The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
We certainly have free speech on ESMB.
But to what extent do we tolerate free inquiry?
Perhaps we are a little lacking in this.
If we have free speech, then how can we also not have free inquiry?
Anyone can say what they want here. But when it comes to what areas are open for one to discuss, those are liited to certain paradigms.
For example: if I say something condemning Hubbard as a fraud, a maniac, a con man etc, this will be taken up with an interesting discussion.
But if I say that I had gains from Scientology and I helped others using the Tech, this line of inquiry would be met with hostility and certainly not any willingness to even consider the
possibility of this being true, even if it was my experience.
We've almost all had experience with Scientology.
When I was on staff, I interpreted my experiences of all the craziness as being due to people with misunderstoods, or it was simply the ebb and flow and clash of a new and better
idea challenging the social norms. (what a douche bag I was).
Looking back now, my experiences haven't changed, the good times are still good, but I've changed my interpretation of my overall experiences as a whole.
But what if someone, although they see the faults of the Church now, what if they did not change their interpretations of what they experienced back then?
New information about something can't change the experience. It may change one's interpretation of those experiences.
But if someone came here and wanted to discuss why the Tech seemed to work back then, would we honestly discuss this or just reply with the usual condemnations based on our
later interpretations?
Personally, although I honestly try to put myself back into the mindset I had back then, I can't ignore what I have come to believe about the whole ordeal.
I know what I thought back then, I just can't agree with it now.
But as a community of ex-Scientologists, we should be tolerant, even interested, in trying to understand all views.
We don't have to agree with them, but we should allow an honest inquiry into the phenomenon.
Now I'm not talking about the obvious trolls, or even the not so obvious trolls.
And I am especially not talking about those that come here, mock our disconnection of loved ones, and boast that it was all for the greatest good (meaning their good).
I am talking about the people who are at a stage where we once were ourselves.
We got the guidance to change our views into what I believe is a more accurate assessment of Dianetics, Scientology, the Church, and its society.
I was out of Scientology long before I found this board. But for those who still believe, even if they come here to combat us, we've got to let the inquiry happen.
Because I'm sure that if it does, and the person is truly wishing to understand, then they eventually find Scientology false in its nature.
Still, there are those who have wins and still say they get wins.
But if we use inquiry, yes, Socratic inquiry and not condemnation, we might help them lift the fog over them that they so cherish.
Perhaps we should, in the words of the late, great, Otis Redding, "Try a little tenderness."
Overall, I think we do a good job of it.
But we can't lose our cool and not allow free inquiry. Otherwise we are no different than Scientologists.
The Anabaptist Jacques
P.S. As it is difficult for me to type right now, it took me all day to type the two posts I'm putting up. So I may not be able to answer anyone right now.
But to what extent do we tolerate free inquiry?
Perhaps we are a little lacking in this.
If we have free speech, then how can we also not have free inquiry?
Anyone can say what they want here. But when it comes to what areas are open for one to discuss, those are liited to certain paradigms.
For example: if I say something condemning Hubbard as a fraud, a maniac, a con man etc, this will be taken up with an interesting discussion.
But if I say that I had gains from Scientology and I helped others using the Tech, this line of inquiry would be met with hostility and certainly not any willingness to even consider the
possibility of this being true, even if it was my experience.
We've almost all had experience with Scientology.
When I was on staff, I interpreted my experiences of all the craziness as being due to people with misunderstoods, or it was simply the ebb and flow and clash of a new and better
idea challenging the social norms. (what a douche bag I was).
Looking back now, my experiences haven't changed, the good times are still good, but I've changed my interpretation of my overall experiences as a whole.
But what if someone, although they see the faults of the Church now, what if they did not change their interpretations of what they experienced back then?
New information about something can't change the experience. It may change one's interpretation of those experiences.
But if someone came here and wanted to discuss why the Tech seemed to work back then, would we honestly discuss this or just reply with the usual condemnations based on our
later interpretations?
Personally, although I honestly try to put myself back into the mindset I had back then, I can't ignore what I have come to believe about the whole ordeal.
I know what I thought back then, I just can't agree with it now.
But as a community of ex-Scientologists, we should be tolerant, even interested, in trying to understand all views.
We don't have to agree with them, but we should allow an honest inquiry into the phenomenon.
Now I'm not talking about the obvious trolls, or even the not so obvious trolls.
And I am especially not talking about those that come here, mock our disconnection of loved ones, and boast that it was all for the greatest good (meaning their good).
I am talking about the people who are at a stage where we once were ourselves.
We got the guidance to change our views into what I believe is a more accurate assessment of Dianetics, Scientology, the Church, and its society.
I was out of Scientology long before I found this board. But for those who still believe, even if they come here to combat us, we've got to let the inquiry happen.
Because I'm sure that if it does, and the person is truly wishing to understand, then they eventually find Scientology false in its nature.
Still, there are those who have wins and still say they get wins.
But if we use inquiry, yes, Socratic inquiry and not condemnation, we might help them lift the fog over them that they so cherish.
Perhaps we should, in the words of the late, great, Otis Redding, "Try a little tenderness."
Overall, I think we do a good job of it.
But we can't lose our cool and not allow free inquiry. Otherwise we are no different than Scientologists.
The Anabaptist Jacques
P.S. As it is difficult for me to type right now, it took me all day to type the two posts I'm putting up. So I may not be able to answer anyone right now.