Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
So let's talk about polarity. I have some thoughts about it.
When I was in CofS, it was "we're perfect, no one else is, anytime we're criticized it's the other guy.", even when they went back on their own word (as they did often) and changed their own materials. This prompted me to flee in horror, possibly not soon enough, but I did so. And so did almost everyone here, since almost everyone here's an ex.
I still liked some elements of Scn after I left the cult. Since I'd already been posting to critical fora- which is what led me to leave the cult and to quesiton a lot of things- I remained on those critical fora. I was straightforward about how I felt. On some occasions, I ran into polarity again. "you're wrong. If you ever studied anything else you wouldn't be doing this. You're OSA, etc." I was amazed that here were adults who were either ex cult or knew others who were ex cult, who wanted to draw a line such as this. I didn't accept it. I never have accepted it.
Meanwhile, I was delving into FZ and at the same time restarting my studies in other philosophies and modes of thought. I met a lot of FZers, "Indies" and people who weren't into Scn at all. In every single category, for lack of a better word, I found a range of common sense, capability, wisdom and so on. I did see a lot of goal driven mindset in the former, though. There was a dream for which they were reaching. When I saw that attitude among Christians, Buddhists and others, It was different. It was calmer. Not so much of a "it's got to be this way", although they were still reaching for something. But I will also say that my FZ friends were, for all of that, more realistic and calmer about reaching for THEIR dream than were people I'd known in CofS about the "go OT" carrot. It was a lot less carrotty in the FZ, IMO. Perhaps more like a parsnip. I"m not trying to make fun of anyone. I employ levity sometimes to make a point and because that's how I roll, in general.)I could almost make a scale of the reaching for enlightenment and hopefulness I found among various people but I leave the scale making up to Hubbard. I'm neither pundit nor cult leader. Nor am I planning on setting up any courses to teach anyone.
I've seen some truly vicious infighting amongst FZers and some very impractical commentary. This has been commented upon a great deal as of late. I've seen people come to the conclusion that they're stupid or crazy. I would point out that we're all bozos on this bus, but I have a feeling that a potential comment might be "But, Fluffy, isn't the Scn/OT promise so very high flown, so very specific, and that ultimate wisdom is just about guaranteed?" Yes, that is the case. I really think most FZers are more practical about it being a matter of degree than others sometimes give them credit for, though. A lot of people are more low key about those spiritual goals in the FZ than in CofS. Note I say " a lot of people". That's because I have met some hidebound types in the FZ who weren't all that different from CofS members in that and other regards. Can we call that fanaticism? I'd say yes, or at least a very single minded attitude. THAT is also polarity.
The problem with polarity is that it doesn't make room for another point of view or another type of person or any variance.
"They're batshit crazy"
"People need to go OT and get rid of their bts. It didn't work so well in CofS because of DM."
Both are things said by people on each side of the coin, and both are untrue.
So is anyone in the FZ "batshit crazy"? Yes. There are some troubled people there. Ok, so is anyone gonna ask "where's your Scientology NOW?" Sure. And would that be a valid question? Yes, it would. But it isn't everyone. So if we just look at the problem and not intro polarity into it, we'll be better off.
And for the latter- are there fundie types in the FZ who think OTness is perfect, going to be the same for everyone as long as "tech is standard" and "ethics are in"? Yes. Is that wrong headed? Yes. And it's polarity.
I've met some dumbasses and kooks in the FZ. I've also met people who were wise and helpful. IMO, the reason people sometimes want to categorize them all as stupid or crazy is that the ology promises so much and so they set themselves up for criticism. Their very PR seems to belie the "matter of degree" theory that I'm forwarding here. So people see FZers fall short of the mark again and again. That doesn't make them stupid or crazy, though, it makes them human and maybe a bit naive in some cases.
A number of ex members are former FZers. Are we going to call them stupid or crazy? No. Of course someone may say "that's cuz they got OUT, Fluffy." Yes, well, if they were that stupid or crazy, they'd not have gotten out. They were just reaching for a dream. Same as when they were in CofS. That's why I've never liked seeing people tar all CofS Scientologists with the "crazy/stupid" brush since almost everyone here was once in CofS. I don't think we were stupid or crazy. Abused, lied to, naive, head in the sand- yes. Stupid? Well, some people some of the time. There're stupid people in every walk of life. Crazy ones, too. I think we've found that Scn does not fix everything as it says it does.
I was kind of feeling holier than thou about the polarity thing, but now that I am finishing up this post, I just don't feel that way. I think that highflown promises and generalities of how perfect is it set people up for this stuff. Make a generality about the State of OT- which will be demonstrably false every time- it's going to lead to generalities made by skeptics, detractors, critics and other bemused folks looking into it. Cuz they're going to say "here's this thing that's supposed to be ALWAYS true, yet it's got a big flaw in it. That makes that promise false. As in NEVER true. How can we not generalize?" Generalities beget generalities. I think that holding onto the specific promise of Scn as Scn and talking about OT just sets people up for being put into a little box. Put there by themselves. It's not so much that detractors are putting you into a box, they've found your box that you constructed and into which you set up housekeeping and then they kind of poked it a bit with their sneaker.
I know that ANY ology or ism is a matter of degree and that it's possible to spend years on any of those things and not get too far or sometimes even do rather well, but I've seen no homo novis.
I object to the generalization of all Free Zoners are this or that but in a rather gentle half hearted way. I think they set themselves up for it.
Here's a piece of advice I gave to someone (which I actually gave when I was still clinging to the Scn'ist label and branding, if you can believe that):
We'll call her Jane. She wanted to know what I thought about doing FZ. She'd flirted with Scn on her own but had a lot of concerns. She was and is a brilliant iconoclastic decent woman who is very aware of the doings of CofS and has read a lot of Scn criticism and of Scn itself.
I said "Don't be a Scientologist. Be a Jane-ologist".
I honestly believe the only way Scn will survive is piecemeal. Individual ideas and methods being absorbed by other people and ologies and isms. This means the Scn branding goes away in those cases. I've already BEEN seeing it. This might make some people sad, but hell, it's not perfect anyway, it doesn't live up to its promise and if there's something cool in it, fine, have fun. There's too much squabbling and factionalism among Free Zoners. I've met a couple on line who I find to be utterly distasteful and others who I liked fine, but no more than I'd like or respect a Christian who seemed to be doing ok and to have some nifty insights. But it's not going to survive as any voice of Scn. Nothing will. But that doesn't stop anyone from doing things that help them.
I think that there are quite a few Indies and FZers who don't think Scn is perfect or that it lives up to all its promises. They know it's a matter of degree. I think that not everyone on the other side of the coin wants to admit that, though, no matter how many times people say they feel this way. My theory is that it's the use of the brand name that gets in the way.
So my solution for my beloved FZ and indie friends - and for anyone else who's thinking WTF do I do (ideologically speaking) is be a
John-ologist or a Jane-ologist or a Emma-ologist. Only John can be a Johnologist. Only Ems can be an Emmaologist. We don't want no more steekin' cults, nobody here is trying to be a cult leader. Let's just be ourselves, do TRs and get auditing if we want or totally eschew that but let's just call ourselves just OURSELVES and drop the labels. I think that would lead to more harmony and it might free some minds.
When I was in CofS, it was "we're perfect, no one else is, anytime we're criticized it's the other guy.", even when they went back on their own word (as they did often) and changed their own materials. This prompted me to flee in horror, possibly not soon enough, but I did so. And so did almost everyone here, since almost everyone here's an ex.
I still liked some elements of Scn after I left the cult. Since I'd already been posting to critical fora- which is what led me to leave the cult and to quesiton a lot of things- I remained on those critical fora. I was straightforward about how I felt. On some occasions, I ran into polarity again. "you're wrong. If you ever studied anything else you wouldn't be doing this. You're OSA, etc." I was amazed that here were adults who were either ex cult or knew others who were ex cult, who wanted to draw a line such as this. I didn't accept it. I never have accepted it.
Meanwhile, I was delving into FZ and at the same time restarting my studies in other philosophies and modes of thought. I met a lot of FZers, "Indies" and people who weren't into Scn at all. In every single category, for lack of a better word, I found a range of common sense, capability, wisdom and so on. I did see a lot of goal driven mindset in the former, though. There was a dream for which they were reaching. When I saw that attitude among Christians, Buddhists and others, It was different. It was calmer. Not so much of a "it's got to be this way", although they were still reaching for something. But I will also say that my FZ friends were, for all of that, more realistic and calmer about reaching for THEIR dream than were people I'd known in CofS about the "go OT" carrot. It was a lot less carrotty in the FZ, IMO. Perhaps more like a parsnip. I"m not trying to make fun of anyone. I employ levity sometimes to make a point and because that's how I roll, in general.)I could almost make a scale of the reaching for enlightenment and hopefulness I found among various people but I leave the scale making up to Hubbard. I'm neither pundit nor cult leader. Nor am I planning on setting up any courses to teach anyone.
I've seen some truly vicious infighting amongst FZers and some very impractical commentary. This has been commented upon a great deal as of late. I've seen people come to the conclusion that they're stupid or crazy. I would point out that we're all bozos on this bus, but I have a feeling that a potential comment might be "But, Fluffy, isn't the Scn/OT promise so very high flown, so very specific, and that ultimate wisdom is just about guaranteed?" Yes, that is the case. I really think most FZers are more practical about it being a matter of degree than others sometimes give them credit for, though. A lot of people are more low key about those spiritual goals in the FZ than in CofS. Note I say " a lot of people". That's because I have met some hidebound types in the FZ who weren't all that different from CofS members in that and other regards. Can we call that fanaticism? I'd say yes, or at least a very single minded attitude. THAT is also polarity.
The problem with polarity is that it doesn't make room for another point of view or another type of person or any variance.
"They're batshit crazy"
"People need to go OT and get rid of their bts. It didn't work so well in CofS because of DM."
Both are things said by people on each side of the coin, and both are untrue.
So is anyone in the FZ "batshit crazy"? Yes. There are some troubled people there. Ok, so is anyone gonna ask "where's your Scientology NOW?" Sure. And would that be a valid question? Yes, it would. But it isn't everyone. So if we just look at the problem and not intro polarity into it, we'll be better off.
And for the latter- are there fundie types in the FZ who think OTness is perfect, going to be the same for everyone as long as "tech is standard" and "ethics are in"? Yes. Is that wrong headed? Yes. And it's polarity.
I've met some dumbasses and kooks in the FZ. I've also met people who were wise and helpful. IMO, the reason people sometimes want to categorize them all as stupid or crazy is that the ology promises so much and so they set themselves up for criticism. Their very PR seems to belie the "matter of degree" theory that I'm forwarding here. So people see FZers fall short of the mark again and again. That doesn't make them stupid or crazy, though, it makes them human and maybe a bit naive in some cases.
A number of ex members are former FZers. Are we going to call them stupid or crazy? No. Of course someone may say "that's cuz they got OUT, Fluffy." Yes, well, if they were that stupid or crazy, they'd not have gotten out. They were just reaching for a dream. Same as when they were in CofS. That's why I've never liked seeing people tar all CofS Scientologists with the "crazy/stupid" brush since almost everyone here was once in CofS. I don't think we were stupid or crazy. Abused, lied to, naive, head in the sand- yes. Stupid? Well, some people some of the time. There're stupid people in every walk of life. Crazy ones, too. I think we've found that Scn does not fix everything as it says it does.
I was kind of feeling holier than thou about the polarity thing, but now that I am finishing up this post, I just don't feel that way. I think that highflown promises and generalities of how perfect is it set people up for this stuff. Make a generality about the State of OT- which will be demonstrably false every time- it's going to lead to generalities made by skeptics, detractors, critics and other bemused folks looking into it. Cuz they're going to say "here's this thing that's supposed to be ALWAYS true, yet it's got a big flaw in it. That makes that promise false. As in NEVER true. How can we not generalize?" Generalities beget generalities. I think that holding onto the specific promise of Scn as Scn and talking about OT just sets people up for being put into a little box. Put there by themselves. It's not so much that detractors are putting you into a box, they've found your box that you constructed and into which you set up housekeeping and then they kind of poked it a bit with their sneaker.
I know that ANY ology or ism is a matter of degree and that it's possible to spend years on any of those things and not get too far or sometimes even do rather well, but I've seen no homo novis.
I object to the generalization of all Free Zoners are this or that but in a rather gentle half hearted way. I think they set themselves up for it.
Here's a piece of advice I gave to someone (which I actually gave when I was still clinging to the Scn'ist label and branding, if you can believe that):
We'll call her Jane. She wanted to know what I thought about doing FZ. She'd flirted with Scn on her own but had a lot of concerns. She was and is a brilliant iconoclastic decent woman who is very aware of the doings of CofS and has read a lot of Scn criticism and of Scn itself.
I said "Don't be a Scientologist. Be a Jane-ologist".
I honestly believe the only way Scn will survive is piecemeal. Individual ideas and methods being absorbed by other people and ologies and isms. This means the Scn branding goes away in those cases. I've already BEEN seeing it. This might make some people sad, but hell, it's not perfect anyway, it doesn't live up to its promise and if there's something cool in it, fine, have fun. There's too much squabbling and factionalism among Free Zoners. I've met a couple on line who I find to be utterly distasteful and others who I liked fine, but no more than I'd like or respect a Christian who seemed to be doing ok and to have some nifty insights. But it's not going to survive as any voice of Scn. Nothing will. But that doesn't stop anyone from doing things that help them.
I think that there are quite a few Indies and FZers who don't think Scn is perfect or that it lives up to all its promises. They know it's a matter of degree. I think that not everyone on the other side of the coin wants to admit that, though, no matter how many times people say they feel this way. My theory is that it's the use of the brand name that gets in the way.
So my solution for my beloved FZ and indie friends - and for anyone else who's thinking WTF do I do (ideologically speaking) is be a
John-ologist or a Jane-ologist or a Emma-ologist. Only John can be a Johnologist. Only Ems can be an Emmaologist. We don't want no more steekin' cults, nobody here is trying to be a cult leader. Let's just be ourselves, do TRs and get auditing if we want or totally eschew that but let's just call ourselves just OURSELVES and drop the labels. I think that would lead to more harmony and it might free some minds.