Always training, never graduating?


Bitter defrocked apostate
In a recent thread, TAJ suggests that perhaps we've slipped into ridiculing Scientology instead of discussing it in a way that a Scientologist could engage with.
I think most of the arugments against Scientology on this board would not win a debate.

Most of the arguments against Scientology seem to me to be just "ought not" statements or insults.
. . .

You know what? I think that's true. While I can't promise to cease and desist all J&D, I'm going to make an effort to debate more.

Always training, never graduating?

Something I have been pondering recently is the fact that as a Scientologist, the studying never ends. Studying is generally associated with the idea that there will be a benefit, later. You go to school, college, university... and you acquire skills that you can use in a career. You graduate, and set out on a new path.

In Scientology, not so much. There's always another course, or some MUs to clear up, or some 'repair', and perhaps a new set of study materials.

When does one ever truly move on? Because school is something that you leave. Hopefully with happy memories and useful skills... but you move on. "When I was a child, I thought as a child..." but you develop, and the system recognises that development and lets you go. Now, either every other educational system in the world is wrong, and LRH got it right... or it's natural to let people leave school.

Certainly, there is such a thing as continuing professional development (CPD), but that is something done by professionals - which is to say, people who have left full-time education, and got a career. Is being a Scientologist a profession, such that the study of Scn is a form of CPD? No. Being on staff in an org is not a profession. Many people are persuaded to join staff on the basis that it is a 'job'... but recent legal developments have shown that Scientology expects these people to think of themselves as 'volunteers'. Equally, the pay, conditions and prospects all give the lie to the idea that being a front-line staffer is a profession. Is being in the Sea Org a profession? No: Scientology's paramilitary can be considered in this regard to be like military service. The key point here being service: soldiers, sailors and airmen serve for a time, and then move on to civilian careers. It's possible that being a high-ranking Scientologist could be considered a profession in terms of the rewards obtained... but people who start their employment by handing over an undated letter of resignation are hardly embarking upon a career, are they? So, I maintain that working for the Church of Scientology isn't a career or profession. The study of Scientology while in-post is therefore not CPD.

Studying Scientology increasingly appears to put one on a training course without an endpoint. No graduation... and no clear career afterwards. At least, no career that is more difficult for a non-Scientologist.

If one is always studying, where's the payoff? Here, we are helped by the success stories that Scientologists have been induced to write. (You may recall such bizarre ones as the person who claimed to have breathed life back into a dead pigeon.) Highly subjective, of course... but most significantly it doesn't mark the crowning achievement of the Scientology graduate: because nobody graduates. At least, nobody stays graduated. They're always reeled back in for some more study.

Of course, one can get a payoff in the middle of one's education. I was taught how to use a word processor in college, for example. You don't have to wait until the day of graduation and suddenly discover that you can type. Learning is a natural and continuing process. Also, "Cease not to learn until you have ceased to live."

Still, every other educational system that I can think of lets go. It is intended from the get-go that the learner will leave someday. School finishes when children reach adulthood. University finishes after typically three to six years. Even architects, doctors and lawyers can get their formal qualifications by the age of twenty-five or so. Sure, they continue with a system of lifelong learning... but their educational system has let them go.

Scientology, regardless of how we feel about the scientific rigor of the material contained (that's the subject for a whole set of other debates)... doesn't seem able to let a person complete the course, and move on. Neither does it recognise that different people will need and want different services. Some people choose to study to a high level, while others choose a different track, and hit the job market earlier. Schools facilitate both these paths, and graduates of both kinds leave with good wishes. Scientology... not so much.

As a training system, regardless of the quality of the training that is delivered, this failure to produce graduates is enough to attract suspicion all by itself. Because an educational system that offers a course you can't finish isn't a school at all; it's a treadmill.

IMHO, of course.



As a training system, regardless of the quality of the training that is delivered, this failure to produce graduates is enough to attract suspicion all by itself. Because an educational system that offers a course you can't finish isn't a school at all; it's a treadmill.

IMHO, of course.


These two images succinctly explain to a LARGE degree WHAT Scientology REALLY IS, and what could take many chapters of a book to explain in words and ideas:



Meditate on each moving gif. Do this for some many hours. When you "cognite", write an essay on 1) How Scientology functions as a treadmill, or hamster wheel, and 2) Why I never get anywhere despite investing incredible amounts of time, money and energy into Scientology.

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
I'm just going to bump this thread and return to reading my recently acquired copy of High School Rules for Debating.

I wouldn't want to offend the board nannies.


Very good posting. Thank you for your thoughtful entry.

I see that this is another place where Hoaxie's "Hubbard Law of Commotion" comes into play. :)

The basic, of course, is that it's a money making scheme and has only its die hard adherents available to bilk for funds. Therefore, it must continue to repackage, find "lost tech", discover heretofore unknown LRH lectures, advices, etc., cancel arbitraries, find reasons for people to retrain, do new pilots, find breakthroughs, yada, yada, yada

So people don't get a big whiff of the actual truth, common words (that we can all relate to) are used. For example, you can get a training scholarship. This reminds us of university.

The truth is that it's an abusive cult masquerading as a religion that then masquerades as a school so we feel like we're really doing something to improve our lot in life. Obfuscation.

Even auditors can't really train and then put up a shingle as they are constantly harassed by their central orgs who are being told to do so from "uplines". Field auditors and missions are constantly unmocked. As soon as a viable feeder unit to the org is created, that goose gets slaughtered and poof, no more eggs.

The organization is very cannibalistic. I am so surprised the attrition is taking so damned long. Scientologists are very stoic in their ability to put up with utter BS year after year.

You made a good point with the staff, too. Nothing can end and you can never be let go of and, again, the typical Scientology bait and switch is used. You sign a 2 1/2 or 5 year contract but then are really expected to keep signing contract after contract and must go through absolute "hell" just to be done with a single contract.

When the contract is up, you don't get a hug or a handshake and a thank you for giving of your time for almost no pay. No, you get sec checked (supposedly for your own good), have to replace yourself (which is almost impossible) and are then treated as a traitor as you are never really allowed to go back to acting as a public again. You're forever the staff member that "left the group".

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

Seneca (Roman philosopher, mid-1st century AD)