From the
Village Voice on David Fagen:
"Then, Dave made his own fateful decision: to trust his own intelligence and judgment. He would look at the material online to evaluate it for himself."
In David''s own words, "Do I not have the ability to judge data for myself? Why would I need an authority to tell me whether something is true or something is not true?"
This was a dilemma of Scientology that struck at me pretty early on. I read, understood and agreed with various points of the Code of Honor, and other ideas written down by Hubbard (not that Hubbard actually believed what he wrote).
From the
Code of Honor:
6. Never compromise with your own reality.
9. Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life.
10. Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body.
14. Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions.
From Hubbard's HCOPL
Personal Integrity, I greatly agreed with the notion that a person should always and only accept as true what he or she has OBSERVED for him or herself. And, continuing, when you have lost that, you have lost everything. You and ONLY YOU, should be the final arbiter of what is true and real for you. That's what I got from reading that essay.
"WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you have lost everything. What is personal integrity?
Personal integrity is knowing what you know–
What you know is what you know–
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.
And that is integrity.
And there is no other integrity."
At the end of the essay Hubbard says this:
"Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
Unless you have observed it
And it is true according to your observation.
That is all."
Now, to me, and I am sure to many others, this sounds like a great way to deal with things and operate in life. But, there is a BIG PROBLEM.
Nobody can actually PRACTICE that in Scientology, as regards the subjects of Hubbard or Scientology!
The contradictions and hypocrisy of Scientology were unbearable for me. There WAS something very "rotten in Denmark".
And, if you do try to say what you truly think, in your heart of hearts, based on what you have honestly observed,
about Hubbard or Scientology, and it is anything other than 100% supportive, YOU get ATTACKED, and quickly separated from the rest of the group (Non-Enturbulation Orders, SP Declares, Disconnection). That is not some mistake of Scientology, but instead, Hubbard set it up exactly THAT WAY. He wrote all the policies that are ruthlessly followed that cause the first (wonderful) references/quotes above to be wholly ignored. Why Hubbard did that, and I for one have the opinion that he did so quite intentionally, is open to speculation.
Further, I really liked THESE ideas that Hubbard wrote down:
Be able to communicate with anyone on any subject.
The ONLY crime in this universe is being there and communicating.
Communication is the universal solvent.
One needs to be able to access ALL information so that one can operate with personal integrity. If you are unable or unwilling to observe, how can you EVER be able to truly get to know what you know for "truth". "Vital Information" is missing. (hey I actually GOT the "vital information R/D" so I know what I am talking about here
).
And, the way Scientology is designed and how it functions, you are denied and prevented from communicating with a great many things. Again, the above ideas that sound SO GOOD, cannot be practiced within a "standard" Scientology environment that follows and enforces ALL of Hubbard's administrative orders and policies.
That is just a part of it, but that should be enough to make the point. That really IRKED me about Scientology. At first I thought it was just some aberration of current management, but then, as I really took a look at WHAT Hubbard actually ordered in the OEC Volumes and Management Series, it was clear that there was NO OTHER POSSIBLE way for that group to behave (not as long as they duplicated, understood and carefully applied Hubbard's instructions on how to run the Church of Scientology).
Hubbard himself set the booby-traps. Obviously, if he never intended for the "good sounding" policies to be applied (for example, like the essay, "
What is Greatness"), then he meant these only as fluff - as PR - as something to put in a frame and point to when somebody came to visit an org or mission. But they NEVER had anything REALLY to do with how he wanted people to think and behave.
From Hubbard's accurate, but largely PR-serving essay:
What is Greatness
The hardest task one can have is to continue to love his fellows despite all reasons he should not.
And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue.
For the one who can achieve this, there is abundant hope.
For those who cannot, there is only sorrow, hatred and despair. And these are not the things of which greatness or sanity or happiness are made.
A primary trap is to succumb to invitations to hate.
And, once again, it impossible to practice that if you are an "ethical policy-following robot of the Church of Scientology". Hubbard was right, for the people who CAN'T achieve this, there is only
sorrow, hatred and despair, and these are not the things of which greatness or sanity or happiness are made. And, THAT is exactly what involvement with Scientology eventually creates.
(Note to TAJ: I don't really "understand" what I wrote above - it just appears that way . . .
)