One of Marty's recent posts....

[Mark A. Baker]

... For a window of time I seem to have forgotten that transition and thought that by coming here I could make some difference. ...

You can. However, not everyone on the board is willing to experience the perspectives you may have to offer either for themselves, or in seeing others possibly influenced by your perspectives.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gadfly]

No. The reporting of fact and the appeal to reason works far better. It may take longer with some individuals but the effect is more certain and the result far less damaging.

Such tactics as you have deemed here as 'necessary' merely seek to justify & inflame anger and to create violent attitudes. Thus they ensure the continuance of ignorance and hatred. They have as their intent the deliberate goal of making others wrong for their beliefs rather than an intent of helping another to achieve a fuller understanding.

And you needn't take my word for it; just pull out a copy of the Dhammapada.

Mark A. Baker

Viewpoint flip.

Well, you are probably right. There is no doubt that for people at a certain still closely-attached to Scientology point, they are often unable to comfortably view valid criticisms, sometimes because they can't get past the "denigration" of Hubbard or gratuitous peeing on some aspect of the Church of Scientology such a person might still hold in "high regard".

Probably, for some of them, simple objective statements, without all of the "name calling", might be more helpful.

But then, sometimes the word "hoax", or "con", or "Blubbard" BEST describes the point to be made. Granted, an OVERUSE of such terms, when not fully appropriate, might not be the "most productive". But, there ARE many aspects to Scientology where it functions as a HOAX. It is what it is. Though, yes, pushing that in some people's faces will result in them "resisting" or "being made wrong". In the end, some people will feel as is they have been "made wrong" no matter how carefully one walks on the eggs.

Also though, for some people, people who have NEVER allowed themselves to call Hubbard anything other than "Man's best friend", the use of name-calling CAN be fun, liberating and actually ACT to help push one further along the channel of Freedom From Scientology.

 

[Sindy]

I appreciate that Synthia. Lurk moar is probably the WRONG thing to do. Coming on here was a mistake. I've replaced my '3rd dynamic Scientology' with something completely different. I don't believe that that transition has been an easy process for everyone and hence these message boards serve that purpose.

For a window of time I seem to have forgotten that transition and thought that by coming here I could make some difference.

Larry Anderson posted a question asking for forgiveness on the youtube video of a father in the UK who wanted to get his daughter out of Scientology. Thats taking personal responsibility. Larry's closing scene in that very video probably drove more people away than he can imagine, but he's risking no chances. He isn't blaming anyone else and he is obviously concerned that people may have suffered as a result of getting into Scientology on the back of his promotion.

Vittorio, I like you so far, I do but do you have any idea of what I have done to help expose the criminal entity, the C of S, outside of this message board? Do you know what anyone else has done? It's plenty and I most likely would not have done what I have done if it weren't for this message board.

Good on ya for writing that letter to Marty. I respect your right to make whatever point you wish to make but the one you think you are making about those who post here and what you are assuming about ALL of their activities is not getting through.

Instead of assuming that you know something that you don't, you might just have to dig in and get more information and get to know the people here a bit more.

If you don't want to do that, which is totally your right, then I wouldn't assume and start pointing fingers. It's just gonna flap back in your face - not because people reactively don't like having their flaws pointed out but because you are simply off base about what you perceive to be flaws.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Also though, for some people, people who have NEVER allowed themselves to call Hubbard anything other than "Man's best friend", the use of name-calling CAN be fun, liberating and actually ACT to help push one further along the channel of Freedom From Scientology.

Not everything that appears to be 'fun' is thereby an act of wisdom.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Sindy]

Not everything that appears to be 'fun' is thereby an act of wisdom.


Mark A. Baker

Please further pontificate...I am not following.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I am an ex-Scientologist and ex-Freezoner.

Like I said, read the content of your posts, it's the same repetitive stuff over and over and over and you find my post revealing about me? There's on old saying 'If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing'. If you have some evidence that I'm harming people in some way, then bring it on. Although in all fairness, it is Veda really who is on the attack, worried that I might to be trying to insinuate that the Church was taken over by Rathbun and co and not ordered by Hubbard himself. Problem is Veda, is that your trying to take personal responsibility away from people.

And in case there may be some people around who may believe some of Hubbard's writings, it's not your business to tell them what they should and shouldn't believe. Thats the only reason you came into this thread, because you thought that I may be an Indie Scientologist. They can make informed choices about that on their own. You may not be happy with the fact that you spent years and probably a hell of a lot of time and money on Scientology, being a former C/S (which is a fair bit of training) and I believe you went as far as OT or thereabouts. But I didn't and thats one helluvahoax your going to have to sort out yourself. If it's all a load of rubbish you could have walked out after or even during your first course. The majority do.

I am an ex-Scientologist and ex-Freezoner.
Nice to meet you and know what labels you are not. Perhaps you are now a member of the Indie Church of Lableology that makes the label more label.

Like I said, read the content of your posts, it's the same repetitive stuff over and over and over and you find my post revealing about me?
When you keep posting over and over about how I keep posting over and over---that's something other than repetitive, right?

There's on old saying 'If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing'.
lololololololololololololololololololololol
Did ya get that Emma? Henceforth, please be sure to ban anyone with critical thoughts or natter about Hubbard or Scientology. Hey, Emma, let's really get the Manners PL put in here at ESMB and not put CI on Vittorio's lines.

If you have some evidence that I'm harming people in some way, then bring it on.
This sounds mental. I have no idea what you are doing, never wondered about you and couldn't care less. The only person who keeps talking about "evidence" is you, dude. I am just a poster having fun on ESMB. If it freaks you out to be around people thinking freely & creatively & laughing, maybe there are "safer spaces" you would enjoy more.

And in case there may be some people around who may believe some of Hubbard's writings, it's not your business to tell them what they should and shouldn't believe.
It's not my business? LOLOLOL. OMG, what have we here, a forum dictator? Hey, thanks for offering your thought-police-basics, but no thanks--we still have plenty of unopened boxes of that useless crap from Ron's cult.

They can make informed choices about that on their own.
Who, Scientologists? LOLOL. No they can't. If 60 years of Scientology has proven anything, it's that Scientologists are fully incapable of making informed choices--because they are not informed. What the hell do you think ESMB is? Wake up, dude, it's information. That's how people get "informed".

You may not be happy with the fact that you spent years and probably a hell of a lot of time and money on Scientology, being a former C/S (which is a fair bit of training) and I believe you went as far as OT or thereabouts. But I didn't and thats one helluvahoax your going to have to sort out yourself. If it's all a load of rubbish you could have walked out after or even during your first course. The majority do.
Wow, you're so much better than others! It must be amazing to have such altitude. We probably should not speculate here how you rose above everyone else.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

No. The reporting of fact and the appeal to reason works far better. It may take longer with some individuals but the effect is more certain and the result far less damaging.

Such tactics as you have deemed here as 'necessary' merely seek to justify & inflame anger and to create violent attitudes. Thus they ensure the continuance of ignorance and hatred. They have as their intent the deliberate goal of making others wrong for their beliefs rather than an intent of helping another to achieve a fuller understanding.

And you needn't take my word for it; just pull out a copy of the Dhammapada.

Scientology: "What do your materials state?"

Bakerology: "What do your Dhamm materials state?"​

 

[Smilla]

I understand that people value the benefits that they feel they gained through Scientology and can feel undermined when people speak dismissively of it.

My own feeling is that Scientology *can* bring subjective benefits, but none that can't be obtained elsewhere, without all the negative mind-bending that always comes with Scientology.

At times I feel I've been a bit heavy-handed in my criticism, but one big thing I've learned is that even if I disagree totally with someone, I can still like them, and them me. Some of the people I like most here are people with whom I have the least in common.

But

This isn't a place that functions according to Scientology principles. There is no *right* to ARC, validation, granting of beingness, and undisturbed havingness re 'wins'.

Just like in the real world amongst the lovely Wogs

 

[Sindy]

I understand that people value the benefits that they feel they gained through Scientology and can feel undermined when people speak dismissively of it.

My own feeling is that Scientology *can* bring subjective benefits, but none that can't be obtained elsewhere, without all the negative mind-bending that always comes with Scientology.

At times I feel I've been a bit heavy-handed in my criticism, but one big thing I've learned is that even if I disagree totally with someone, I can still like them, and them me. Some of the people I like most here are people with whom I have the least in common.

But

This isn't a place that functions according to Scientology principles. There is no *right* to ARC, validation, granting of beingness, and undisturbed havingness re 'wins'.

Just like in the real world amongst the lovely Wogs

Very nicely said.

I can see how someone could take offense to the criticism of something one thought was helpful to them. Me, I readily admit that I was helped and I know exactly what helped me. No amount of criticism is going to take that away and I feel no need to assert it to keep it alive.

For me, the danger is on the other side. The con was so deep and the betrayal so intense, that it is very easy for the mind to avoid the truth, slap it back, be "reasonable" (if you will), and continue to live with lies. LRH's lies are so incredible that they are the best safeguard against anyone really looking at them. A sane, rational person has a hard time believing they could be so blatant and vicious.

It takes constant, constant, digging through the layers of the onion to undo this stuff.

Deconstructing Hubbard is necessary. What if new people to the subject thought that the problem was only with Miscavige? Then what?

Yes, Miscavige is in present time. Yes, dealing with him and the current C of S is an immediate need but, if anyone is mistaken and believes that once Miscavige is out and the human rights abuses (temporarily) cease, that it's safe to go back in, they have another thing coming.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I understand that people value the benefits that they feel they gained through Scientology and can feel undermined when people speak dismissively of it.

My own feeling is that Scientology *can* bring subjective benefits, but none that can't be obtained elsewhere, without all the negative mind-bending that always comes with Scientology.

At times I feel I've been a bit heavy-handed in my criticism, but one big thing I've learned is that even if I disagree totally with someone, I can still like them, and them me. Some of the people I like most here are people with whom I have the least in common.

But

This isn't a place that functions according to Scientology principles. There is no *right* to ARC, validation, granting of beingness, and undisturbed havingness re 'wins'.

Just like in the real world amongst the lovely Wogs

Well, your point brings up one of the most fascinating things about many Scientologists and Indie Scientologists.

Despite their "OT powers" and "attack tech" and "altitude" they are really quite weak and unstable when outside of the carefully insulated and controlled cult eco-system.

Let's take a real ferocious, fair-gamer like Joel, the guy from Religious Freedom Watch. What happens when he is out of the protective theta cult bubble where real people have real ideas and really say them?

Culties get very freaked out when people actually act FREE instead of only talking about "Total Freedom".

Here is one of my favorite moments of all time when a Scientologist tries to get a WOG to "grant them beingness". It is so pathetically cringeworthy I have to cross post it from the Stupid Thread...

The time Joel (Religious Freedom Watch) the OT confronted and shattered international super-sp, Andreas (OCMB) Heldt Heldal-Lund.

Only one slight problem.

Joel the OT was humiliatingly shattered and reduced to pathetically stammering and stuttering asking a wog:

(25:00 to 26:05)

"Please--gra--gra--grant--grant me more Beingness than that!"​

An OT begging an SP to grant them beingness? !!! As if that is a universal idea that all people recognize and cherish. Only a Scientologist would not see the cosmic humor in that.

OMG, that is one of the greatest demonstrations that OT tech doesn't work ever captured on film!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rg3bm0bOkI

 

[Smilla]

Very nicely said.

I can see how someone could take offense to the criticism of something one thought was helpful to them. Me, I readily admit that I was helped and I know exactly what helped me. No amount of criticism is going to take that away and I feel no need to assert it to keep it alive.

Same here.

For me, the danger is on the other side. The con was so deep and the betrayal so intense, that it is very easy for the mind to avoid the truth, slap it back, be "reasonable" (if you will), and continue to live with lies. LRH's lies are so incredible that they are the best safeguard against anyone really looking at them. A sane, rational person has a hard time believe they could be so blatant and vicious.

I agree. On the rare occasions when I've tried to explain something about the dark side of Scientology to someone, I don't think I've ever really got the message across. It's just too much for most people to take in, unless they're willing to do a lot of reading.

It takes constant, constant, digging through the layers of the onion to undo this stuff.

That's true and I catch myself sometimes *thinking Scientology thoughts* instead of thinking my own thoughts. It's very subtle, very invasive.

Deconstructing Hubbard is necessary. What if new people to the subject thought that the problem was only with Miscavige? Then what?

Ron Hubbard was an absolute mess of a person who failed at everything thing that really matters.

Failed as a student. Failed as a Naval Officer. Failed as a husband. Failed as a father. Failed as a musician. Failed as a photographer. Failed as a movie maker. The big big thing is that he failed as a writer. He sold a lot of books, but the books were badly written garbage. All of them. I think he knew it too, and that it was part of what drove him mad.

Hubbard the human was a loser, so 'LRH' was invented. 'LRH' is everything Hubbard wanted to be but couldn't, everything he needed people to believe he was, mixed with everything that his followers needed to believe him to be.

Like Big Brother in Orwell's 1984, 'LRH' will never grow old, never make a mistake, never be wrong, never die.

Yes, Miscavige is in present time. Yes, dealing with hi m and the current C of S is an immediate need but, if anyone is mistaken and believes that once Miscavige is out and the human rights abuses (temporarily) cease, that it's safe to go back in, they have another thing coming.

Miscavige isn't the problem. Scientology is the problem. Miscavige is a symptom. He's the ultimate Scientologist.

Just realised I'm ranting... Sorry!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

It takes constant, constant, digging through the layers of the onion to undo this stuff.

It's the RPF
(Ron Project Force)
Grab one and. . .

DIG IT BABY!

​

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Miscavige isn't the problem. Scientology is the problem. Miscavige is a symptom. He's the ultimate Scientologist.

I just spoke with both Dave and Ron.

They told me to tell you that they put your eternity in a volcano and are going to drop an atomic bomb on it if you don't come to your senses and stop posting crazy lies.

Smilla, I am begging you, please stop this madness now while there is still time.

Offer to make amends. They haven't closed the door on you, honey, you can still make it! The crack is still open a bit, or something like that.

Whatever you are supposed to do with the Scientology crack, just do it! (smoke it, kiss it....)

 

[Smilla]

Well, your point brings up one of the most fascinating things about many Scientologists and Indie Scientologists.

Despite their "OT powers" and "attack tech" and "altitude" they are really quite weak and unstable when outside of the carefully insulated and controlled cult eco-system.

That's what I see, too. They have to mollycoddled (handled with ARC), patted on the back all the time (validated), agreed with (acknowledged), and complimented (granted beingness), about every little thing they say and do. It's like dealing with a nervous teenager, who's overcompensating like mad, because they have no real self-confidence. For a Scientologist, someone disagreeing with them is an emergency.

Let's take a real ferocious, fair-gamer like Joel, the guy from Religious Freedom Watch. What happens when he is out of the protective theta cult bubble where real people have real ideas and really say them?

He needs to be in an 'Org-like' situation to feel his amazingness. Outside of that environment, he's just some guy with weird and creepy ideas.

Culties get very freaked out when people actually act FREE instead of only talking about "Total Freedom".

It frightens them and makes them feel that 'their reality' is falling apart. Pretty fragile reality!

Here is one of my favorite moments of all time when a Scientologist tries to get a WOG to "grant them beingness". It is so pathetically cringeworthy I have to cross post it from the Stupid Thread...

It's obvious that he was working from a very often drilled script that like everything else in Scientology doesn't work very well in the real world.

The 'ARC Break' is a laugh. It's a kind of mini nervous breakdown that Scientologists have when things don't go completely their way, and the higher up the Bridge they are, the worse it gets.

And the worst thing, the unforgivable thing, about Scientology is that it's not sexy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n48L96ThBDY

 

[lotus]

I've read these last posts of you guys.

This is a very interesting discussion

 

[Student of Trinity]

granting beingness

What is this 'granting beingness' business, anyway? I've run into the term quite a bit, but as far as I can see, it just means acknowledging that somebody has their own point of view. Or is it in effect a code for something a bit different?

It sounds as though to 'grant someone beingness' means, in practice, to give them respect and inclusion. That would make the 'beingness' term less overblown that it may sound, because people often really crave respect and inclusion, to the point where losing them can really feel like losing existence. All the psychological and cultural aspects of military training are based on the fact that, to retain the respect of their small group of buddies, humans will risk their lives. If any other inducement to hazard were more effective, armies would be using it instead.

Respect is a precious prize to offer people. Giving people that steady glow of belonging to a group and being respected within it is probably even more important, as a reward for being a Scientologist, than the 'auditing high'. My impression here is that Scientology offers respect cheap, but under rigid conditions, like a package tour. I guess it can be a shock to discover, if you step off the cruise ship, that the mai tais are no longer free.

 

[lotus]

I beleive the ''respect'' issue you explain is very true - I would add - also ''admiration'' issue!

But in scamology - Respect and admiration from the groups is
very expensive and is not the genuine respect and admiration we naturally get for what we represent deep within the heart of people.

I also find , scamology, is made of ''military'' acknowledgement of how is your value and what you deserve -
and that the group agree to such degree provided, because you are an Oatie or let's say International slavery association patron or whatever - or a celebrity who deserve a gold medal..........

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: granting beingness

What is this 'granting beingness' business, anyway? I've run into the term quite a bit, but as far as I can see, it just means acknowledging that somebody has their own point of view. Or is it in effect a code for something a bit different? ...

Tech Dictionary ...

GRANT BEINGNESS, the ability to assume or grant (give, allow) beingness is probably the highest of human virtures. It is even more important to be able to permit [allow] other people to have beingness than to be able oneself to assume it. (FOT, p.27)

BEINGNESS, 1. the resort of having assumed an identity. (LRH Def. Nots) ...

Granting of beingness is the conscious & profound acceptance of another being as that person chooses to manifest himself and without any implicit expectation or requirement that his beingness conforms to some 'acceptable standard' in order to allow acceptance. It is something which can be continually improved only through addressing one's own attitudes and personal considerations at a deep spiritual level.

It's really a reflection of one's own personal state of mind about others, not solely the manner in which one treats others.

A person might 'treat another with respect' and nonetheless have unexpressed personal attitudes which are highly disrespectful of the other being. To that degree he fails to grant beingness. So 'respect for others' is only a part of the idea, it doesn't really cover it.


Mark A. Baker

 

[degraded being]

Re: granting beingness

Tech Dictionary ...


Granting of beingness is the conscious & profound acceptance of another being as that person chooses to manifest himself and without any implicit expectation or requirement that his beingness conforms to some 'acceptable standard' in order to allow acceptance. It is something which can be continually improved only through addressing one's own attitudes and personal considerations at a deep spiritual level.

It's really a reflection of one's own personal state of mind about others, not solely the manner in which one treats others.

A person might 'treat another with respect' and nonetheless have unexpressed personal attitudes which are highly disrespectful of the other being. To that degree he fails to grant beingness. So 'respect for others' is only a part of the idea, it doesn't really cover it.


Mark A. Baker

Sounds complicated.

I like the bit about people treating people who they don't really like with respect. Sounds like a holiday in Japan.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Re: granting beingness

Sounds complicated.

I like the bit about people treating people who they don't really like with respect. Sounds like a holiday in Japan.

Lol!

It's always complicated because its only purpose was to baffle the fools that were (and apparently still are) buying it.

Anyone here feel that hubbard 'granted beingness' to others?

The closest to 'granting beingness' to another that I ever observed in scientology was when a reg was in full on regging/acting mode, and then only until they had the money in their sticky little culty hands ... after that the prospect/mark could just bugger off and normal mode was instantly resumed!


​