uniquemand
Unbeliever
When discussing Scientology, its terminology, and the experiences people have had with the use of techniques described by Hubbard, flame wars often erupt. This is not unique to discussing Scientology, but is a common pitfall we all can fall into, even if we intended otherwise prior to reading what someone else wrote, if it upsets us enough, or if we're not aware of the principle described below, taken from my post on another thread comparing Scientology to other esoteric subjects. It applies to any topic under discussion. The flame wars might be an amusing indulgence, but they can also deter people from following an otherwise interesting topic.
***Gets up on soapbox***
Scientology's OT Levels are comparable to exorcism or "micro-exorcism". First, the person is indoctrinated (solo course), then they are asked to invoke and call the demon/bt (bring it out, call it to mind, address it), then expel it, etc., though the methods differ based on doctrine. Occult traditions have rituals for this purpose. Psychology has a different understanding of what is being expelled or eliminated, but they also address the same phenomenon in people who are seen to have "multiple personalities" (Disassociative Identity Disorder), or who "hear voices", feel "compulsions", etc.
Understanding what causes the phenomena is obscured by the common problem Korzybski referred to as mistaking the map for the territory. Thinking about your feeling, for example, that you must wash your hands or suffer anxiety in terms of it being a BT or demon influencing you might be useful, but believing that it "is" a demon or BT is a different thing, entirely. Similarly, thinking about it as a sub-personality or projection may be useful, but insisting that it "is" one takes on characteristics of irrational attachment.
Whatever terms you use, the phenomena are real (feeling compelled, perceiving a change in your character, experiencing emotion which feels foreign to you, etc.). Getting caught up in word-choice is frustrating for those who are trying to understand and discuss the object of a reference, rather than discuss the merit of a particular set of terms or the systems that use them.
This point is nuanced, and the "Q & A" that ensues often eclipses the discussion. It is a pervasive pattern in many threads, both here and in many academic fields or religions, politics, anything where people mistake their terms for the objects they refer to. I really wish people would recognize this and stop it, but this requires a learned discipline. Seems an inherent flaw of language and seems exacerbated by specialist training, rather than improved by it.
I've seen people refer to "thought-stopping techniques" in many places, and it's true that words/jargon can be used this way, but tripping people up on terminology is also a thought-stopping technique. Before engaging in this, I BEG YOU to ask yourself this question: "did I understand what that person was referring to?". If so, is challenging their word-choice going to clarify their point? If you didn't, was that a word you have an emotional reaction to? Can you address their point, or is derailing it for the sake of emphasizing the rightness of your terminology vs. theirs more important?
*** gets down off soapbox***
***Gets up on soapbox***
Scientology's OT Levels are comparable to exorcism or "micro-exorcism". First, the person is indoctrinated (solo course), then they are asked to invoke and call the demon/bt (bring it out, call it to mind, address it), then expel it, etc., though the methods differ based on doctrine. Occult traditions have rituals for this purpose. Psychology has a different understanding of what is being expelled or eliminated, but they also address the same phenomenon in people who are seen to have "multiple personalities" (Disassociative Identity Disorder), or who "hear voices", feel "compulsions", etc.
Understanding what causes the phenomena is obscured by the common problem Korzybski referred to as mistaking the map for the territory. Thinking about your feeling, for example, that you must wash your hands or suffer anxiety in terms of it being a BT or demon influencing you might be useful, but believing that it "is" a demon or BT is a different thing, entirely. Similarly, thinking about it as a sub-personality or projection may be useful, but insisting that it "is" one takes on characteristics of irrational attachment.
Whatever terms you use, the phenomena are real (feeling compelled, perceiving a change in your character, experiencing emotion which feels foreign to you, etc.). Getting caught up in word-choice is frustrating for those who are trying to understand and discuss the object of a reference, rather than discuss the merit of a particular set of terms or the systems that use them.
This point is nuanced, and the "Q & A" that ensues often eclipses the discussion. It is a pervasive pattern in many threads, both here and in many academic fields or religions, politics, anything where people mistake their terms for the objects they refer to. I really wish people would recognize this and stop it, but this requires a learned discipline. Seems an inherent flaw of language and seems exacerbated by specialist training, rather than improved by it.
I've seen people refer to "thought-stopping techniques" in many places, and it's true that words/jargon can be used this way, but tripping people up on terminology is also a thought-stopping technique. Before engaging in this, I BEG YOU to ask yourself this question: "did I understand what that person was referring to?". If so, is challenging their word-choice going to clarify their point? If you didn't, was that a word you have an emotional reaction to? Can you address their point, or is derailing it for the sake of emphasizing the rightness of your terminology vs. theirs more important?
*** gets down off soapbox***