Individuation

[freethinker]

My belief would be that the mind control begins when they find your button. Particularly your ruin button. Before that there isn't much of a hold.

Claire, you make an interesting point here - the question I have is, at one point does the "mind control" start. Do some independents feel that it was never Hubbard's intention to control minds but to genuinely help people and then things got out of hand one day? If so, where is the cut off from the good tech vs. the bad? The thing is, if the tech was used by Hubbard to control people for his own use, then why keep any of it?

 

[freethinker]

I think if you took a good look at some of the armies gathered in history, you might take a different view of that statement. I have seen very few rational soldiers.

Sociopaths are not trustworthy minions. The best minion is an otherwise rational person, who has been deceived into servitude and convinced that the ends justifies the means. We were that.

 

[Techless]

For me the idea of being 'individual' was indeed a large, and Primary lure of it. And then, the overall 'rebel' nature' of it. That's where they can get you rather easily.

It was only after seeing the impossibility of that concept, (single me vs. the group, or civilization or whatever) and then trying all to be combined with the 'group' thing as Scn staff/policy, bla, bla, does, didn't make any sense and started to expose to me, the BS factor.

It seems now that due to a slight miscalculation of so many good (great) people, that the way out sometimes 'seems' trickier than the way in. Talk, talk.

Lets make it easier to get out - I'd like to propose - rather than cater to infinite and I'm sure valid concerns and thinking forever about:

just: Point folks to facts and don't try and engage new posters or whatever into a philosophical or semantics game!!
(I've personally felt/smelt some bs here - but didn't post on)

RE: (weird recent (and old) threads)

There are now mountains of words that can be said about this 'mindset' twist or whatever - 'mind control'- yours or mine - and I fear the mountains are only now starting as little hills. I do not wish anyone to fuel any other 'psycho-human self-help cause'. What is BS remains as such. I do not understand the M&M cult debate/think and all the chatter.

It HAS been very well said here many times before just why NOT to buy into - and we are all supported now by the much larger media show(s) going on. Thanks to some brave souls who write books and get them out there. This is fantastic.

I'm sure too there are personal monetary reasons to write books!

It is just a completely creepy thing though, to see this nightmare getting played out over & over again, with questions of 'validity' and/or feelings of the posters and attacks upon...in a 'free' arena.

It's a very similar place that led to the 'ideas', that many here have fallen into the trap of and luckily have escaped - and probably the hardest part to get through! But yet without giving any credence to the whole thing that started it: (Individual thought, on how to help ourselves, and each and every one of us) very difficult for sure to weed through just HOW that got turned into such a clusterfuck. but which seems to keep wanting to play out as healing is hopefully taking place. Is it just a symptom of having been a Scn and having been Ska-ruud?

To me, I think this is only because: "well, humans like to think too much about shit". I'm so guilty of that myself, but geez: I see now that many things keep recycling over and over. And yet the truth is already so blatantly out there!

I think we'd do better to just point those whose question, to the sites/info existing here and elsewhere - that already speaks very eloquently regarding how messed up it was/is now.

I do understand those here now, with present anger and such and wanting to see the demolition of the cult. I do too...and REALLY have hard time understanding why facts have not 'nudged' the enforcement agencies (etc) to do anything about it...

I'm sure we can all agree things are looking great regarding that the big END, and becoming some serious world-wide media 'free entertainment' for those not aware of the nightmare, is near.

No need to push anyone away here, unless the spooks can be shot-down in one quick fell-swoop. I cannot now decipher truth or no-truth here completely. But I can make my own decisions and I do hope anyone here feels the freedom to try. I do and do support it for everone.

I'm sure I'll be questioned if English is my 'main language'... apparently it's a good language to confuse. I think Scn was WAY easier to confuse -

2 cents for today

TL

 

[Petey C]

Stupidity is the Unknowness of Consideration.

Chew on that one for a while.

Errr -- fellas, getting back to Individuation ... (or was what I read in the preceding posts just a demonstration of individuation and how it's reacted to? )

Thanks Freethinker. I think that wonderful axiom can be read several ways, viz:

Consideration is the stupidity of Unknowingness

Unknowingness is the consideration of Stupidity

Unknowingness is the stupidity of Consideration

Of the three, I think I like "Unknowingness is the consideration of stupidity" best, but the last one is pretty good too.

BTW, addressing one of the posters above, I don't believe I've ever seen the idea of Individuation addressed by any of the published critics, whether or not they were Scientologists or just interested in what goes on.

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

I need someone to translate this for me. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person and I have absolutely no idea what the fuck Hubbard is talking about here.

I thought that Individuation is a process where one separates, defines oneself, leaves the tribe to "become" oneself. When I came out as a gay man, for example, I had family members who resisted my admission because they had their own agenda for who I should be. Part of my "individuation" was my decision to live life on my own terms, which was empowering in my life. It doesn't make me a better person, but hopefully a more honest one.

Everyone goes through a natural process of individuation, which is what the "terrible twos" are about....that's the point where you learn to properly say no, to begin to realize that your primary caretaker is a separate entity from you and that you have feelings that are separate from that person. This is also where you begin to develop the phrase, "MINE".

If for some reason you are deeply shamed during this period as you attempt to individuate, or you have a parent who refuses to allow this because of his or her narcissist needs (you can't be an individual, I need you to continue to be an extension of Mommy and Daddy - because Mommy or Daddy is depressed, narcissistic or whatever), this individuation process never happens, and can be a factor in pathological narcissism in men, eating disorders in women, and all kind of psychological challenges and co-dependency in life. It leads to a rage of having to suppress one's own needs in order to satisfy someone else's.

Individuation, especially as part of the "Me" generation, is particularly attractive, especially in the self-help community, and for ex-flower children who stood up against the 50's and fought for civil-rights, and I think Hubbard knew this - it's part of his rebel, iconoclast, "we're different than they are", wog, etc, mentality. (Which is why in a lot of the Scientology biographies people from this time like Nancy Many and Jeff Hawkins were attracted to it. It was also attractive to kids who needed to escape from family pain and be individuals as teenagers like Amy Scobee, Marc Headley, John Duignan)

It's the independence in "Think For Yourself" "What's true for you is true" and all that stuff. America, in fact, is built on the mythology of Individuation from Britain - we are the true iconoclasts and self-inventors. That's what (to some) "America" means. (I'm suggesting a dynamic, not necessarily agreeing with it.)

I'm still waiting to read Wright's book (it should arrive today) and so I don't know completely the context that he's using it, but I feel that Hubbard lures people into Scientology (the Superbowl ad had elements of this) by using this same idea of Individuation - it's part of why disconnection can be attractive to some people at first - getting away from the people who have caused you all this pain and harm and fucked up your life... your family.

But there is another stage of individuation - and that is a return to the tribe and a sense of community. Individuation isn't complete if you are just some narcissist, only worrying about yourself, your pain, your money and you have no empathy or responsibility for anyone else. A real, true individual can stand with others and know who she is, she doesn't need to beat someone else down, or disconnect or call them a wag to have her own identity. She can work with others and know what she believes. She can create community with others who are different from her, without losing her identity - a Jew who can work with a Christian who can work with a Buddhist. The minute someone says, "Your identity is threaten if you go and talk to her because she doesn't agree with US..." you know you're in a cult.

Because of Hubbard's own damage, he never completed that individuation step. He was an individual in his own mind but I believe he was also paranoid schizophrenic and deeply disturbed, especially at the end. So what he did was create a church of individuals who stand together and "seem" to be a community but in the end are really individuals out for themselves. There is no "church" really, as a community that comes together. There is just a group of people, looking over their shoulders, turning in knowledge reports on each other, betraying each other to save their own asses, betraying each other in the Hole, all as part of his culture of fear.

His individual is a greedy, ruthless person who will stop at nothing (fair game) to preserve his "individuality"...but that isn't an empowered person, that's a sociopath, one who destroys the community because he has no responsibility to it and doesn't know how to work within it, contribute to it. (Which is also why I believe Hubbard knew in the end that he "failed".) Hubbard's warped teaching doesn't acknowledge a difference between individuation and psychopathology. Scientology, at it's worse, is a training in Sociopatholgy, which is individuation (and capitalism for that matter) in it's deepest shadow. It's learning how to interact with human beings with the intent to discover how best to exploit them for your own individual gain. (You don't really stand together, you stand on top of one another.) It's also the opposite of love.

I'm not sure why I got into so much trouble for what I wrote here, but I'm not going to spend any time defending it. I stand behind it. And I'm going to focus any energy I might feel being defensive into supporting Jenna Miscavige Hill. I can see that not only is there a struggle for power within the church, there is a also a struggle for who controls the Scientology narrative.

I find it interesting for those who insist on "seeing both sides" or who feel angry when I call Scientology an organization based on sociopathology, or who defend the tech - Jenna Miscavige Hill is not going around on these talk shows talking about "sometimes the tech worked" or it was a lot of fun with a few bad days here and there - the subtitle of her book is "My harrowing escape". Harrowing. So, I think it is important to talk about it all, and I appreciate the post by Sweetness and Light - thank you for not backing down from the destruction the church and LRH has caused.

 

[Claire Swazey]

The jury's still out on when the mind control (Or, as I like to call it, indoctrination) starts in Scn. I think YMMV.

Consider this: anyone trying to get you to believe anything, even if they are being pretty benign and nice and have your best interests at heart is, at the very least, trying to influence you. That is a relatively short hop away to a degree of control, indoctrination and so on. It's all a matter of degree.

LBJ's wife in her famed litterbug campaign in the 60s (prior to, I hear, people used to just throw bags of garbage out their car windows) is an example of social indoctrination that is quite benign, exceedingly constructive. But it's still a matter of control. They wanted to control the litterbugs, right? And they did. Think of what would happen now if someone threw a bag of garbage on the road. Or even 25 years ago, if they had.

People who feel that Hubbard never had any good intentions and never meant a damn word of what he said will argue that the malign control started at inception because that is based on intention.

People who feel he really meant it, that he liked Dianetics and thought it could help will feel it was all constructive at inception. They will either, depending on if they are a churchie, a hard liner FZer or a mellow one or whatever they may be, feel that later, it turned a little malign, a lot malign or not malign at all and everything's groovy. (that last would be people like, say, ThetaWorks on yahoo answers who is party line all the way, brotha!!)

So you can't know, objectively. You can only decide for yourself. (please excuse my use of the second person pronoun.)

So what do you do? You decide what you want to believe, ideologically speaking, and what works for you. All of Scn? (not that I'd recommend that one) Your choice. A bunch of it? Your choice. A teeny bit of it but oh god don't hang a label on it? Your choice. None of it? Your choice. None of it and want to say you hate it all? Your choice.

Not anyone else's. YOUR choice. That's the thing I defend. NOT a particular ideology. No, not me, not ever.

I was a churchie for a while. When they fucked with me too much, I left. I was an indie for a while and it was just fine. I wasn't dancing to anyone's tune. Then I decided that I wasn't an indie anymore. Life's too short to get hung up on labels and that's what I'd been doing and I felt it should stop. That's why I decided that. Not because the dog ate Hubbard's homework, not because somebody else felt I was wrong (all people who tell me stuff like that will get is my middle finger) or because the subject is considered to be irrevocably polluted because of what Hubbard did. No, I examined the fact that I was too into the labels (by the way, I also tend to do this with clothing and handbags.) and because I was ready to just open my heart a bit more and explore things, which I was already doing but wanted to increase.

So why keep any of it? IMO, it's nothing different than what anyone else on the planet is doing. We all keep and ditch philosophical, religious and or moral ideas in varying ways.

My personal advice, if it were sought, would be to be a Jane-ologist, a XenusBoyfriend-ologist, a FreeThinkerOlogist, a ChuckNorrisCutMyLawnologist- whatever you are, go be that.

But if it floats someone else's boat to keep some or none or all of Scn- I view all those choices as equivalent and, more importantly, the choices of someone else who is not me.

 

[Free Being Me]

The jury's still out on when the mind control (Or, as I like to call it, indoctrination) starts in Scn. I think YMMV.

Consider this: anyone trying to get you to believe anything, even if they are being pretty benign and nice and have your best interests at heart is, at the very least, trying to influence you. That is a relatively short hop away to a degree of control, indoctrination and so on. It's all a matter of degree.

LBJ's wife in her famed litterbug campaign in the 60s (prior to, I hear, people used to just throw bags of garbage out their car windows) is an example of social indoctrination that is quite benign, exceedingly constructive. But it's still a matter of control. They wanted to control the litterbugs, right? And they did. Think of what would happen now if someone threw a bag of garbage on the road. Or even 25 years ago, if they had.

People who feel that Hubbard never had any good intentions and never meant a damn word of what he said will argue that the malign control started at inception because that is based on intention.

People who feel he really meant it, that he liked Dianetics and thought it could help will feel it was all constructive at inception. They will either, depending on if they are a churchie, a hard liner FZer or a mellow one or whatever they may be, feel that later, it turned a little malign, a lot malign or not malign at all and everything's groovy. (that last would be people like, say, ThetaWorks on yahoo answers who is party line all the way, brotha!!)

So you can't know, objectively. You can only decide for yourself. (please excuse my use of the second person pronoun.)

So what do you do? You decide what you want to believe, ideologically speaking, and what works for you. All of Scn? (not that I'd recommend that one) Your choice. A bunch of it? Your choice. A teeny bit of it but oh god don't hang a label on it? Your choice. None of it? Your choice. None of it and want to say you hate it all? Your choice.

Not anyone else's. YOUR choice. That's the thing I defend. NOT a particular ideology. No, not me, not ever.

I was a churchie for a while. When they fucked with me too much, I left. I was an indie for a while and it was just fine. I wasn't dancing to anyone's tune. Then I decided that I wasn't an indie anymore. Life's too short to get hung up on labels and that's what I'd been doing and I felt it should stop. That's why I decided that. Not because the dog ate Hubbard's homework, not because somebody else felt I was wrong (all people who tell me stuff like that will get is my middle finger) or because the subject is considered to be irrevocably polluted because of what Hubbard did. No, I examined the fact that I was too into the labels (by the way, I also tend to do this with clothing and handbags.) and because I was ready to just open my heart a bit more and explore things, which I was already doing but wanted to increase.

So why keep any of it? IMO, it's nothing different than what anyone else on the planet is doing. We all keep and ditch philosophical, religious and or moral ideas in varying ways.

My personal advice, if it were sought, would be to be a Jane-ologist, a XenusBoyfriend-ologist, a FreeThinkerOlogist, a ChuckNorrisCutMyLawnologist- whatever you are, go be that.

But if it floats someone else's boat to keep some or none or all of Scn- I view all those choices as equivalent and, more importantly, the choices of someone else who is not me.

Please, don't ever start a cult recovery blog. :nailbiting:

 

[TG1]

Actually, I think I agree with Claire's take. It did seem to work that way even inside the cult when I listened to other Scientologists. That "what's true for you" thing covers up a multitude of multiple interpretations of the same material. Therefore, "weighting" some things as more important (or true v. false) compared to other things happens constantly whether you're a cult or just generally in life.

Speaking for myself, I do believe there are no absolutes (or few absolutes). Relative truth (and right and wrong) is a model that appeals to me and always has.

Something we seldom talk about here is how our different learning modalities, personality types, etc. influence our discussions here and account for many of our different opinions and values and styles. The bottom-line types see things more black and white and search for specific answers to specific questions and then challenge others' differing conclusions or even their experiences as being wrong or stupid. Those who don't value absolute truth as much behave differently -- we go off on tangents, think everybody's interpretation has some validity, are open-minded to the point people want to slap us, etc. And everything in between. These "hard wired" differences among us are pretty apparent to me.

But to XB's question, I think it's very much a YMMV thing. There are so many thousands of different paths that people took "into" Scientology. Some read books before they arrived, others joined staff, others were born into it, etc. Just too many variables to parse.

TG1

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

The jury's still out on when the mind control (Or, as I like to call it, indoctrination) starts in Scn. I think YMMV.

Consider this: anyone trying to get you to believe anything, even if they are being pretty benign and nice and have your best interests at heart is, at the very least, trying to influence you. That is a relatively short hop away to a degree of control, indoctrination and so on. It's all a matter of degree.

LBJ's wife in her famed litterbug campaign in the 60s (prior to, I hear, people used to just throw bags of garbage out their car windows) is an example of social indoctrination that is quite benign, exceedingly constructive. But it's still a matter of control. They wanted to control the litterbugs, right? And they did. Think of what would happen now if someone threw a bag of garbage on the road. Or even 25 years ago, if they had.

People who feel that Hubbard never had any good intentions and never meant a damn word of what he said will argue that the malign control started at inception because that is based on intention.

People who feel he really meant it, that he liked Dianetics and thought it could help will feel it was all constructive at inception. They will either, depending on if they are a churchie, a hard liner FZer or a mellow one or whatever they may be, feel that later, it turned a little malign, a lot malign or not malign at all and everything's groovy. (that last would be people like, say, ThetaWorks on yahoo answers who is party line all the way, brotha!!)

So you can't know, objectively. You can only decide for yourself. (please excuse my use of the second person pronoun.)

So what do you do? You decide what you want to believe, ideologically speaking, and what works for you. All of Scn? (not that I'd recommend that one) Your choice. A bunch of it? Your choice. A teeny bit of it but oh god don't hang a label on it? Your choice. None of it? Your choice. None of it and want to say you hate it all? Your choice.

Not anyone else's. YOUR choice. That's the thing I defend. NOT a particular ideology. No, not me, not ever.

I was a churchie for a while. When they fucked with me too much, I left. I was an indie for a while and it was just fine. I wasn't dancing to anyone's tune. Then I decided that I wasn't an indie anymore. Life's too short to get hung up on labels and that's what I'd been doing and I felt it should stop. That's why I decided that. Not because the dog ate Hubbard's homework, not because somebody else felt I was wrong (all people who tell me stuff like that will get is my middle finger) or because the subject is considered to be irrevocably polluted because of what Hubbard did. No, I examined the fact that I was too into the labels (by the way, I also tend to do this with clothing and handbags.) and because I was ready to just open my heart a bit more and explore things, which I was already doing but wanted to increase.

So why keep any of it? IMO, it's nothing different than what anyone else on the planet is doing. We all keep and ditch philosophical, religious and or moral ideas in varying ways.

My personal advice, if it were sought, would be to be a Jane-ologist, a XenusBoyfriend-ologist, a FreeThinkerOlogist, a ChuckNorrisCutMyLawnologist- whatever you are, go be that.

But if it floats someone else's boat to keep some or none or all of Scn- I view all those choices as equivalent and, more importantly, the choices of someone else who is not me.

Claire, I appreciate what you've written here - this helps me to understand why people respond differently to the tech, and to the church in general. For example, if you believe that Hubbard told his friend, "If you want to make any real money, start a religion"...that's a little different from a spiritual guru who runs around saying "Love one another" and has a religion built around their teachings, like Buddha and Jesus. Still, the question is, did he come up with Dianetics, (which is entirely his right) because he wanted to have a methodology that he could get people to believe in or to sell his product? Not necessarily evil - any more than Tony Robbins, or any other self help guru. I would have to read Dianetics to see if I felt that there was anything in there to carry out a nefarious intention or if it is just the writing of a guy that had some good ideas but may have been misguided. There are bookstore that carry Dianetics in the self-help section, and I've skimmed it and been tempted to read it many times in my life because I've thought, "What if he is on to something." If the Church of Scientology didn't exist, I probably would.

But when all that stuff happened in the 50's, when he lost control of the Dianetics concept and auditing, and then came back later with the idea of the Church, I think his intentions changed. Because if the church's teachings ended with the state of Clear - that might be one thing - but once you start going up the Bridge (and I do believe he invented the Bridge solely for the purpose of making money and keeping the mice trapped in the maze forever) then it becomes something else.

I appreciate that you've written that everyone should take what he or she likes and you defend their right to do that. I don't particularly care for White Supremacists but in America I have to defend their right to speak out ideologically, because I want to speak when my time comes.

But things change, when you talk about, for example, a child molester having a right to speak or act as he likes, because molestation is a crime. The fact that the Hubbard's teaching specific leads and include "theology" that is abusive and destructive and creates an environment that Jenna Hill is now testifying to as it applies to children - that has to be stopped. And for me, that isn't about one person's preference over another, that is about criminal behavior which the church engages in, and feels justified engaging in (critical point for me) because of what Hubbard created. And that's the difference for me when it comes to, "To each his own" as you've argued here.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Claire, I appreciate what you've written here - this helps me to understand why people respond differently to the tech, and to the church in general. For example, if you believe that Hubbard told his friend, "If you want to make any real money, start a religion"...that's a little different from a spiritual guru who runs around saying "Love one another" and has a religion built around their teachings, like Buddha and Jesus. Still, the question is, did he come up with Dianetics, (which is entirely his right) because he wanted to have a methodology that he could get people to believe in or to sell his product? Not necessarily evil - any more than Tony Robbins, or any other self help guru. I would have to read Dianetics to see if I felt that there was anything in there to carry out a nefarious intention or if it is just the writing of a guy that had some good ideas but may have been misguided. There are bookstore that carry Dianetics in the self-help section, and I've skimmed it and been tempted to read it many times in my life because I've thought, "What if he is on to something." If the Church of Scientology didn't exist, I probably would.

But when all that stuff happened in the 50's, when he lost control of the Dianetics concept and auditing, and then came back later with the idea of the Church, I think his intentions changed. Because if the church's teachings ended with the state of Clear - that might be one thing - but once you start going up the Bridge (and I do believe he invented the Bridge solely for the purpose of making money and keeping the mice trapped in the maze forever) then it becomes something else.

I appreciate that you've written that everyone should take what he or she likes and you defend their right to do that. I don't particularly care for White Supremacists but in America I have to defend their right to speak out ideologically, because I want to speak when my time comes.

But things change, when you talk about, for example, a child molester having a right to speak or act as he likes, because molestation is a crime. The fact that the Hubbard's teaching specific leads and include "theology" that is abusive and destructive and creates an environment that Jenna Hill is now testifying to as it applies to children - that has to be stopped. And for me, that isn't about one person's preference over another, that is about criminal behavior which the church engages in, and feels justified engaging in (critical point for me) because of what Hubbard created. And that's the difference for me when it comes to, "To each his own" as you've argued here.

Yes, well, I certainly have explained this in detail before, candidly and civilly.

AFAIK, Hubbard didn't lose control of anything til around the mid late 70s. CofS wasn't created for that reason at all. A lot of people think it was a tax dodge type thing, which may or may not be true but is certainly a much more plausible explanation.

I think when someone- like my husband or some others I know- is reading a book on Scn or doing TRs- and isn't in CofS, then he's not in CofS. It's that simple. That's all there is to it.

I think of people as individuals. I try to observe the way they act (which means I have to actually meet them before making very many assessments of them) rather than judging them en masse. I find that works better. I also live in a country that does not and cannot engage in book censorship or any attempts to stamp out any philosophy, whether it be a good one or a very bad one. At least for the past several or so generations.

 

[Infinite]

. . . <snip thoughtful stuff> . . . I also live in a country that does not and cannot engage in book censorship or any attempts to stamp out any philosophy, whether it be a good one or a very bad one. At least for the past several or so generations.

Ummm . . . http://www.bannedbooksweek.org/

 

[Claire Swazey]

I said the country couldn't. By which I mean that the government cannot. Individuals are free to oppress others unless and until someone stops them. And this I know full well.

 

[Techless]

"Errr -- fellas, getting back to Individuation..."

Ok, I said individuality, but was referring to individuation, which is really same thing per various scn definitions (irrelevant yes, unless you wish to battle over those definitions- I don't)

Individuation, as I see it was (or as I was fooled into believing): backing away from the/a group, to be 'oneself' - an individual, as opposed to being a part of a group, cogs in cogs.

Weird thing was: it was sorta noted in various Scn texts as being a pretty 'good thing' to be an individual- and then (and in total contradiction) to other text which alluded to a more 'group' mindset thing. "For survival!!). Irony to me, and where I began to see the logic start to crumble and fail. This was to me, just why I saw these various groups failing (my staff experiences) in some sort of strange battle against 'self' and 'group'.

The really bizarre thing was then to see people 'being' supposed individuals, but already well-into the 'group' hypnosis.

Paradox - but at least explains why it gets so unbearable! These paradoxes I think, can explain so much of what happens in the cult.

I try sometimes and usually fail, by hey, this is not an easy thing to do!

Cheers all
TL

 

[Techless]

"I also live in a country that does not and cannot engage in book censorship or any attempts to stamp out any philosophy,"

How would you KNOW, that you live in a country that 'cannot or does not' do these things..? I mean, they would have to tell you what they have censored then, right?

Seems that would be the whole purpose of 'controlling information' - so that the populace couldn't even begin to have the facts to think for themselves.
(Scn is very certainly some microcosm of this - some may feel macrocosm...censorship was NEVER enforced, but everyone agreed to it happening anyway - funny...??)

That's a very dangerous thing to have happen

 

[Claire Swazey]

"I also live in a country that does not and cannot engage in book censorship or any attempts to stamp out any philosophy,"

How would you KNOW, that you live in a country that 'cannot or does not' do these things..? I mean, they would have to tell you what they have censored then, right?

Seems that would be the whole purpose of 'controlling information' - so that the populace couldn't even begin to have the facts to think for themselves.
(Scn is very certainly some microcosm of this - some may feel macrocosm...censorship was NEVER enforced, but everyone agreed to it happening anyway - funny...??)

That's a very dangerous thing to have happen

Yah, actually, I would know.

But then again, I'm not particularly conspiracy oriented.

 

[Techless]

"I'm not particularly conspiracy oriented.[/QUOTE]"

Well, that's a good thing - because only half of them end up being true anyway.

Really, I've never been into the whole C/Theory thing either, but I did get involved with one of the bigger ones, for who knows what reason!!

People love mystery - that is for certain. It still works well for the 'ins', the 'in-betweenst', and the 'outs'.

I'm still waiting for visit from Jim Carrey, to assure me that I'm in the 'Truman Show'.

I do believe it is that weird, but I don't lose sleep over it...more immediate concerns to occupy my restless soul.

Huggies!

TL

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Errr -- fellas, getting back to Individuation ... (or was what I read in the preceding posts just a demonstration of individuation and how it's reacted to? )

Thanks Freethinker. I think that wonderful axiom can be read several ways, viz:

Consideration is the stupidity of Unknowingness

Unknowingness is the consideration of Stupidity

Unknowingness is the stupidity of Consideration

Of the three, I think I like "Unknowingness is the consideration of stupidity" best, but the last one is pretty good too.

BTW, addressing one of the posters above, I don't believe I've ever seen the idea of Individuation addressed by any of the published critics, whether or not they were Scientologists or just interested in what goes on.

Maybe that will be my job!!!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

"I also live in a country that does not and cannot engage in book censorship or any attempts to stamp out any philosophy,"

How would you KNOW, that you live in a country that 'cannot or does not' do these things..? I mean, they would have to tell you what they have censored then, right? ...

The federal government is barred from doing so by the First Amendment. About the only time they can get something past that bar is when the material to be censored is deemed as affecting national security. That's a tough sell to make and courts don't look on attempts by the government to engage in censorship kindly as it is illegal. Claire's remark is correct.

Various local municipalities, schoolboards, etc., have "banned books" on a limited and localized basis. The constitution does NOT necessarily bar such attempts by local governing boards. The courts rulings in such matters typically look at the scope of the ban and the degree of localization. Even so, they are not permissive about banning books for adult readership. The reasons offered are usually fairly idiotic and the "bans" are often overturned with time. The Librarian's association celebrates thsoe books which have been banned as a symbol of the importance of free speech and the tendency of small groups to seek to ban speech which they may find problematic or offensive.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Techless]

"That "what's true for you" thing covers up a multitude of multiple interpretations of the same material."

Yes, exactly! Especially then when you start to wonder: what/who is 'you'. Well, it's what they tell you you are. So, kinda easy to see how that concept can mess with you.

Sorry, I shouldn't say 'easy'. But that's how I look at myself now, and how easily I got Ska-ruud. This is rather huge topic seriously - could start a religion based upon it.

I have no wish to. Still getting myself back and that's good enuff for me and I hope everyone else.

I do remember how cool it was to think my own thoughts (deep or otherwise) and without any supposed jury 'adjusting it'. (other than my parents)

Remember that?

 

[Techless]

"The federal government is barred from doing so by the First Amendment."

Really?

Bud, I would love to believe this to be true. I really would. Written words and documents by great countries do not seem to be the end-all of how things play out though.

There's way too much power to allow truth to have any immediate stance. And hence, this thing plays out inch by inch. Why would it be otherwise?

Yet I agree with your good faith in it -