EXCUSE-OLOGY: Why didn't the tech work?

Osiris

Patron with Honors
When-ever I made the slightest suggestion that The tech didn't work

The main Excuse I herd was:

"I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice)

but...but...I want to see that Scientology works....(I said)

the reply, still was, "I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice....getting angry now)

which they then repeated again "I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice....& daring me to say that Scientology tech didn't work again....)

The Feeling I then got, was that I had better be quiet or I would be sent to ethics, for saying the tech didn't work :omg:
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
When-ever I made the slightest suggestion that The tech didn't work

The main Excuse I herd was:

"I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice)

but...but...I want to see that Scientology works....(I said)

the reply, still was, "I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice....getting angry now)

which they then repeated again "I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice....& daring me to say that Scientology tech didn't work again....)

The Feeling I then got, was that I had better be quiet or I would be sent to ethics, for saying the tech didn't work :omg:

Ah, but the tech was working as evidenced by the fact that you were still paying.

Pete
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
That's interesting.

I wonder how Scientology compares to the 7 Deadly Sins?

1268907542_3.jpg

Hieronymus Bosch (ca 1500)

In the case of Scientology, quite ironically, the 7 Deadly Sins are also referred to as the 7 Capital Vices. Let the reader decide which definition of Capital applies. LOL.

How would the elite leaders of Scientology fare against this list? I have a feeling that L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavich, Tom Cruise and other enlightened OT's will not be sending in their surveys. Maybe we can help answer for them.


Pride: Would Ron over-populating the world's Scientology centers with his own unused personal office, bronze bust and ever-present self-photographs be a clue? How about Tom Cruise's "I know the history of psychiatry, you don't!"?

Envy: How about Hubbard's envy of spectacularly successful mission holders and stealing their cash and clients? How about COB redirecting cult member's adulation of Hubbard to himself and imposing his own photographs, tech breakthroughs and requisite standing ovations?

Gluttony: The corpulence doeth speakly loudly in Hubbard's [STRIKE]obesity[/STRIKE] OTsity.

Lust: How about Hubbard's creepy, sleazy sexual affirmations? And maybe there is a reason why COB doesn't get auditing or have any pc folders with personal information.

Anger: Does imprisoning people in chain lockers or double wide "hole" trailers, terrorizing and beating them count?

Greed: If there was ever a "Road to Infinity" in Scientology, it would be the leaders' insatiable desire for Infinite wealth and power.

Sloth: Would conning people out of billions with fraudulent claims of attaining "OT" be an example of not working for a living?​


Ummm...this is not looking good for the Religion of Scientology and its spiritual masters.

Lust ... following the principle of "you never get to have it all" ... with, in Godfather III, Santino's bastard son having to give up shtupping Don Corleone's daughter, his first cousin, if he was going to become the new Don ... it seems, from all the reports from the inside, that DM is far more interested in money and power than women. There are a zillion and one also-ran cults that never gain nearly as much money and power as the Cof$ that are run by cult guru's who are more interested in access to sex with a lot of different women ... where the money and power are puny by comparison, and just a means of, say, shtupping a few dozen different chicks within the same narrow time frame, getting them all preggers, and raising a small army of sons and daughters, as in having 60 or 70 or so offspring. DM doesn't even have any children, right? What an asshole.

I was a big fan of this show on the History Channel, "Ice Road Truckers" for about 4 years before I finally lost interest. There was the challenge of "the dash for the cash" as these truckers competed for the top load count, hauling over the iceroads in the frozen north ... roads that were good only as long as the sub zero arctic weather held out in winter months ... having to get a year's worth of logistical support done for mining/drilling operations in the frozen north done in 60 days or less ... the cost of failure being a seven fold or more increase in the price of resupply via flying everything in after iceroads dissapear, and there are items that simply are too large to be flown in. Way kewl show, nothing to do with the topic here, I know ... except for this one ice road trucker, a devout Catholic, with 11 children, some of whom were younger than his oldest grand children.

I have to admire a guy like that ... 11 kids. What a life, what a purpose for living ... true riches to have that large a family ... lots of love. I have my differences with Catholic doctrine, for sure, but, from what was shown on the show, this fellow was a noble individual and a true believer and a great family man. And here is where I bring it back to the topic ... 11 children by one woman? She deserves a medal as well. Most women would be totally done after 4, which would be considered a huge family by today's standards. So, if a guy wanted 11 or more children, it is at least understandable why he might want multiple wives. Back to the cult trip ... so, a guy who starts a cult ... perhaps with all manner of warped nutzoid beliefs, for sure ... it is at least understandable why he would want to shtup a few dozen women and have kids by all of them ... 20, 30 or more children. It's way kewl being a dad, I only have my one son, graduating college soon. We were best of buddies when he was growing up. I feel cheated and stupid for not having a large family. I say all of that to say that it is at least understandable regarding the motivations of some cult guru's. BUT ...

What I don't get is the drive to make billions and not have any children and not even be particularly interested in shtupping dozens of women, at least going thru the motions if not creating your own army of sons and daughters. What does DM have? One wife locked up and he is shtupping his secretary, who is not even particularly young and good looking anymore nor does he have any kids by either. I simply don't get the motivation.

Pete
 

Gadfly

Crusader
When-ever I made the slightest suggestion that The tech didn't work

The main Excuse I herd was:

"I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice)

but...but...I want to see that Scientology works....(I said)

the reply, still was, "I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice....getting angry now)

which they then repeated again "I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice....& daring me to say that Scientology tech didn't work again....)

The Feeling I then got, was that I had better be quiet or I would be sent to ethics, for saying the tech didn't work :omg:

Yeah, that was just another of the many contadictions of Scientology.

When you first come in you are hit with the statement, "you don't have to believe anything, all you have to do is TRY IT, and see that it works".

I mean isn't that "proof"? Hubbard tells you that if you just TRY IT, that you will be able to have great positive results - which will PROVE that his statement is true.

Of course, that statement is part of the LURE and a key aspect of the bait 'n switch.

You are told that you do NOT "have to believe anything", but then as soon as you are sufficiently involved in the mindfuck, you get slammed if you want to "see real living evidence that it works". You get hit with the "other" Hubbard datum about "all proof being ridiculous" because "a thetan postulates ANY reality".

Of course, the simple easily observable truth is that Scientologists MUST believe a great many unverifiable ideas and made-up facts to remain a card-carrying Scientologist.

Hubbard's Law of Commotion at work. For every Scientology datum one can find there is at least one entirely opposite and contradictory Scientology datum (thanks Hoaxie). It is almost as if Hubbard knew about the condition known as cognitive dissonance, and he put his subject together to ensure that the greatest amount of cognitive dissonance would ensue. Whether he designed it that way intentionally or not, there is no doubt that the subject and practices of Scientology act to bring about "contrary mental content" in MANY regards. :ohmy: :yes:

Forcing people to exist with various mental contradictions traps them into a very strange place.
 

phénix

Patron with Honors
How can OT's leave scientology? They're out of the OT3 trap stuff, and OT8's have no more reactive mind....


Once I was on a mission to get people back into scientology, in Austria.
So I ended up talking on the phone to some former OT8 I think, who told me she had found something better than scientology...
That "enturbulated " me, meaning it was stressfull and scary coz it was shaking what I believed then...I talked about it to the other missionaire, himself OT8, he explained it with the MU's stuff.....
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Yeah, that was just another of the many contadictions of Scientology.

When you first come in you are hit with the statement, "you don't have to believe anything, all you have to do is TRY IT, and see that it works".

I mean isn't that "proof"? Hubbard tells you that if you just TRY IT, that you will be able to have great positive results - which will PROVE that his statement is true.

Of course, that statement is part of the LURE and a key aspect of the bait 'n switch.

You are told that you do NOT "have to believe anything", but then as soon as you are sufficiently involved in the mindfuck, you get slammed if you want to "see real living evidence that it works". You get hit with the "other" Hubbard datum about "all proof being ridiculous" because "a thetan postulates ANY reality".

Of course, the simple easily observable truth is that Scientologists MUST believe a great many unverifiable ideas and made-up facts to remain a card-carrying Scientologist.

Hubbard's Law of Commotion at work. For every Scientology datum one can find there is at least one entirely opposite and contradictory Scientology datum (thanks Hoaxie). It is almost as if Hubbard knew about the condition known as cognitive dissonance, and he put his subject together to ensure that the greatest amount of cognitive dissonance would ensue. Whether he designed it that way intentionally or not, there is no doubt that the subject and practices of Scientology act to bring about "contrary mental content" in MANY regards. :ohmy: :yes:

Forcing people to exist with various mental contradictions traps them into a very strange place.


Terrific post.

Warning: This post might end up being (as they say in Boston) wicked-long & rambling.

You raise a fascinating question--whether or not Hubbard intentionally designed Scientology with as much contradiction and dissonance as possible. This seems, on its face, to be a ludicrous and nonsensically counter-intuitive strategy. But is it?

There is a 1956 book I haven't yet finished reading, called WHEN PROPHECY FAILS. It contains some extremely fascinating information about cults and their beliefs, particularly when their view of the world comes crashing down when their "reality" is shattered by real-life events that entirely disprove their core beliefs. The classic example of this a doomsday prediction about the "end of the world" that doesn't happen when the fatefully predicted date come and goes without incident.

Much as Hoffer's brilliant work about cults (THE TRUE BELIEVER) around the same time, this masterwork explains why a failure of the cult's "tech" to work, often results in cult members having even stronger beliefs in the now thoroughly disgraced, debunked & foolishly disproven "knowingness".

In other words, as much as it defies common sense, Scientologists' dedication to the failing technology may be in large part due to the fact that it fails!

Wikipedia has an excellent article on that book, which I will cut and paste into this post for those who don't want to read the entire book. There is even a bizarre connection that book has to L. Ron Hubbard:

When Prophecy Fails is a 1956 classic book in social psychology by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter about a UFO religion that believes the end of the world is at hand.

Cognitive dissonance
Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance can account for the psychological consequences of disconfirmed expectations. One of the first published cases of dissonance was reported in the book, When Prophecy Fails (Festinger et al. 1956). Festinger and his associates read an interesting item in their local newspaper headlined "Prophecy from planet Clarion call to city: flee that flood." A housewife from Chicago (changed to "Michigan" in the book), given the name "Marian Keech" (real name: Dorothy Martin (1900–1992), later known as Sister Thedra[1]), had mysteriously been given messages in her house in the form of "automatic writing" from alien beings on the planet Clarion. These messages revealed that the world would end in a great flood before dawn on December 21, 1954. Mrs. Keech had previously been involved with L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics movement, and her cult incorporated ideas from what was to become Scientology.[2] The group of believers, headed by Keech, had taken strong behavioral steps to indicate their degree of commitment to the belief. They had left jobs, college, and spouses, and had given away money and possessions to prepare for their departure on the flying saucer, which was to rescue the group of true believers.

I just decided to break this up into several parts to, hopefully, make it easier to lay out, read and digest.

END OF PART I: To be continued.....: Next will be some rather provocatively revealing explanation of why Scientologists are obsessed with "expansion", bragging about the (delusional) number of Scientologists worldwide and being bizarrely consumed by bogus donation scams to boom their stats.
 
Last edited:

GreyLensman

Silver Meritorious Patron
When-ever I made the slightest suggestion that The tech didn't work

The main Excuse I herd was:

"I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice)

but...but...I want to see that Scientology works....(I said)

the reply, still was, "I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice....getting angry now)

which they then repeated again "I don't have to prove that Scientology works" (in a self-rightness defiant voice....& daring me to say that Scientology tech didn't work again....)

The Feeling I then got, was that I had better be quiet or I would be sent to ethics, for saying the tech didn't work :omg:

That's because if you didn't shut up you would have been sent to ethics to be handled for saying the tech didn't work for you.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...

PART II: WHEN PROPHECY FAILS

So, how exactly did Hubbard's "scientific" cult turn into a "philosophical" cult, then a "religious" cult and now a fanatical cult of Expansion & Donation?

The answer, lies in the failure of Hubbard's tech to work at all, even in a minimally observable fashion. The more it fails to work, the more Scientologists require a justification for its failure and a way to "feel good about themselves" and carry on.

Here are the ones with the "dedicated glare", including the Marty Rathbuns of the world, both in and out of the Church of Scientology.

Festinger and his colleagues saw this as a case that would lead to the arousal of dissonance when the prophecy failed. Altering the belief would be difficult, as Keech and her group were committed at considerable expense to maintain it. Another option would be to enlist social support for their belief. As Festinger wrote, "If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must after all be correct." In this case, if Keech could add consonant elements by converting others to the basic premise, then the magnitude of her dissonance following disconfirmation would be reduced. Festinger and his colleagues predicted that the inevitable disconfirmation would be followed by an enthusiastic effort at proselytizing to seek social support and lessen the pain of disconfirmation.​



This explains why Scientologists are so obsessed with "handling" others with the vaunted tech and "getting them on the Bridge" or getting everyone "up the Bridge". It relieves their own painful (dissonant) discomfort with the mounting avalanche of evidence that their precious technology is fully impotent.


END OF PART II: To be continued
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
..

PART III: WHEN PROPHECY FAILS


What does it take to produce a KSW Zombie that keeps on clearing the planet, long after any shred of doubt vanishes that Scientology never even made the first Clear?

Festinger stated that five conditions must be present, if someone is to become a more fervent believer after a failure or disconfirmation:

A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he behaves.

The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief.

The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.

Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.

The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselytize or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.​


END OF PART III: To be continued. . .
 

Osiris

Patron with Honors
Indeed It is A complete Mind Fuck when someone is deep into it...

The person has to justify to himself/herself why he/she is giving them many thousands of Dollars & many thousands of hours of "free time (or else admit to oneself that you have been an idiot)

Together with all the LRH References for which there is an equal & opposite reference

Together with the hypnotic effect, when you give away your free will to think for yourself (& trust them) ....even though you know its wrong, in the back of your mind

Coupled with the Ethics Actions & Punishment Deterant, if you dare to think otherwise....

Indeed it is the Complete Mind Fuck....& I wonder too, if LRH knew it was a Complete Mind Fuck when he created it ...
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
Terrific post.

Warning: This post might end up being (as they say in Boston) wicked-long & rambling.

You raise a fascinating question--whether or not Hubbard intentionally designed Scientology with as much contradiction and dissonance as possible. This seems, on its face, to be a ludicrous and nonsensically counter-intuitive strategy. But is it?

There is a 1956 book I haven't yet finished reading, called WHEN PROPHECY FAILS. It contains some extremely fascinating information about cults and their beliefs, particularly when their view of the world comes crashing down when their "reality" is shattered by real-life events that entirely disprove their core beliefs. The classic example of this a doomsday prediction about the "end of the world" that doesn't happen when the fatefully predicted date come and goes without incident.

Much as Hoffer's brilliant work about cults (THE TRUE BELIEVER) around the same time, this masterwork explains why a failure of the cult's "tech" to work, often results in cult members having even stronger beliefs in the now thoroughly disgraced, debunked & foolishly disproven "knowingness".

In other words, as much as it defies common sense, Scientologists' dedication to the failing technology may be in large part due to the fact that it fails!

Wikipedia has an excellent article on that book, which I will cut and paste into this post for those who don't want to read the entire book. There is even a bizarre connection that book has to L. Ron Hubbard:



I just decided to break this up into several parts to, hopefully, make it easier to lay out, read and digest.

END OF PART I: To be continued.....: Next will be some rather provocatively revealing explanation of why Scientologists are obsessed with "expansion", bragging about the (delusional) number of Scientologists worldwide and being bizarrely consumed by bogus donation scams to boom their stats.

HH,

Goodness, you must be a hell of a lot smarter than I am if this is a casual Sunday afternoon read.

Aye-aye-aye!!!

Left me scrambling for meanings to assign to what was being said. I actually had to think! And that sucks! For a lazy thinker like me.

When I left Scientology, I had read a lot about it being a cult. I'd scanned some of the analysis that proved it was a cult. But, as a lazy thinker, I just lumped it all into the category of "cult thinking is dumb," and moved on.

It's so convenient to use lump-sum thinking and live off the interest.

I would offer that this "cult" thinking runs deeper, and seeps into more aspects of one's life. Such as having a cheating spouse. Or holding a political position. Or being part of any religion. Or even being a scientist.

We invest our thoughts into some endeavor, hoping to give life meaning. We bank all this trust in some instrument by which we hope to receive a return. And then we go on hoping and hoping and hoping, dismissing contrary evidence because our life would become unsettled.

It's not just cult thinking, but everyday-life thinking that has become so focused and concentrated that no other information comes through.

I guess what I'm saying is that though holding ideas is important in life, one should always be able to look beyond them to new information--even when that information disproves what we hold dear. Because when we fail to do that, we're setting ourselves up for failures.
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
As for Hubbard planning the cognitive dissonance (not the educational variety or definition but the type which leaves one confused and liable to receiving any idea which will settle the discord) I've heard the explanation, "Look at the second postulate. Nothing persists without a lie that masks the first postulate. To get persistence, you have to alter the first postulate. For LRH to get Scientology to persist, he had to alter-is a lot of things to bring about the continuation. You know, set it up as a problem. Contrary positions and flows working against each other. It's going to take a long time to handle this universe, so you had to..."

Well, okay. Great idea, but stupid, because you can have benevolent and enjoyable problems. Or you can have malevolent and destructive problems. So, why set it up to be so destructive? Why ruin lives to save lives?

Not everything that persists has to be troublesome.
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
Gadfly,

You use "Law of Commotion," but I'm at a loss. What does it mean? Where did the idea come from? I did a brief search but couldn't find an answer, and I'm time challenged, so I'll just be humble and ask.

Michael
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
HH,

Goodness, you must be a hell of a lot smarter than I am if this is a casual Sunday afternoon read.

Aye-aye-aye!!!

Left me scrambling for meanings to assign to what was being said. I actually had to think! And that sucks! For a lazy thinker like me.

When I left Scientology, I had read a lot about it being a cult. I'd scanned some of the analysis that proved it was a cult. But, as a lazy thinker, I just lumped it all into the category of "cult thinking is dumb," and moved on.

It's so convenient to use lump-sum thinking and live off the interest.

I would offer that this "cult" thinking runs deeper, and seeps into more aspects of one's life. Such as having a cheating spouse. Or holding a political position. Or being part of any religion. Or even being a scientist.

We invest our thoughts into some endeavor, hoping to give life meaning. We bank all this trust in some instrument by which we hope to receive a return. And then we go on hoping and hoping and hoping, dismissing contrary evidence because our life would become unsettled.

It's not just cult thinking, but everyday-life thinking that has become so focused and concentrated that no other information comes through.

I guess what I'm saying is that though holding ideas is important in life, one should always be able to look beyond them to new information--even when that information disproves what we hold dear. Because when we fail to do that, we're setting ourselves up for failures.


Very good post! It is so much easier to see others who can't give up something that is obviously failing, than that same frailty in ourselves.

By the way, I am not as scholarly as you might imagine. I just read about things that are fun or interesting for the moment. I might have a couple dozen unfinished books scattered around at any given time--but there isn't going to be any test, so who cares? LOL

There also aren't word clearers or angry people with clipboards chasing me to find my MU and get my student point graph marked. Isn't is remarkable in Scientology that they take the beautifully enjoyable experience of learning and reduce it to graphs and mindless cult members sitting behind e-meters, repetitively asking about a word that was not understood. My God! The Scientology method of study is just about guaranteed to kill the shit out of anyone's natural curiosity and love of learning.

If anyone needs proof of that last sentence, just consider for a moment the virtual annihilation of a Scientologist's field of studies, once they are "on the Bridge". The higher one travels in Scientology an inverse-ratio of diminished interest & capacity to learn from sources other than Hubbard befalls the Scientologist.

Study itself (if the subject matter is not Hubbard-sanctioned) is considered an "other practice". No exaggeration.
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
Very good post! It is so much easier to see others who can't give up something that is obviously failing, than that same frailty in ourselves.

By the way, I am not as scholarly as you might imagine. I just read about things that are fun or interesting for the moment. I might have a couple dozen unfinished books scattered around at any given time--but there isn't going to be any test, so who cares? LOL

There also aren't word clearers or angry people with clipboards chasing me to find my MU and get my student point graph marked. Isn't is remarkable in Scientology that they take the beautifully enjoyable experience of learning and reduce it to graphs and mindless cult members sitting behind e-meters, repetitively asking about a word that was not understood. My God! The Scientology method of study is just about guaranteed to kill the shit out of anyone's natural curiosity and love of learning.

If anyone needs proof of that last sentence, just consider for a moment the virtual annihilation of a Scientologist's field of studies, once they are "on the Bridge". The higher one travels in Scientology an inverse-ratio of diminished interest & capacity to learn from sources other than Hubbard befalls the Scientologist.

Study itself (if the subject matter is not Hubbard-sanctioned) is considered an "other practice". No exaggeration.

Yeah, study. Another area where the rug gets pulled out from under people "studying" Scientology.

The essence of study is to experience and ask questions. "Answers" are absolutely irrelevant without questions. You have to have the questions. Such as the number "3" is meaningless as an answer unless you have the exact question which results in this.

Yet, in Scientology, you are considered PTS if you ask questions, if you "can't make up your mind," if you question why this isn't really getting the result, on and on.

So many questions that you aren't allowed to ask.

And then to focus all that attention on words and definitions.

Well, definitions are completely useless without the experiences to back them up, without the capacity to use the concepts attached to those words to see beyond what is being said and arrive and NEW CONCEPTS!

What fucking good is study if the end result is arriving at someone else's answers, where you aren't allowed to play, aren't allowed to contribute--except as a slave to what is presented you?

Sorry for the rant. It must be "by-passed-charge!"
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Gadfly,

You use "Law of Commotion," but I'm at a loss. What does it mean? Where did the idea come from? I did a brief search but couldn't find an answer, and I'm time challenged, so I'll just be humble and ask.

Michael

If I might answer...

It comes from the Church of Hoaxology's holiest scripture. LOL.

If you recall, there is (in actual science) a famous breakthrough by Sir Isaac Newton in 1687 which has been called The 3 Laws of Motion or simply, The Laws of Motion.

220px-GodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpg


Newton's Law of Motion: "For every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Modern-day guru-genius and super-scientist, L. Ron Hubbard, likewise discovered his own "Laws", one of which states:

Hubbard Law of Commotion: "For each and every policy or piece of tech, there is an equal and opposite policy and piece of tech."

While some think that this is a joke or parody, I can assure the reader, it is not.

Just try to find any fact, datum, policy or tech in Scientology that does not have an equal and opposite counterpart. Example: "Standard policy must be followed 100% of the time." But then, there is another policy that states "Purpose is senior to policy" and that allows policy to not be followed 100% of the time. (It doesn't have to make sense, it's Scientology!)

To date, nobody has successfully answered the challenge to find one exception to the Hubbard Law of Commotion. It's the way Scientology was designed.
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
If I might answer...

It comes from the Church of Hoaxology's holiest scripture. LOL.

If you recall, there is (in actual science) a famous breakthrough by Sir Isaac Newton in 1687 which has been called The 3 Laws of Motion or simply, The Laws of Motion.

220px-GodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpg


Newton's Law of Motion: "For every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Modern-day guru-genius and super-scientist, L. Ron Hubbard, likewise discovered his own "Laws", one of which states:

Hubbard Law of Commotion: "For each and every policy or piece of tech, there is an equal and opposite policy and piece of tech."

While some think that this is a joke or parody, I can assure the reader, it is not.

Just try to find any fact, datum, policy or tech in Scientology that does not have an equal and opposite counterpart. Example: "Standard policy must be followed 100% of the time." But then, there is another policy that states "Purpose is senior to policy" and that allows policy to not be followed 100% of the time. (It doesn't have to make sense, it's Scientology!)

To date, nobody has successfully answered the challenge to find one exception to the Hubbard Law of Commotion. It's the way Scientology was designed.

I am in the presence of Greatness!

Thank you.

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of wiggle room in every bit of Scientology. There is the Independent view that if one uses proper assignment of value and importance one can work through the "seeming" contradictions and discover what LRH really meant. After all, every situation has its own conditions which require nuanced responses. One must have all the "tools necessary to handle the situation."

However, if you were smart enough to figure out the contradictions, you wouldn't need the contradictions in the first place.

And then, if you do handle the contradictions in the Scientology world, you've made yourself a target for anyone who doesn't like you because some how, some way you've departed from a policy which they can use to prove you wrong.

Yikes!
 

Gadfly

Crusader
As for Hubbard planning the cognitive dissonance (not the educational variety or definition but the type which leaves one confused and liable to receiving any idea which will settle the discord) I've heard the explanation, "Look at the second postulate. Nothing persists without a lie that masks the first postulate. To get persistence, you have to alter the first postulate. For LRH to get Scientology to persist, he had to alter-is a lot of things to bring about the continuation. You know, set it up as a problem. Contrary positions and flows working against each other. It's going to take a long time to handle this universe, so you had to..."

Well, okay. Great idea, but stupid, because you can have benevolent and enjoyable problems. Or you can have malevolent and destructive problems. So, why set it up to be so destructive? Why ruin lives to save lives?

Not everything that persists has to be troublesome.

And, is it even true that that for something to persist it must be altered (lied about, misrepresented, distorted, assigned incorrect ownership, etc.)?

But, I used to joke to others about the same thing - that to REALLY MAKE SCIENTOLOGY PERSIST, one would have to enter endless additions, subtractions, alterations, lies and make is SO confusing that one could NEVER see it "as it is" - because if you looked at it "as it was", it would NOT "persist" (survive, continue, etc.).

Bardol, Hoaxter coined the idea and term, Law of Commotion. It has become a sort of standard way for some of us to view Hubbard and Scientology - for every datum, there can usually be found an equal and opposite datum. There is no shortage of contradictions in Scientology. :no:
 
Top