A different perspective

Carmel

Crusader
While I like this board and consider it beneficial for many (especially those thinking of leaving the CofS and those who have left), there's one thing that continually hits a nerve with me. That is, that so many of your comments, are so black and white, and so exclusive - no room for exception - the very thing I hated about the rampant "group think" within the CofS. Zinj said on another thread that I might find myself a bit "out-group" on this board. I probably do, but that's nothing new. I was "out-group" in the CofS for two decades, and in groups to which I "belonged" before and after Scientology.

I am not alone in that, and that's my point. Everyone had different experiences in Scientology. The concept that everyone who was "in", needs to go through a process of getting "de-programmed" (for want of a better word), is a fallacy. While it may be true for many or most, it isn't true for all. From my books, the assumption that it is, is one from a "blinkered" perspective.

Some didn't have LRH as some kind of deity and didn't hold onto his every word (per much advice actually given by him). There are many texts where he said to not accept a thing if it wasn't real, and some where he said to evaluate the difference between his opinion and the tech (theory and procedure to be adhered to when applying Scn). Some knew that much of the tech was altered, and that the alterations accelerated to a point, where one coming in, couldn't substantiate what was the tech and what wasn't anymore.

Some (based on knowledge from studying the tech and sometimes their own experience) hated the exclusivity of Scn , hated the overall perversion of the o/w tech, hated the attitude toward the 'wog world' or "wogs", hated the way they saw public/staff/crew being treated, hated the omission of the virtues and common decency, hated the mis-use of ethics and justice tech, hated the blind acceptance from seniors or senior execs, etc, etc, etc - they refused to accept it, kept fighting it or left.

Some had positions in the field, or on staff (admittedly not so much within the SO), where they could object to and deal with the insanity within the ranks, while delivering a tech, that did make a difference to many. Some didn't trust DM from early on, and lived in the hope that he would lose his power and hold, which he had/has over the CofS. I admit that it was a false hope and naive to think that one could make a dent into the way things were overall, or into the way things could be, but still - the denial of any possible gains of another, from the tech or their experience in Scientology, by so many who have left, is a shame. I am currently going through something right now, that I could not have faced (let alone survived), if it wasn't for the knowledge and abilities gained through/via Scientology. The denial of such a possibility (just cause it's not your reality) is hardly a fair judgement, and is pretty sad.

Nasty mechanisms to introvert and trap, are in common use within the cult. Many (maybe most) have fallen prey to that, to varying degrees. I understand the bitterness about that (it's one of the things that fucked me off big time, about the CofS). My point is though, that not all did fall prey to that. There are some with issues regarding experiences within the CofS, that are devoid of that phenomenon (that common one which so many of you regard as an absolute for anyone who was been a scn'ist). I'm just asking some of you who don't respect that, to do so.

Hey, for the record, I am more than absofu'ckinglutely pissed off with so much that has been and still is with the CofS, but I have specific targets for that. To allow it to become a generality would be foolish. This board is something that's helping me with that. Thanks :) !
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for the perspective. I assume that there is tech you believe in. What is true for you?
 

Div6

Crusader
I hear you bro. My experience with Scn was not all bad, and in moments of honest reflection had some damn powerful moments of serendipity. And for that I am grateful.

What I see on this board is a wide range of attitudes towards the subject, the founder, the current leadership and the technology. We have here probably the largest collection of ARC X'en people, from most all eras of Scn. The only "tech" we have is communication. There are some real raw betrayals out there. And while parts of scn may have been "delivered" in the past, it is obvious to me from talking to the recent refugees that what they are doing now behind those walls is NOT delivering Scn. It appears to me they are taking extra measures to NOT Deliver. I see Anonymous (in part) as a confirmation of that.

But by and large, the people here are wonderful, intelligent and caring people who, having lost a stable datum of some magnitude, are making sense of it, getting educated on the whole picture, and moving on. There are quite a number of "success stories" here that will just move you to tears: Tamasin-SP, Bea Kiddo, Twin A to name a few. Others got a really raw deal.....

LRH blew. He hasn't come back. All we have are each other....so we do the best we can, and try to help where we can. I had a realization the other day...I think Man deserves the application of the auditors code. Its not an easy thing to apply all the time, but it is the "rule set" that allows others the space to have their own cogs and change viewpoints. The attitude I see coming from Scn is that man is bad and has to earn the right to deserve a straight application thereof. That is one reason I am out of that camp.
 
Well, you guys are right in that you have benefitted in a greater or lesser degrees than some of us more virulent critics. Your experinces are different and that's great. But some of us still deal on a daily basis with the broken people and broken lives that Scientology produces. You have the luxury of not knowing what some of us know.
If I may make an analogy. there are many people who might enjoy their comfortable shoes. But there are others who know that although the shoe does indeed bring comfort, it is made by children slaving away, and their lives are not pleasant. Their lives are thrown away. So you must understand that it can anger someone who is aware of the children slaving away whenever they hear of someone praising their comfortable shoes.
To clarify this analogy, the corruption of the Church, which you guys are admirably repulsed by, is, I think, the product of the technology itself. I have seen too many OTs scream at their employees, disconect from life-long friends for the most frivilous reasons (nothing to do with the Church), and raise their children as basically ophans, unguided and uneducated. In short, I see the same behavior in OTs that I hear about from Miscavige. I never saw Miscavige do these things but I am inclinded to believe the reports based on similar behavior I've seen from many, far too many, non-staff OTs. You can't expect one to wipe the slate clean becasue someone had a few wins.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:

Carmel

Crusader
Response to The Anabaptist Jacques

But some of us still deal on a daily basis with the broken people and broken lives that Scientology produces. You have the luxury of not knowing what some of us know.
You err in that assumption. I can't speak for the others, but I was a broken person, with a broken life - without a friend or someone that I could turn to for help, for the two years it took me to find some kind of resolve (ANZO is small, and there was no ESMB then). If it wasn't for my kids, I don't know how I would have survived that period. Since that time, I have helped many broken people with broken lives. You have no idea what I know, and what I have been subjected to.

You can't expect one to wipe the slate clean becasue someone had a few wins.
I suggest you re-read the posts. I can't see where anybody is suggesting that. That's something I certainly wouldn't consider doing.

I made my point in my post, so I won't repeat it. But I suggest to you, that you get the point regarding hitting the right target.
 
You err in that assumption. I can't speak for the others, but I was a broken person, with a broken life - without a friend or someone that I could turn to for help, for the two years it took me to find some kind of resolve (ANZO is small, and there was no ESMB then). If it wasn't for my kids, I don't know how I would have survived that period. Since that time, I have helped many broken people with broken lives. You have no idea what I know, and what I have been subjected to.


I suggest you re-read the posts. I can't see where anybody is suggesting that. That's something I certainly wouldn't consider doing.

I made my point in my post, so I won't repeat it. But I suggest to you, that you get the point regarding hitting the right target.

Chill out. I don't know why you seem hostile. I think I am allowed to make rhetorical statements. Other people can express their opinions and make points too.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Div6

Crusader
Well, you guys are right in that you have benefitted in a greater or lesser degrees than some of us more virulent critics. Your experinces are different and that's great. But some of us still deal on a daily basis with the broken people and broken lives that Scientology produces. You have the luxury of not knowing what some of us know.
If I may make an analogy. there are many people who might enjoy their comfortable shoes. But there are others who know that although the shoe does indeed bring comfort, it is made by children slaving away, and their lives are not pleasant. Their lives are thrown away. So you must understand that it can anger someone who is aware of the children slaving away whenever they hear of someone praising their comfortable shoes.
To clarify this analogy, the corruption of the Church, which you guys are admirably repulsed by, is, I think, the product of the technology itself. I have seen too many OTs scream at their employees, disconect from life-long friends for the most frivilous reasons (nothing to do with the Church), and raise their children as basically ophans, unguided and uneducated. In short, I see the same behavior in OTs that I hear about from Miscavige. I never saw Miscavige do these things but I am inclinded to believe the reports based on similar behavior I've seen from many, far too many, non-staff OTs. You can't expect one to wipe the slate clean becasue someone had a few wins.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Do you think we can handle the truth?

I think it should see the light of day at some point...even if it is "hypothetical".
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
That is, that so many of your comments, are so black and white, and so exclusive - no room for exception - the very thing I hated about the rampant "group think" within the CofS.

I agree. I had the same issue on a.r.s. and it's one reason I stopped reading eventually. I did get gains out of Scn. Not what was promised, and not in exchange for what I gave, but I got gains. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have stayed around.

Of course, what really stuck me, and stuck me deliberately, was the next thing on the grade chart. The purpose of the grade chart was to extract money, not provide a way for PCs to get their cases resolved. It was too cookie cutter to work on everyone (though it might work for many).

Naturally, I was left -- abandoned really -- in the middle of a major action that one shouldn't be left in the middle of.

I was going to write this up in another thread, but here's what I've come to understand over the years.

1) Creative processing can be useful to get a release. In the absence of something that'll cure you, that can be the next best thing. Creation of Human Ability is my Scn book of choice, but there's other styles of creative processing outside the Scn umbrella.

2) I don't buy the Xenu thing, but I recognize that there may well be GPM issues to solve on cases. Dunno.

3) For a long time, I thought DM was much worse than LRH. He doesn't seem to have LRH's charisma, but the worst of DM? Sure sounds like the "bad" LRH valence. If you don't believe me, look at Dart's stories about Corfu and filming of the overboarding on a regular basis.

4) I don't like it when Scns are called clams. It offends me. There's much better things to ridicule than HoM. (Unless you're ridiculing OT8, which HoM is a part of.)

5) Unfortunately, I was one of those who thought LRH really didn't want to get rich off of Scn, but he did. He worked hard at it. That seems to be the "in" valence of Scn right now as a whole. Because they're not in exchange, and because they're not training auditors and emphasizing co-auditing, they're in a death spiral.

So I see that Scn is very busy dramatizing LRH's case, and many of us are angry that we took on that valence and did things that violated our integrity -- or had that valence acted out upon us. I suspect mostly both.

Me? My greatest "sin" was acting out a bit too well. To anyone out there who was ever on the other end: I'm truly sorry.

~t
 
Do you think we can handle the truth?

I think it should see the light of day at some point...even if it is "hypothetical".

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I don't understand something here. Are you implying that everyone should have the same viewpoint and experience, or what?

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Do you think we can handle the truth?

I think it should see the light of day at some point...even if it is "hypothetical".

I always suspected you were Cruise. Hello, Tommy, you poor bastard.

Actually, looking at your wife I take it back.
 

Div6

Crusader
I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I don't understand something here. Are you implying that everyone should have the same viewpoint and experience, or what?

The Anabaptist Jacques

No, not at all. I am asking you to tell your story....what you have seen, what your experiences were...thats all.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Response to The Anabaptist Jaques

Sorry if I came across hostile. However, being told that I have a luxury that I certainly don't have and haven't had, hit a raw nerve.
Hey, if I was chilled out, I probably wouldn't be on the board (and today I'm not in the best of spirits anyway).
Cheers,
SNC
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Sorry if I came across hostile. However, being told that I have a luxury that I certainly don't have and haven't had, hit a raw nerve.
Hey, if I was chilled out, I probably wouldn't be on the board (and today I'm not in the best of spirits anyway).
Cheers,
SNC

I assume that you believe some of what you saw in the COS is true. I'm not attacking you, I'm wondering what it is that you believe.
 
Sorry if I came across hostile. However, being told that I have a luxury that I certainly don't have and haven't had, hit a raw nerve.
Hey, if I was chilled out, I probably wouldn't be on the board (and today I'm not in the best of spirits anyway).
Cheers,
SNC

No problem. And I'm sorry if I agitated you because that was not my intent. I thought your post was thought provoking. I just wanted to explain my view of why I am so hostile. I know I probably appear to be black and white in my views. I'm not actually. I'm really all black! (just kidding).
If I was away from Scientologist and people adversly affected by Scientology then I'm sure I would have a milder view. But I do deal now with helping those who are hurt. I try to do what I can.
As far as what I have seen, I've covered some things on many posts here, so I don't want to type out a shopping list of things right now.
The main point I wished to make though, is that I see the damage done by the Church as the result of the tech, not in spite of the tech. I don't know why people seem to think that the tech is not responsible for the bad things that people do. It seems people are only willing to attribute the VGI's and Wins to the tech, but are not willing to attribute the actions of those who have had VGIs or wins to the tech unless they are good actions. If a guy gets auditing and has wins and turns into a S.O.B. I think you have to consider that a result of the tech.
So I attributed the bad things which the Church does as a result of the tech. I see OTs who are not staff do the same thing in their everyday life. I can't say that their smiles are the result of the tech, but their other behavior is not. That is why I may appear black and white. Becasue to me the bad results are from the tech too.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Carmel

Crusader
Response to nexus 100

I assume that you believe some of what you saw in the COS is true. I'm not attacking you, I'm wondering what it is that you believe.
Sorry for my tardy response to your earlier post (there are four people here using two computers). Besides that, your avatar is a bit hairy and scary to me and I wasn't sure whether I'd be in for a battle or not :wink2:

I consider hardly any of what I "saw" in the CofS to be true (exception maybe what we had in our area in 80/81. I was new and in a good org then, with a couple of very sane "leaders", in both the tech and admin areas.
I studied a lot of tech and admin, including many tapes, from the beginning till around 86.

I found truths that I could use in all of the tech that I studied. In saying that, I didn't accept all of it blindly, and rightly or wrongly I discarded bits here and there, when I considered it to be LRH's opinion (as he said to do), and when it was in conflict with all the basic tech on that particular subject. There was a point around 82, when we started getting bulletins that were in direct conflict with another. We had to work out what was what, andwhat was "source" . I always had my own interpretation of stuff, and more often than not, could find some tech or tape reference to back up that interpretation.

I've used and applied all the tech to a larger or lesser degree. That which I found useful and applicable, I forwarded and encouraged others to use. Sadly though, most on posts (tech and admin), knew only a smigen of the tech or policy, and with the usual altered importance or twisted version of much (so often bandied around orgs), it was hard to get the concept/tech on the whole subject across.

A specific - o/w tech is a very useful tech. It has been altered and twisted within orgs and by execs, to now conveniently mean something entirely different than that which it is all about. o/w tech is a very useful tech. The twisted version/verbal version however, is nasty stuff, and could do nothing but make one wrong or be used to dominate/nullify. The amount of tech on the stuff is huge. I love it. What people think this tech is, I detest. What has become the o/w tech in practice within orgs, is nowhere near the tech on the subject.

Feel free to pm me, if you want more data.

Cheers,
SNC
 

duddins

Patron Meritorious
No problem. And I'm sorry if I agitated you because that was not my intent. I thought your post was thought provoking. I just wanted to explain my view of why I am so hostile. I know I probably appear to be black and white in my views. I'm not actually. I'm really all black! (just kidding).
If I was away from Scientologist and people adversly affected by Scientology then I'm sure I would have a milder view. But I do deal now with helping those who are hurt. I try to do what I can.
As far as what I have seen, I've covered some things on many posts here, so I don't want to type out a shopping list of things right now.
The main point I wished to make though, is that I see the damage done by the Church as the result of the tech, not in spite of the tech. I don't know why people seem to think that the tech is not responsible for the bad things that people do. It seems people are only willing to attribute the VGI's and Wins to the tech, but are not willing to attribute the actions of those who have had VGIs or wins to the tech unless they are good actions. If a guy gets auditing and has wins and turns into a S.O.B. I think you have to consider that a result of the tech.
So I attributed the bad things which the Church does as a result of the tech. I see OTs who are not staff do the same thing in their everyday life. I can say that their smiles are the result of the tech, but their other behavior is not. That is why I may appear black and white. Becasue to me the bad results are from the tech too.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Hi.

I think I may share a similar view to your own.

Throughout my years in the Sea Org and Scientology I saw people who had joined transform. It started out like....."well I want to do something to save the world.....help out. "

People seemed well enough intentioned in the beginning. Realize, I started out with people like Mike Sutter and Jesse Prince. From beginning to end, these people were transformed. So was I.

As the years passed I began to see around me many individuals become entirely wrapped up in themselves. Self driven. Scientology seemed a spawning ground for characteristics that I would say were not the best of a person, but the worst of them.

How do I say it in a different way?.....Well when you are wrapped up in a relationship with a person that brings out the worst in you....the best in you diminishes, and the worst character traits, the negative, start manifesting more and more.

That is my experience on the 3rd dynamic with regards to the tech. I saw the worst of people manifesting and the best in them dying slowly until they were hardly recognizable.

In my 10 years in, I never saw one person become a better person as a result of it.

I see it as a downward spiral. A trap.

I believe that spiritual gain comes from leaving one's self behind.....becoming part of the bigger picture. Scientology tech revolves around self serving desires.

You can see it in Tom Cruise. Obsessed with is goal to gain superpowers...
OT abilities. We have been watching his transformation through the years, just as I saw it in so many friends.

I suppose that is why I am one of those posters that despises the idea of Scientology tech. No offense to anyone, but that is how I feel about it.
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Sorry for my tardy response to your earlier post (there are four people here using two computers). Besides that, your avatar is a bit hairy and scary to me and I wasn't sure whether I'd be in for a battle or not :wink2:

I consider hardly any of what I "saw" in the CofS to be true (exception maybe what we had in our area in 80/81. I was new and in a good org then, with a couple of very sane "leaders", in both the tech and admin areas.
I studied a lot of tech and admin, including many tapes, from the beginning till around 86.

I found truths that I could use in all of the tech that I studied. In saying that, I didn't accept all of it blindly, and rightly or wrongly I discarded bits here and there, when I considered it to be LRH's opinion (as he said to do), and when it was in conflict with all the basic tech on that particular subject. There was a point around 82, when we started getting bulletins that were in direct conflict with another. We had to work out what was what, andwhat was "source" . I always had my own interpretation of stuff, and more often than not, could find some tech or tape reference to back up that interpretation.

I've used and applied all the tech to a larger or lesser degree. That which I found useful and applicable, I forwarded and encouraged others to use. Sadly though, most on posts (tech and admin), knew only a smigen of the tech or policy, and with the usual altered importance or twisted version of much (so often bandied around orgs), it was hard to get the concept/tech on the whole subject across.

A specific - o/w tech is a very useful tech. It has been altered and twisted within orgs and by execs, to now conveniently mean something entirely different than that which it is all about. o/w tech is a very useful tech. The twisted version/verbal version however, is nasty stuff, and could do nothing but make one wrong or be used to dominate/nullify. The amount of tech on the stuff is huge. I love it. What people think this tech is, I detest. What has become the o/w tech in practice within orgs, is nowhere near the tech on the subject.

Feel free to pm me, if you want more data.

Cheers,
SNC

Thank you! I appreciate your response and willingness to fire against the siege in light of what you see as true and useful. I have fairly recently discarded most of COS tech in looking at things in a different light. But part of that is realizing we all had better be true to what we know, with the provision to search for greater truths. As we damn well please.
 
Hi.

I think I may share a similar view to your own.

Throughout my years in the Sea Org and Scientology I saw people who had joined transform. It started out like....."well I want to do something to save the world.....help out. "

People seemed well enough intentioned in the beginning. Realize, I started out with people like Mike Sutter and Jesse Prince. From beginning to end, these people were transformed. So was I.

As the years passed I began to see around me many individuals become entirely wrapped up in themselves. Self driven. Scientology seemed a spawning ground for characteristics that I would say were not the best of a person, but the worst of them.

How do I say it in a different way?.....Well when you are wrapped up in a relationship with a person that brings out the worst in you....the best in you diminishes, and the worst character traits, the negative, start manifesting more and more.

That is my experience on the 3rd dynamic with regards to the tech. I saw the worst of people manifesting and the best in them dying slowly until they were hardly recognizable.

In my 10 years in, I never saw one person become a better person as a result of it.

I see it as a downward spiral. A trap.

I believe that spiritual gain comes from leaving one's self behind.....becoming part of the bigger picture. Scientology tech revolves around self serving desires.

You can see it in Tom Cruise. Obsessed with is goal to gain superpowers...
OT abilities. We have been watching his transformation through the years, just as I saw it in so many friends.

I suppose that is why I am one of those posters that despises the idea of Scientology tech. No offense to anyone, but that is how I feel about it.

Amen brother! You said it better than me. And I would like to point out that the people at the top do avail themselves of the tech and auditing. And they create the kind of enviroment that Duddins pointed out. I see this in non-staff OTs also: exploitation and invalidation of others, while being self-serving and elitist. Sure there are people never exposed to Scientology who are like this. But when you see good people turn into bastards like this, and THEY attribute the tech themselves as changing them...well...I rest my case.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Top