Petey C
Silver Meritorious Patron
The argument has been made to me personally and on these pages that some people, ok, many people, have had "wins" from Scientology = evidence that it works. I'm not arguing about people having wins; I'm arguing that just because someone has a win doesn't mean it works, nor does it work consistently for all people across all its various training and auditing programs.
I'll take the bog standard definition of "win" -- basically, various forms of getting and gaining through action, labour, effort, sometimes overcoming competition or difficulty.
First, my confession. Yes, I have had "wins" in Scientology, perhaps because of Scientology but certainly while I was In. The first was the Comm Course when I finished TR0, and the second was in Life Repair. There were various other epiphanies that came to me, sometimes because of some form of struggle and sometimes serendipitously. I never had that much auditing apart from endless Dianetics in the form of an eternal Drug Rundown. I swear I took as long doing the DRD (actually, having it done to me) as I had spent taking various sorts of recreational drugs. The drugs were much more fun.
But I also have had wins through gradually coming of age (finally), from reading fiction and non-fiction, through finishing my university degree which I started at the age of 40, through a good marriage, from working at interesting and useful jobs, through psychological counselling at different points in my life, from Pilates, from ... you name it. Mostly I have had major "wins" from interacting with people -- friends and family, colleagues, and many of you here whose stories have resonated with me. There's something about an intense, focused, communication with another that is deeply therapeutic. There's also something about light, friendly, sociable exchanges that is also very healing and pleasing.
The unanswerable question is, if we had never been in Scientology, would we have had wins like those we had in Scientology? I can only guess, but I'm guessing that we would have. Perhaps we wouldn't have had those wins that go, "OMG, I was Cleopatra in a past life which explains why I have a big nose and hate asps and love goat's milk baths and really go for guys called Mark". But I think at some point, as people grow they generally acquire self-awareness and insight as they become more experienced in the world. We aren't so dewy-eyed and have fewer illusions, perhaps more patience and tolerance.
Getting a "win" from Scientology is not proof that it "works" any more than getting a "win" out of playing a musical instrument is proof that it works. What is working, it seems to me, is human capacity. It's doing what it should -- it's learning, developing and expanding.
I compare myself to my peers who were never in Scientology. Despite eight years of Scientology and SO, I don't think I have any kind of edge in terms of awareness, mental abilities, psychic power, ability. I'm about the same as everyone else I know. Their wins were obviously as good as mine were, though they were never In.
Scientology doesn't, can't, produce super-beings. Name one Scientologist who has changed the direction of the world in the 20th century. Name one who has made some crucial discovery or advanced our knowledge in some significant way. No dogma or religion creates such people; they create themselves.
I don't think Hubbard qualifies as a super-being regardless of what he wrought through Scn and the SO. He didn't change the direction of the world the way Gutenberg did, nor the way the inventor of the first industrial-age machine did, or the person who first invented the wheel. His impact really was no more than other small-time gurus such as Rajneesh or Mary Baker Eddy. There's no crucial discovery made by Hubbard that has been of major significance to the world.
So does a win mean Scientology works?
Well, it works in the sense that it produces people who think they are powerful and capable and almighty, but Scientology as a whole has had no really noticeable impact on the world so I have to think those people are a bit deluded in what they can do. They've been clearing the planet for decades now, and no observable result yet ...
My conclusion is, nahhhh ... it doesn't.
I'll take the bog standard definition of "win" -- basically, various forms of getting and gaining through action, labour, effort, sometimes overcoming competition or difficulty.
First, my confession. Yes, I have had "wins" in Scientology, perhaps because of Scientology but certainly while I was In. The first was the Comm Course when I finished TR0, and the second was in Life Repair. There were various other epiphanies that came to me, sometimes because of some form of struggle and sometimes serendipitously. I never had that much auditing apart from endless Dianetics in the form of an eternal Drug Rundown. I swear I took as long doing the DRD (actually, having it done to me) as I had spent taking various sorts of recreational drugs. The drugs were much more fun.
But I also have had wins through gradually coming of age (finally), from reading fiction and non-fiction, through finishing my university degree which I started at the age of 40, through a good marriage, from working at interesting and useful jobs, through psychological counselling at different points in my life, from Pilates, from ... you name it. Mostly I have had major "wins" from interacting with people -- friends and family, colleagues, and many of you here whose stories have resonated with me. There's something about an intense, focused, communication with another that is deeply therapeutic. There's also something about light, friendly, sociable exchanges that is also very healing and pleasing.
The unanswerable question is, if we had never been in Scientology, would we have had wins like those we had in Scientology? I can only guess, but I'm guessing that we would have. Perhaps we wouldn't have had those wins that go, "OMG, I was Cleopatra in a past life which explains why I have a big nose and hate asps and love goat's milk baths and really go for guys called Mark". But I think at some point, as people grow they generally acquire self-awareness and insight as they become more experienced in the world. We aren't so dewy-eyed and have fewer illusions, perhaps more patience and tolerance.
Getting a "win" from Scientology is not proof that it "works" any more than getting a "win" out of playing a musical instrument is proof that it works. What is working, it seems to me, is human capacity. It's doing what it should -- it's learning, developing and expanding.
I compare myself to my peers who were never in Scientology. Despite eight years of Scientology and SO, I don't think I have any kind of edge in terms of awareness, mental abilities, psychic power, ability. I'm about the same as everyone else I know. Their wins were obviously as good as mine were, though they were never In.
Scientology doesn't, can't, produce super-beings. Name one Scientologist who has changed the direction of the world in the 20th century. Name one who has made some crucial discovery or advanced our knowledge in some significant way. No dogma or religion creates such people; they create themselves.
I don't think Hubbard qualifies as a super-being regardless of what he wrought through Scn and the SO. He didn't change the direction of the world the way Gutenberg did, nor the way the inventor of the first industrial-age machine did, or the person who first invented the wheel. His impact really was no more than other small-time gurus such as Rajneesh or Mary Baker Eddy. There's no crucial discovery made by Hubbard that has been of major significance to the world.
So does a win mean Scientology works?
Well, it works in the sense that it produces people who think they are powerful and capable and almighty, but Scientology as a whole has had no really noticeable impact on the world so I have to think those people are a bit deluded in what they can do. They've been clearing the planet for decades now, and no observable result yet ...
My conclusion is, nahhhh ... it doesn't.