Trying to figure this whole thing out

Discussion in 'New Member Introductions' started by kate8024, Feb 7, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-


    So I'm new here _and_ new to Scientology. How I got here is a book-length story which I will post sometime soon once I have it edited down to the most interesting parts but long story short when I finally started reading some of Ron's books my first thought was "wow I guess I don't have to write that book after all"

    I'm currently trying to figure out where I fit into this whole thing because I do believe in the basis for at least some of the Tech and can entertain the whole Thetan thing and have seen some evidence for things like BTs (though I'm sure what I see is the same phenomenon he wrote about I'm not so sure about the nature of it) but I totally flat out reject the notion that any technology can be 100% perfect and it drives me crazy that when I asked the local CoS people questions like "There are now inexpensive EEG readers which look like headsets, has anyone ever investigated using these in auditing?" I get answers like "this is a perfect science and that's not how Ron said things are done". Regardless of the validity of Ron's research at best thats like saying "Isaac Newton is dead so physics has to stay where it is because he made a perfect system"

    This especially bothers me when I read in 8-08 about how black-white makes clears in no time and is this awesome new Tech and then in 8-8008 about how no one uses black-white anymore.

    I also think that much of both Dianetics and Scientology was WAY oversold - had all these claims of growing back your arm when you realized your mom bumped her arm when you were in womb and flying out of your body to the center of the sun not been there initial membership may have been lower, but it would have kept people from getting disillusioned. There is some good stuff in there if you can look past all of that I think.

    The CoS gives me the impression of being 'stuck' in 1950 - you should have seen how they reacted when I suggested updating Dianetics to take out the anti-gay stuff and omg-shut-up-already-about-abortion attempts. Why would being gay be an ethics violation when Thetans have no gender? Oh yeah they also say "give me your money!" but on the inverse I hear of a bunch of people leaving because DM wants to change a bunch of things and update the books which _is_ something I agree with doing, but only if its done in a progressive way and not a "lets turn this into evangelical scientology" way. And I do like how he ordered new meters which will sell for much less than $3000 but don't get why they are in a warehouse still.

    Most of the independent groups seem to reject the CoS but tend to be fanatical about 100% to the letter application of the Tech which also feels 'stuck' to me.

    So I've been studying on my own in the meantime and taking everything with a grain of salt, got myself a Mark V emeter from ebay for cheap (though I built a wheatstone bridge way back in high school as a science project oddly enough, but I still kinda wanted an official meter, and I do like the wooden box it gives it a nice feel and its one of the nonbroken british ones too) and I've been keeping an eye out for a group which thinks that it might be actually possible to use methods of neurology, psychotherapy, whatever, to try and better understand some of the phenomenon which does seem to be real but unexplained. I've also been thinking of building a USB wheatstone bridge (which is super easy) with software that can interpret "needle reads" (which is also super easy as I write software professionally)

    And so I work...
  2. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Welcome 'out', K. You'll find that people have not only been leaving the church for decades but that many of them continue to use some/much of the tech for their own purposes. Not surprising either as many who were involved in early days in helping hubbard to actually develop the tech continued to expand their knowledge & interest in spiritual technologies long after they had left. Many of the posters here have little interest in discussions of the tech; some like to heckle such discussions. But there are several regular posters who continue to acknowledge the potential for benefit which auditing tech has for individuals.

    I particularly invite you to examine some of the old posts made by Alan Walters ( Alan was an associate of hubbard and one of the prime movers early on of the church mission network. Alan was one of many early scientologists who made significant contributions to the original tech and continued to pursue his interest after leaving the church. He was something of a legend, along with many of the other old timers; e.g. John McMaster, David Mayo, John Galusha, etc., and for several years prior to his death contributed many interesting stories & comments to the board. Given his knowledge of the truth about the history of the church and hubbard as well his insights developed over a life time of development of auditing tech, his posts are especially worth the time spent reading.

    Welcome again, and best wishes to you.

    Mark A. Baker
  3. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    As Mark says, there are some folks here who believe in 'the tech' rather in the way you seem to — pragmatically, and with intent to improve it by correcting Hubbard's errors and with further research. Some consider that Scientology tech, or Scientology-based tech, has in fact advanced far beyond what the CofS offers.

    Others here are indeed into heckling, and make it clear that they simply hate Scientology and its founder. That might be pretty unsettling if you're used to having LRH idolized, but people here who believe in the tech do manage to cope with that, and you can, too. I guess overall, though, almost everyone here considers that Hubbard personally had some very grave flaws, at the least. Not even those who defend his tech here will do that much to defend the man himself. I'm afraid that attitude does seem to be an almost unavoidable conclusion once you really look at all the available facts. You'll have to be at least prepared to deal with this.

    Some here will say quite soberly, and after many years of experience with Scientology, that it's really a big house of cards, that simply collapses to virtually nothing once you begin to question it seriously. They'll describe your level of questioning as being only the first stage in a long process that inevitably leads to complete disdain not only for L. Ron Hubbard, but for all his works as well. Indeed, many people have, over several years, gone down that route to the end. But not everyone does.

    If what you really want is to figure out the truth, this is a very good place for that, because here the whole range of opinions is represented by articulate people. Sometimes feelings do run high, but by internet standards things are generally pretty civil.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2012
  4. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    Thanks for the feedback, I have been lurking on this site for about a week and while initially offput by the ex- part of the name as I do kind of consider myself a Scientologist I couldn't deny there were LOTS of great posts on here.

    When I told one of my friends I was a Scientologist now I followed that up with "but I still think the Southpark episode was funny" ;-)

    I can understand why people would hate Scientology but I think most of that is misdirected hatred for the Church itself or the fundamentalist version of the religion. If you look past the church and the sea org and overblown promises made in the books you can find a couple genuinely interesting things that I think are hard to hate.

    The day I bought Dianetics I also bought Inside Scientology and have been careful to try to keep a balanced opinion about everything while keeping an open mind.
  5. Magoo

    Magoo Gold Meritorious Patron

    Welcome, Kate.

    Ya....good luck on that There are, as some have mentioned, a rainbow of people here, all the way from "indies"=Independents (people who use the tech,
    are out of the church). There may be some Scientologists who post here, too.
    "Freezoners"-==people same as above, who started earlier doing so than
    the Indies did (if better definition, please provide)
    EX-Scientologists----people done with it (waives hand)
    Anonymous-----google it: People basically got into this over free speech,
    and learned the abuses and expose the abuses they see
    www.WhyWeProtest. net
    Critics............people never "in"Scientology (Same as Anonymous) but
    got into it due to Free Speech, learned the abuses, created web sites
    ( and are two that come to mind) and
    certainly help expose the abuses.

    To the earlier X-Scientologists (ARS : Alt.Religion.Scientology--a
    newsgroup you can find via Google now that used to be rockin.

    Phew! So enjoy---have fun---and good luck :) :goodluck:


  6. Kookaburra

    Kookaburra Gold Meritorious Patron

    Hi Kate, and welcome to ESMB.

    It is a good thing that you are looking at both sides and evaluating all data as you go. As long as you keep doing that, you will be fine. Until the Ethics Officer finds out, that is!

    Yes, there are a couple of things that are hard to hate. Actually, more than a couple. The problem is that these things are bound tightly to other things that are batshit crazy, and still others that are designed to take your mind and your free will and force it into compliance with the mores of the group. These mores, you will find, are quite restrictive on what you think and do. And you, as a newbie Scientologist, are still getting the sugar coated version.

    It is a good thing that you came here. Keep reading and evaluating everything. No matter what they say. Good luck. :thumbsup:
  7. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    Welcome Kate.

    There's nothing wrong with scientifically examining the teck. It's way overdue. Let us know if you find anything workable, after honest experimentation.
  8. EP - Ethics Particle

    EP - Ethics Particle Gold Meritorious Patron

    :wave::welcome: We are all travellers, Kate. Some are more curious and adventurous than others, you will find. :eyeroll:

    Happy trails to you! :yes:

  9. GreyLensman

    GreyLensman Silver Meritorious Patron

    You cannot be a Scientologist and think the South Park episode way in any way funny. Actually, I don't think having a sense of humor (or humour) is allowed as a dedicated Scientologist at all.

    I think my first exposure to the cognitive dissonance inside the Church was a frank statement I made (shortly after starting the communications course) that I had read a book about EST. Since I was not immediately critical of EST, I was sent to the ethic officer to have a chat. What's true for you is what's true for you, except that it isn't. You can't be part of that Church and maintain a balance of viewpoint or of integrity except in silence, and that silence takes a toll. Eventually if you want to pursue Clear and beyond, you'll be passing through the gatekeepers of sec checking (security checking) and you'll find that you develop the ability to lie to yourself at a very deep level.
  10. secretiveoldfag

    secretiveoldfag Silver Meritorious Patron

    Dear Kate

    If you look past the church and the sea org and overblown promises made in the books you find a lot of smoke and mirrors and deliberate, effective and cruel mind-fuck and behind all that a great fat fraud called Lafayette Ronald Hubbard who was perhaps the most sadistic human being of the twentieth century. Well, say the second half of the twentieth century. He's a candidate, certainly.

    Sorry that he wasn't more interesting but this is a fairly well-established fact.

    I hope you keep finding some aspects of Scientology funny. It is its main saving grace.

  11. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter

    John and I always laughed at parodies, when we were in, though the South Park one came out after we'd left.

    You're right in that most CofS members are notoriously deficient in humor about their cult. One of the reasons for this is the Jokers and Degraders reference which I tend to think of as guy with high water pants, white socks and a beanie with a propeller on it lisping "that's not funny, you guys!"

    Most Indies do better, though there are some exceptions there, too, of course.
  12. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    If you haven't seen them you might enjoy these threads too ...

    Mark A. Baker
  13. Infinite

    Infinite Crusader

    Hate is a pretty strong term to use. Its the sort of term Scientologists apply against critics along with words like "apostate", "bigot", "extremist", "basher", and so on in an effort leverage the classic "why are you against human rights" PR tactic so beloved of L Ron Hubbard. Truth is, as a person learns more and more about Scientology it eventually crumbles another LRH tenet in that the more one communicates about Scientology, comes to realise its reality, and increases their understanding, the less affinity one has for it. There are also people on this site who have suffered grievous injury at the hands of L Ron Hubbard and, rather than "haters", these people are now our teachers.

    Yes, there are definitely some parts of Scientology that, in isolation, can be seen to be benign, but that's part of the trap. As our very own Veda once said:

    Here is a very good text on gaining an understanding of how the good and the bad all fit together to form the Scientology onion.
  14. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    You can say that again, I only use it there because there are some who genuinely do seem to hate some parts, or all, of Scientology. Personally I always try to view everything from as many angles as possible and tend never 'hate' anything, even if I strongly disagree with it.
  15. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

  16. Infinite

    Infinite Crusader

    Perhaps viewing that which is perceived as "hate" for some or all of Scientology from as many angles as possible might assist in figuring this whole thing out?
  17. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    People in general seem to hate the word "hate", in my opinion.
    To say you hate something, is a sort of personal taboo for many, so they self censor that word. You said that you tend never to hate anything yet you see what seems to be hate in others. I amost never see the word "hate" being used here except in two cases: One is where the object of hate is not a person, like :"I hate having to work early on Saturday morning" etc. The other time it is used is when someone is saying that someone else has hatred for scientology or scientologists. I think it's an interesting word with very specific unspoken "rules" or expectations about its use. Then of course there are really terrible things that people do to each other. There are well known ones connected to scientology. Even there people avoid the word "hate" yet some trully hateful things have been done, regardless of which words are chosen to express them. Hating a person is a bit futile in my opinion. It only expresses a degree of negagtive emotion, so doesn't do much about the reality of it. On the other hand, those who have had terrible things done to them can hate the perpertrators if they like, I wouldn't want to censor them, or adjust their emotions.

    How about "utter contempt"....that's a handy phrase where a person can express something like hatred and make it sound like an intelligent way to think at the same time. :):)
  18. LA SCN

    LA SCN NOT drinking the kool-aid

    Glad to have you onboard.

    I think a lot of folks here would agree that the bait in the scientology trap was a feeling of release or 'high', increased vitality and IQ as a result of taking part in some of the activities.

    The trick is to discover the actual source of the various pieces of 'the tech' which hubbard claimed to have originated and protected vigorously with copyrights and lawsuits so he could profit from his plagiarism. Dianetics is Freud revisited - abreaction therapy which he abadoned as its results were not permanent. Prepared lists were assessed on the 'meter' as early as 1906. Rons' first son, Nibs, helped with the development of TRs early on and adapted them from eastern techniques, I've read. In an excellent thread on this Forum by Alan Walters, Opening Pandoras Box you will find a first hand account of who authored various pieces of the tech in the 60's.

    What you do NOT want to do is get caught up in the 'Only we can save the world and we've got to do it now,now,now' viewpoint or the 'if you don't buy this auditing / training right now tonight your gonna die' viewpoint.

    To help balance off the True Believers viewpoint I suggest you read Messiah or Madman by Bent Corydon; A Piece of Blue Sky by Jon Atack - both authors came from inside the church.

    To balance off the claims of mankinds greatest friend and humanitarian read the account of what the church did to Paulette Cooper; read up on the churchs infiltration into the government in Operation Snow White, both actions at the behest of and run by hubbard.

    Read up on his 3 marriages and the fates of the wives and children, L. Ron Hubbard Jr. and Quentin Hubbard in particular. Its not all as warm and fuzzy as the scienos would have you believe.

    And as a software writer, you may find it interesting that the True Believers are encouraged to stay away from the internet.
  19. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

    Some here say "even a broken clock is right twice a day". But I think it's more what LA says - Dianetics and Scientology was ripped off from Freud and another contemporaneous form of therapy called abreaction therapy. Dunno about the TR's.

    Ron was also a very accomplished hypnotist. And Satanist.
  20. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    Oh I constantly try to read up all of those things, in addition to the official Scientology material I have read:
    This message board ;-)
    Inside Scientology by Janet Reitman
    Inside Scientology/Dianetics by Robert Kaufman
    The Church of Scientology by Hugh B. Urban
    And others of course.

    From what I can tell, much of the Tech is in fact taken from other places and packaged into a system and oversold like a motherf*****. But that does not invalidate that some of the processing tech, if approached with a healthy dose of skepticism, might actually be able to help some people get over some issues.

    To be honest as one not raised in Scientology, and thus with no background in Ron fanaticism, the balance that I have to work at keeping is actually that I need to listen a bit MORE to the true believers to understand their side of things as I am awash in information from the non- or ex- believers and as I am in-fact trying to stay balanced I find myself sometimes seeking out some of the more fanatical to try an understand their point of view as well.

    Regarding the internet, I would say that staying away from the internet would be a mandate of the CofS and not of Scientology itself. To me much of the church doctrine seems to be not getting rid of the reactive mind, but turning the reactive mind into an L. Ron Hubbard valence. But yet there is obviously something that people see in this as 'good' and part of my exploration here is trying to understand what that thing is.

    So yeah, I am well aware of some of the things Ron did - he was human, he had faults, he was greedy at times, lonely at times, stupid at times, etc. I would never imagine raising a person to the state of deity just because they wrote some books which presumably have helped a lot of people - just like I don't deify Pythagoras (who also ran a cult) I sure wont deify Ron, but I still use the Pythagorean theorem and if it works I will still use the parts of 'the tech' which work.

    By the way I _highly_ recommend reading The Church of Scientology by Hugh B. Urban its written by someone with no ties to the church whatsoever and only interested in it from a religious history study point of view and hands down has been the least biased account of the events surrounding the formation and progression of the church that I have read so far.