way out of this universe.
          🙂

          1. Yeah I’ve had a somewhat similar cycle too with wins and crazy implants. I like the good stuff, I dislike the bad stuff. I haven’t searched all spirituality to know what everybody offers, so I cannot compare it with others in general. SCN had big capability to do great good, in my opinion. And because of that it can potentialy do great harm too, as people stick there for the good part.

            Anyway, I’m happy ‘where’ I am now. Nobody has the copyrights of me. And the best way, is no way (way=mest).

    2. Alan, that comment by Chris was in reply to a comment I had made about the PHILOSOPHY of Scientology. Clearly, he has no understanding of what that philosophy is, or he wouldn’t have given the irrelevant examples of “how to correctly wash a window and how to feather-dust an automobile”. Or maybe he doesn’t even understand the word “philosophy”. In any case, this was my reply to that comment of his, which you quoted in your post:

      In Marty’s blog post of today, he gives ten reasons to avoid reading his new book, “Scientology Warrior”. You should take special note of the numbers 9 and 10 and beware:

      9.If you read it, you might find out that much of Scientology takes away the positive that it is also capable of producing. THIS WILL BE PARTICULARLY UNSETTLING TO THOSE WHO HAVE A WEAK UNDERSTANDING ON THE OBSERVABLE MECHANICS THAT MAKE SCIENTOLOGY PRODUCE RESULTS.

      10. If you read it, you might not continue to think Ron is Buddha reincarnated or, on the other hand, a grand con man. This will be particularly troubling to those whose gains were founded upon, or bolstered by, belief. IT WILL ALSO CAUSE CONSTERNATION TO THOSE WHO HAVE FOUND A SAFE SOLUTION IN TARGET RON AS INHERENTLY EVIL.

      (caps are mine)
      http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/ten-reasons-to-avoid-scientology-warrior/

      1. marildi,

        As the philosophy and practice of Scientology are indistinguishable, and have been since about 1957, I find Chris’s comment very relevant. It is a very good example of how the entire subject is full of A=A=A and very little leeway to put estimation of releative importances into effect.

        Dusting cars and washing windows are NOT mere anecdotes and hepful tips. One is a PL, the other is an FO. Negating or denying either is a High Crime, per Hubbard.

        Thanks for the reminder about not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I’ve thought about it, I’ll keep the Comm Formula. Everything else that works is common sense (and not any sort of “breakthrough”).

        Alan

        1. And for whom is “negating or denying” those PLs or FOs a High Crime? You can’t convince me they are that for any public scientologists or even for run-of the-mill org staff.

          1. You are right, Valkov. Public Scientologists are not in fact true Scientologists. Only Sea Org are true Scientologists, and really, only a few of them.

            1. Or so they would like to think, I suppose? Just as the only ‘true soldiers’ are the Navy Seals and not the run-of-the-mill midshipman, or the Special Forces of the Army and not the grunts slaughtered in Vietnam or Afghanistan. Or perhaps the only ‘true Catholics’ are the ones in the Vatican? And who would the ‘true Americans’ be?

            2. LOL, I think you’ve spotted Chris’ true leanings. I’ve suspected them for some time. 🙂

            3. Danger, Will Robinson!

              This is starting to look awfully like “No True Scotsman”

              🙂

            4. hehehehe 🙂

              Well, I’m a Scotsman, and I can assure oyu that no true Scotsman would ever entertain deceit like …

              Oh. Wait. Never mind…..

            5. I think ya’ll are great at “Begging the Question”. Not a club I really want to be in, but different strokes for different folks. Never wanted to be in the Sea Org, either.

              “People get the government they deserve”, eh?

            6. Valkov: “People get the government they deserve”, eh?

              Chris: I can see how you would write that. I can also see how that agrees with Standard Scientology and how Scientology teaches that. In light of that, did Scientologists get the Scientology that they deserved?

              My own answer is “no” in terms of deserving. I don’t think people get the governments that they deserve anymore than they get the weather that they deserve. That is another example of how the overt-withhold-motivator sequence is taught in order to blame a person for any harsh condition they happen to be trying to endure, and I no longer believe in that. And the orders of magnitude are too different and the span between a person and an entire government is too great. My parents suffered through the great depression beginning in 1929 through no fault or wrongdoing of their own. Neither the roaring 20’s nor the depression of ’29 were rewards nor penances which were levied or bestowed upon the deserving. These were carefully contrived economic conditions by the bankers to reap an unholy and capitalistic profit. Same mechanism with other economic booms and busts and wars. My examples shoot wide but I’m giving relevant examples, if you don’t like these I can come up with others.

            7. I think people rarely get the government they deserve. Why do you relate that quote to Scientology? I personally think the overt/motivator sequence is a bunch of bullshit. I hope you recover someday.

              It appears you can take the wog out of the Sea Org, but it’s not so easy to get the Sea Org out of the wog. Fundamentally because the Sea Org inculcates the epitomy of woggish attitudes. One may not be a wog when one joins, but one will almost surely be a wog by the time one leaves. If one ever does leave.

            8. There is, however, to my way of thinking, a sense in which people do ‘get the government they deserve’, through sheer laziness and inattention. I believe less than 50% of the public votes in this country, much less participate in political processes here. And they are credulous besides, as well as susceptible to the use of buzzwords. There are also some inherent flaws in the system of this federal republic.

              So they do ‘get what they deserve’, but it has nothing to do with any scientology dogma such as the ‘overt-motivator sequence’. That’s your hobby-horse, not mine. Theyget what they deserve by virtue of their own negligence.

              It is all changing with the increasing use of the Internet. But I expect the controlling types to try to get on top of that, too.

            9. Chris; That is another example of how the overt-withhold-motivator sequence is taught in order to blame a person for any harsh condition they happen to be trying to endure, and I no longer believe in that.

              Dee: Wow, thanks for making that so clear by your examples.
              My parents went through same period.

        2. Alan, here are some examples of breakthroughs, from the comment thread on Geir’s “What groundbreaking could be attributed to L. Ron Hubbard?”

          “…groundbreaking discoveries: the arc triangle, the theta mest theory, the Overt and Withhold theory, the admin scale, the Data Series, the book scn 8-8008 and on top of it all the codified processes (auditing).” (posted by “sp 1”)

          “…the application of informatics, cybernetics and electronic biofeed-back in the handling of the human mind…”. (Rafael Sánchez Núñez)

          “No therapy has ever been developed that remotely approximates auditing either in form or function or clarity of results. Psychotherapy may have been auditing’s great-great-grandfather, but Picasso’s great-great-grandfather was probably a farmer or merchant.” (Dan Koon)

          “The breakthrough that LRH brought to this arena was:
          A) All incidents were recorded whether or not the individual was unconscious.
          B) That it was not necessary to induce deep hypnotic states of sleep/unconsciousness to bring such memories to view.” (Maria)

          “The TR’s, specifically 0, 2 and 4 as these are the ones that you can use to help. The concept of an earlier, similar incident, holding s/t in place. Integrity processing and the false purpose rundown, releasing huge chunks of theta, back to the being. The technology of L11 (never had 10 and 12) and the concept of an immortal spiritual being, particularly the definition of a static. The axiom that details how to as-is charge and making a perfect duplicate. The concept of being exterior…with life but not entrenched. The concept of the tone scale.” (Penny)

          “The use of the E-meter to mental and spiritual matters…” (gODd)

          “I would say Key to Life course…study tech…” (Mimsey Borogrove)

          1. Marildi,

            You did notice that all those points are people’s opinion, right? With nothing offered to back them up?

            That’s like saying superheroes (the kind that wear their undercloths on the outside) must exist, because I posses a Superman comic. The thinking is circular and tries to use itself to show that itself is correct.

            1. No, they are expressing their personal observations.

              Maybe I should also advise you not to read Marty’s new book, as he warns against it for those who have “a weak understanding of the OBSERVABLE MECHANICS that make Scientology produce results”. 😉

            2. Let me state my position clearly so there is no misunderstanding:

              I do not hold Scientology in any special regard, not any more.

              It has workability, just like so many other things in life:

              Oprah,
              Dale Carnegie,
              Long walks in the park,
              Physical exertion,
              Sex,
              Raising kids,
              Chocolate,
              Talking to you and everyone else here,
              Watching Marty on YouTube,
              and any one of hundreds of other things people do to key out

              I believe that when Scientology works, it works for exactly the same reason that list above also works:

              encourage someone to sit down, calmly look at life and figure shit out

              The processes, the lists, the repairs, the philosophy, the tapes, the books and all the explanations are just so much smoke and mirrors. They contribute very little other than encouraging someone to sit down, calmly look at life and figure shit out.

              I could go on about how if it were different we’d have millions of proper Clears, thousands of amazing OTs and world peace. But we don’t, and we never really had any of it at all. All we ever had was our own little way of sitting down, calmly looking at life and figuring shit out.

              Alan

            3. Splog: “All we ever had was our own little way of sitting down, calmly looking at life and figuring shit out.”

              Me: Awesome comment. We’re on the same level here. See my latest blog post (will be posted in 15 minutes or less).

            4. Alan, as much as I like conversing with you, I’m afraid that doing so, or any of the other things you listed, can’t compare to a good auditing session in terms of “encouraging someone to sit down, calmly look at life and figure shit out.” They may at times do so, but very rarely as efficiently or effectively or, most importantly – as predictably. Not even close. If that isn’t real to you, my friend, there is something really wrong somewhere in your experience with Scientology.

            5. marildi: “I’m afraid that doing so, or any of the other things you listed, can’t compare to a good auditing session in terms of “encouraging someone to sit down, calmly look at life and figure shit out.” ”

              me: Why do you think I have not experienced blown-out sessions, floating TAs and FNs that can’t be killed in a week? I’ve experienced all those things, all more than once, and they were highly beneficial. I won’t detract from those experiences or diminish them – that would make me not true to myself.

              What I’m saying (and apparently not succeeding yet at conveying accurately) is that session is not the only way to do it. I’ve had similar results happen out of session in ways unconnected with Scientology, and I will not diminish those experiences either.

              My view is that Scientology works because the person being audited figures something out. It’s not a statement meant to belittle, it just means the person got an answer for himself[1]. He can get the same thing in other ways, and auditing appears to work better becuase a session has a formal structure and a schedule. Most other opportunities people get to figure their shit out and sort-of randomly timed, but because auditing is paid for and scheduled, it happens more often.

              [1] I work in IT, that worst kind of IT – on Unix. We have a joke going on where importances get inverted – the more flippant the communication, the more likely it is the comm is about something important. “Figure shit out” doesn’t mean it’s something irrelevant or meaningless, it means the person figured it out, and the answer is very meaningful to them; probably also very personal.

              It’s easy to miss this on the other end of a typed blog comment, and smileys just don’t convey the full comm. I should probably stop doing it on blogs (that’s going to be hard – it’s part of my complete character). I just wanted to clear up any possible mis-duplication

            6. “Unix = The worst kind of IT??

              You STFU”

              Ok, you got me.

              Yes, I work with Unix and it is awesome – Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris; but no AIX and no zSeries (I weep for the lack of a zSeries in my life). This blog comment was typed on a Gentoo box, every byte of runnable code on it was lovingly hand compiled right here on this very Dell; which makes it a complete, self-hosting, self-bootstrappable system. I wonder what Godel would have to say if he were around today and found Unix 😉

              Oh, if you were wondering: I wear a beard.

            7. There’s nothing wrong with the way you are communicating. There are issues with the way it is receiving and I don’t know what you can do about that.

            8. Alan: “What I’m saying (and apparently not succeeding yet at conveying accurately) is that session is not the only way to do it. I’ve had similar results happen out of session in ways unconnected with Scientology, and I will not diminish those experiences either.”

              Me: I got what you were trying to convey as regards sessions not being the only way to achieve gains. But when you say you’ve had “similar” results unconnected with Scientology, were they actually equivalent to your floating TA’s that “weren’t killed in a week”? I’m sincerely asking.

              You: “My view is that Scientology works because the person being audited figures something out. It’s not a statement meant to belittle, it just means the person got an answer for himself[1]. He can get the same thing in other ways, and auditing appears to work better because a session has a formal structure and a schedule. Most other opportunities people get to figure their shit out and sort-of randomly timed, but because auditing is paid for and scheduled, it happens more often.”

              Me: Yes, of course comes down to figuring something out – always. And cognitions don’t just occur in Scientology. But as for the difference being just a matter of formal structure and a schedule, are you saying that those things you listed would match what auditing delivers if they were simply structured and scheduled? To me, that would come across as a reluctance to give Scientology its due, for some strange reason, although you seem to be a discerning kind of a guy.

              “Figure shit out” doesn’t mean it’s something irrelevant or meaningless, it means the person figured it out, and the answer is very meaningful to them; probably also very personal.”

              You are putting a wrong why there. I have no problem with your phrasing – I’m not that literal. 😉

            9. Marildi, your congenial comment is reasonable on its surface until we look at the fact that none of man’s progress was done through auditing. In fact, Scientology has been a non starter on earth having little to no effect on our culture or the world at large.

            10. Oh, so you mean to say that those other things Alan listed brought about Man’s progress? Well, then I agree with your other comment – that there are issues with the way you are receiving and I don’t know what I can do about that. 😛

            11. splog: All we ever had was our own little way of sitting down, calmly looking at life and figuring shit out.

              A double dittle or rather ditto on your post. 🙂

            12. Alan
              Actually, you can sit down and know. Or just ask a question and ‘hold it’ there. Not answering it with the mind. Just hold it there. (like some scientist-researchers do it).
              The ‘knowing’ can be instant, or arrive later.

    3. Where is gone all of that “please, make a better bridge” thing? to whom he was asking? That was dianetics. So, may dianetics survive and then help scientology subject too?

  5. There are many sides to scn and many problems with scn and many sides to the problems of scn.

    The author of that fictional interview, and many others who agree, to it, fail to recognize that Hubbard was causing these same problems from the beginning.

    Read Helen O’Brian’s article. Dianetics in Limbo. There is plenty of write ups of serious problems in scn since day one and even before. It was conceived in corruption and chaos and evil.

    He would often speak out of both sides of his mouth.

    He was a very complex being. I suspect that there were many different entities operating that body. These entities ranged from highly advanced, highly intelligent beings, to extremely insane and evil beings. And these would also change over time.
    Hubbard’s personal life was mostly evil.

    On one hand, what Hubbard was really saying is: do as I say, not as I do.

    Then scn tends to attract people who have problems with the mind and spirit from mild to severe. Many of these people are insane. The definition of insane is: not able to know the difference between right and wrong. Impaired judgment. Irrational. Inability to reason.

    These kinds are classified as swine, and prostitutes, and fools and idiots and lunatics and the like.

    Wisdom says: don’t throw your pearls in front of swine, for they shall trample it under their feet into their manure.

    Based on my research and evaluation the solution lies in the words of Jesus: No one can come unto the Father but through me.

    Then again, many people also screw that up too.

    There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything. And few there be that find the right way.

    Scn is a trap for fools and swine and the feeble minded and the faint hearted, and a freedom and a power for the wise.

    Dio

    PS: (And really, truthfully speaking, scn is actually supposed to be a step by step process to “go unto the Father, a step by step process to enter into the kingdom of heaven. But is the not the bona fide way, through the front door, it is the burglar’s way, which is through the window. Then when someone is found entering heaven by that covert means, God spews them out of His mouth, then the devil is called and sic’ed upon, to infest the scoundrel intruder with all the scourges of hell. )

  6. OMG after reading this. Kudo’s to whoever wrote it. Spot On! What a simplistic overview of what’s wrong with Scientology. It couldn’t be better written. In a Nutshell!!!

  7. Thanks deE,

    I should add to my post the following:

    An extract from Hubbard’s words which would be best paraphrased to say: :

    When asked by a BBC reporter what is scn?

    Scientology is a philosophy and spiritual healing technology that will help a Christian become a better Christian, if that Christian be wise and glean what I offered and use it accordingly in addition to his bible and anything else he chooses, to assist him to make the lame walk and make the able more able and otherwise use it as a tool, to do the greater things that Jesus said he will do, and then enter the kingdom of heaven. Because anyone who has failed to do the greater things than Jesus did, has therefore failed being a Christian.

    New International Version (©2011) John 14:12
    Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

    Dio

  8. On the original post- well stated, LOL! Not that there isn’t a boatload of potentially beneficial understanding and techniques in Scientology, but if Hubbard and the organization had never gone down the road of enforcing and imposing every idea as “my way or the highway”, suppressed free expression, threw everyone who shined other than LRH or DM under the bus, spent greater and greater time, utterances and emphasis on the “need to identify and crush SP’s, who are everywhere” and the like, we just might have something great enough today that no PR hyperbole would be necessary to sell it to people.

  9. Reading Jeffs essays, evaluations and reports were the most valuable of what I found in the
    in the net. I got rid of the SCN mindset which was extremely helpful to get exterior to SCN.

    1. Yes, Jeff’s blog helped me a lot too. But then Jeff did the logical thing to do, i.e. moved on and started enjoying life without scientology. So we must settle with other sources that can help, like one of this Isene bloke.
      (I mean “settle” as a joke)

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s