My past involvemen with Scn: Hindsight is 20/20

[La La Lou Lou]

Claire I think you do bring up a good point. You can never fully escape a cult if you can't look at what it was that you actually liked. There are people that have been decades in scientology, there must have been some thing that they actually liked. To deny anything positive is as daft as the opposite.

I know I loved many things about being on staff, and pretty much all of them were nothing to do with scientology at all. I loved the international nature of London Org, but it would have been the same if I'd worked in the shop next door! I loved feeling that I was doing something that was going to help the planet. I could have worked for the UN, or Greenpeace, or have done voluntary work in the third world. It would have actually been doing something useful. I loved being sent abroad with the travel paid. If I had had a real job I could have just travelled, and I wouldn't have had to stay up night drinking black coffee and smoking packets of cigarettes on mission.

There were times I did have a good session, but I could have had counselling as I have had since, counselling that actually addressed the problem I had that scientology never even glanced at.

I did make some good friends, and can no longer communicate with them.

I learned the alphabet. Useful in dictionaries and telephone books, and filing.

I improved my language skills. Travel would have done that anyway.

So far my increased ability in the knowledge of the sequence of the alphabet is the only truly positive I got from being on staff. I don't think it was worth near starvation and all the destruction it caused my body, spirit and mind, and family.

It could be the forgotten happy moments that are hidden and causing us to be confused.

Nothing is actually completly black or white. In the early days on staff there were great parties. There were some nice things about being a storm trooper and I'm sure that hangmen had perks.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Claire,

Thank you for the excellent topic. You have saved me the trouble of starting a thread that I have been contemplating "Does Scientology Truly and Honestly Suck?"

A few things that I was going to write and instead will add them to your illustrious thread...

Many people stay in Scientology a long time. If the didn't feel that they were getting something out of it they surely would not stay in for as long as they did.

Getting into the Church of Scientology may have been the best thing for me at the time I got into Scientology

Getting out of the Church of Scientology was the best thing for me at the time I got out.

In Sociology class you learn about the "institutions" of a society from a scholarly point of view. Some people are drawn into religions just for the social aspects of it. We even learned that some will be involved and carry the hopes of meeting a mate that is involved. Not everybody likes to go to a nightspot or gym to meet the person of their dreams.

Their were things in Scientology that added strength to my first marraige. Unfortunatley there were many things that I felt weakened the marraige. I guess this could happen in any religion. Tech policy and the bible could be used to strengthen but it could also be used to make wrong and control.

Well now that I have read your first post and written something I have to head back and continue into this very intereting thread.

See ya,

Rd00

 

[Rene Descartes]

Okay Claire.

How is it then, that you feel the need or desire to spend so many hours a day posting on exscn if it has not caused you any harm? Are you really living your life just the way you want it, fully up to your potential?

How are you able to take your time on staff and separate it from Scn as if the two are separate things when staff life is written by Hubbard policy - the green & white vols by the same man who wrote the red & white? And the PLs are often just taken from HCOBs as well. Staff were dedicated to keeping you happy and convinced and in Scn. Without the constant staff insistence you experienced as public, you would not be so dedicated to it now, either.

These are the sort of points where you don't make sense to me, Claire. Reconciling these two opposing things that are actually all part of the one thing - Scn - is something I see you have not yet done. You just live with the contradiction and I see that as very harmful and something that has hung you up personally so you keep defending Scn on this site over and over again as some sort of mission or something even though you say your staff experience was definitely not good.

Before you give me your two word answer, "you're wrong" please consider what I'm saying.

I am not a Scn anymore so I sometimes evaluate for others. That doesn't mean what I say is wrong, though it may not be accurate, either. It's still up to you to draw your own conclusions. But it does means you are perhaps coming across to me or others in a different way than you believe you are.

I don't know about her but as far as I am concerned I would continue to read and study much of the materials (on my home) because to me Scientology is like an alien civilization and culture and I want to learn to speak the language and udnerstand what it is that they say and I want to be able to translate what they say and write to others.

Consider it an anthropolocial and socialogical endeavor.

Also this place is a great place to meet new people and discuss all of these things about the alien civilization and culture better known as Scientology.

Rd00

 

[SpecialFrog]

But the high is sooooo good! I can't tell you about all the "wins" you get shooting dope! My being feels like it's on a marshmallow cloud with god giving me a foot rub. Oh, all that addiction, disease, costs in thousands of dollars, lies, being surrounded with dirtbags and criminals, getting deathly sick when I don't have any heroin.... Well let's not concentrate on that "stuff" the wins were great! Besides I don't think I could have gotten any better results doing coke.

A lot of great art has been produced under the influence of heroin. I can't decisively say that the artists would have achieved the same thing without heroin. And naturally many of them likely credited their success to heroin.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

A lot of great art has been produced under the influence of heroin. I can't decisively say that the artists would have achieved the same thing without heroin. And naturally many of them likely credited their success to heroin.

Can you think of any great art made under the influence of scientology?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Can you think of any great art made under the influence of scientology?

[video=youtube;CtxWlTIWRHo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtxWlTIWRHo[/video]

 

[La La Lou Lou]

[video=youtube;CtxWlTIWRHo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtxWlTIWRHo[/video]

Truly magnificent, makes Brahms, Mendelssohn, Bach and the Mothers of Invention look like amateurs. Hubbard really understood the arts. Listening to that has made me speechless.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Okay. You once responded to me with "you're wrong" when I and a few others tried to explain to you why what you proposed to do would be hurtful to us (you know what I'm talking about, let's not bring it up here...nobody wants to hear about it again) and you wanted to steamroll ahead with it anyway.

Yes, I was getting flamed, so I used it. Anyway, some people have liked that essay.

Anyway, I appreciate that you are actually considering what I am saying this
time instead of brushing me off.

I didn't ever brush you off. That other time, I answered several of your posts in that thread, explaining myself repeatedly before that.

It seems the other people means those that believe in Scn, but not those that
have completely left it. I have no problem at all with others stating, "I
believe", with a specific stated belief, rather than a parroting or paraphrasing
of what someone else (i.e., Hubbard) wrote or said as if it is a fact. That is
the difference between believing and becoming a victim of brainwashing.
Scientology is not a true religion or belief system - it's a weird mishmash of
all kinds of things, some of them extremely inhumane. You (recently) have
defended the whole doggy do of "Scientology" and jumped in on others'
discussions of certain points because of your personal view that such discussion
is disrespectful to others' beliefs. There is not only nothing wrong with
discussing the beliefs of Scn, but this is the best forum for us to do so.
We ex's and anons have the right to discuss these matters without you trying to
stop the discussions over some perception that it is "disrespectful to another's
religion". Scn as a religion is just BS anyway.

I'm not trying to stop anyone. I have never told anyone they have no right to criticize Scn. In fact, as I said, I've championed that right both on the forums and to OSA when they came to handle me and on the FZ lists. I've also repeatedly said here that I think it's great that people criticize Scn and I often join in. I've criticized Hubbard and the cult many times here. I even said some things in the thread op here.

Read the thread op again. Have I said anything about Scn being a religion? No. I only said that I did like much of the auditing, that I opine that auditing doesn't hurt anyone though its beneficial effects aren't anywhere near what's touted and don't seem to last, and that I liked some of the courses, and some were boring.

This is something I see a lot of people saying on the forum. That they may've liked some of the lower level stuff but they don't want anything more to do with it, or that they wish they never heard of it. It's an ongoing issue that's often being discussed. And I'm discussing it. You've mentioned many things that are nowhere to be found in the thread op

Explaining something doesn't make it right, Claire.

If I explain something, it means someone said something to me that indicated they either wanted an explanation or, for other reasons, I felt they should have one.

This is a discussion forum. Pro tech, anti tech, in between tech- all that is allowed here.

And this has nothing to do with the thread op.

If you do something hurtful to another, the person tells you it is hurtful
and you still continue doing it, all the explanation in the world doesn't make
your action any less callous, mean or rude, and doesn't make it right, either.

A minority of people were "hurt" by what I wrote. Besides you, this consisted of two people who had written a great deal of stuff about me for years. Others had a different view. Nobody was singled out or named, it wasn't written with anyone in mind.

Perhaps this is part of the anger you described above, perhaps not, idk. I
just wish you would quit trying to stop ex's from discussing and pointing out
the pitfalls and harms caused by Scn on this Board with this idea you have that
it is somehow taboo to discuss it because it is "their religious beliefs".

I'm gobsmacked at the idea that my posting my views would be seen as trying to stop anyone. I have never told anyone that they shouldn't post what they do.

Many of us are here to help others see the harms of Scn and you say you
personally got a lot out of the discussions on ars. Let others have their
own discussions and come to their own conclusions before taking personal offense
on behalf of someone else because their "religion" is being discussed.

I haven't stopped anyone. I've joined in many times, as I said. Feel free to google it.

Your posts on this thread touched on the thread op very little and were mainly about other matters, often personalized. You know what that's called on the boards, right?

 

[Claire Swazey]

Can you think of any great art made under the influence of scientology?

Now, isn't that an interesting question. Answer is no, I haven't. Well, Beck's music isn't bad. But for all the championing of the arts and pushing of arty celebs and all that, the cult hasn't really produced much along those lines. And some of what was done, wasn't really very good. I don't know if it's a question of demographics/ratio- like there's only so many Scn'ists and so only so many works would get created, or, more likely, with all the constant demands for time and money, who would have time to create anything?

And, of course, as I mentioned before, the tech doesn't deliver what's promised, nowhere near. Maybe a fraction.

When I see Scn'ists who are pretty good at the arts, it always seems to me that they already had those abilities and tendencies, before they got into Scn.

I'm reading a book called Sex With Kings now. It has some gorgeous art in it. A picture of an Irish girl sprawled on a couch. Every detail, every fold in the fabric- she looks like she could walk out of the painting and say hi. I would dearly love to take an art appreciation course. Checked into it years ago but there were no night courses.
Beauty is very important. One gets little of that, if any, in the cult.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Claire,

Thank you for the excellent topic. You have saved me the trouble of starting a thread that I have been contemplating "Does Scientology Truly and Honestly Suck?"

A few things that I was going to write and instead will add them to your illustrious thread...

Many people stay in Scientology a long time. If the didn't feel that they were getting something out of it they surely would not stay in for as long as they did.

Getting into the Church of Scientology may have been the best thing for me at the time I got into Scientology

Getting out of the Church of Scientology was the best thing for me at the time I got out.

In Sociology class you learn about the "institutions" of a society from a scholarly point of view. Some people are drawn into religions just for the social aspects of it. We even learned that some will be involved and carry the hopes of meeting a mate that is involved. Not everybody likes to go to a nightspot or gym to meet the person of their dreams.

Their were things in Scientology that added strength to my first marraige. Unfortunatley there were many things that I felt weakened the marraige. I guess this could happen in any religion. Tech policy and the bible could be used to strengthen but it could also be used to make wrong and control.

Well now that I have read your first post and written something I have to head back and continue into this very intereting thread.

See ya,

Rd00

Thanks, Rene,

My main thought was that - apart from the crush regging, enforced recruiting (as it sometimes is, and at the best of times it's still quite invasive) staff conditions- how many of us felt we got anything out of the courses and auditing? (nothing to do with is it a religion or any of that. That's all I was thinking of was, hey, looking back? How does the tech seem to any of us?) I've seen opinions on this run the gambit.

I want to know how the tech seems to people months/years later in hindsight. Not to tout it, not that it's a religion or that it isn't one. I just want to know how it seems. Neutral topic.

I should have attached a poll.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

Now, isn't that an interesting question. Answer is no, I haven't. Well, Beck's music isn't bad. But for all the championing of the arts and pushing of arty celebs and all that, the cult hasn't really produced much along those lines. And some of what was done, wasn't really very good. I don't know if it's a question of demographics/ratio- like there's only so many Scn'ists and so only so many works would get created, or, more likely, with all the constant demands for time and money, who would have time to create anything?

And, of course, as I mentioned before, the tech doesn't deliver what's promised, nowhere near. Maybe a fraction.

When I see Scn'ists who are pretty good at the arts, it always seems to me that they already had those abilities and tendencies, before they got into Scn.

I'm reading a book called Sex With Kings now. It has some gorgeous art in it. A picture of an Irish girl sprawled on a couch. Every detail, every fold in the fabric- she looks like she could walk out of the painting and say hi. I would dearly love to take an art appreciation course. Checked into it years ago but there were no night courses.
Beauty is very important. One gets little of that, if any, in the cult.

My evaluation is that in order to create great art you have to be truly independent in thought and deed, as well as having time to hone your skills and observation. This cannot be done with your mind owned by a cult. A real artist just wouldn't have time to be brainwashed, simply too busy working.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... There were times I did have a good session, but I could have had counselling as I have had since, counselling that actually addressed the problem I had that scientology never even glanced at. ...

No doubt very true, however I'm inclined to the view that training in the ideas of the 'comm formula' and experience of the sort of communication which regularly occurs in effective & successful auditing is an excellent background to have when dealing with any kind of counselling session. Ease of communication and ability to look at what is coming up and identify the source are valuable skills to be had in any form of counselling and which can noticeably improve with development.

The basic scientology communication skills as well as many of the processes on the 'lower' bridge go along way towards improving communication generally and especially within a potential counseling situation. For the most part I see it as the organizationally coerced conformity & subjugation which forms the background of cult involvement and which constitutes the destructive element experienced as a result of involvement with the church.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Disinfected]

Claire, I think you and I are on the same page. You were not flailing when you found Scientology. Good for you. I was. I needed something. Scientology appeared. These days I believe that the universe provides if you are deserving. Scientology was the right thing at the right time. Would something else have served? Perhaps. But I am not sure I would have been receptive to something else at that time in my spiritual development. Perhaps Scientology was what I deserved I needed a push and, god knows, Scientology is pushy

I spotted Hubbard as a bullshitter early on, as I have said. But that was not a deal-breaker for me. I was surprised at the lack of ARC and the lack of, well, Scientology, once I encountered upper orgs and staff. I started researching critical material around 1984, after six years involvement, the first few at a friendly mission.

I recently came across a KR my ex wrote on me in 2001 where she tattles that I thought Miscavige was an SP. Oh, well.

disinfected

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Can you think of any great art made under the influence of scientology?

Well, fwiw, there are some great artists who have been influenced by scientology. However, the argument has been proposed from time to time that great art often arises from obsessive & dysfunctional aspects of creativity and personality. One particularly interesting book addressing some aspects of this idea is "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament".

Arguing the devil's brief, it might be said that the degree to which any counselling might help an artist in restraining such dysfunctional aspects of personality might also be said to adversely impact his art.

It is certainly the case in the specific instance of some artists affected by bipolar disorder and medicated accordingly that some will choose to stop medicating themselves as they may feel better personally but that they consider the medication to adversely impact on their artistic output.

Whether it is true generally that an improving condition improves the quality of artistic output, seems to be more or less the assumption underlying your question. It's not clear that is true in itself. Maybe. Maybe not. It would be an interesting irony though if the personality damage created by the church should ultimately be considered as the source of the 'greatest artistic influence' associated with scientology.

Overall though, it is clearly an interesting question, however it is also a pretty vague matter as to what constitutes 'great art' and what forces specifically influence its production.


Mark A. Baker

 

[SomeGuy]

Well, fwiw, there are some great artists who have been influenced by scientology. However, the argument has been proposed from time to time that great art often arises from obsessive & dysfunctional aspects of creativity and personality. One particularly interesting book addressing some aspects of this idea is "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament".

Arguing the devil's brief, it might be said that the degree to which any counselling might help an artist in restraining such dysfunctional aspects of personality might also be said to adversely impact his art.

It is certainly the case in the specific instance of some artists affected by bipolar disorder and medicated accordingly that some will choose to stop medicating themselves as they may feel better personally but that they consider the medication to adversely impact on their artistic output.

Whether it is true generally that an improving condition improves the quality of artistic output, seems to be more or less the assumption underlying your question. It's not clear that is true in itself. Maybe. Maybe not. It would be an interesting irony though if the personality damage created by the church should ultimately be considered as the source of the 'greatest artistic influence' associated with scientology.

Overall though, it is clearly an interesting question, however it is also a pretty vague matter as to what constitutes 'great art' and what forces specifically influence its production.


Mark A. Baker

I find a couple of premises in your post interesting. Some subtle, some not.

Primarily that scientology is counseling that helps alleviate bi-polar disorders and that art is born out of such disorders and finally by inference that scientology has influenced any of these things through it's "counseling" techniques.

I would disagree that mental disorders are what "drives" art, I think why you might assume that is because of the high profile whacked out artists but I would guess (much like yours) that they represented in the same ratio as the general population.

In the end we do agree that art is subjective and what gives rise to inspiration and to talent to execute that art/vision is a mystery.

 

[Disinfected]

These days I believe that the universe provides if you are deserving.

disinfected

That was a bit glib and not really what I believe. Can't edit it now. I guess that I believe that the universe is an infinity of possibilities and opportunities and those that you perceive, that you intersect, that you act on; that is a function of your spiritual condition.

disinfected

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Well, fwiw, there are some great artists who have been influenced by scientology.


Mark A. Baker

who?

 

[SpecialFrog]

who?

Leonard Cohen? Was great beforehand and wasn't in all that long, but he does ask "did you ever go Clear" in one of his more well-known songs.

Though replacing it with "did you ever drink beer" might have been pretty good too.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

Well, fwiw, there are some great artists who have been influenced by scientology. However, the argument has been proposed from time to time that great art often arises from obsessive & dysfunctional aspects of creativity and personality. One particularly interesting book addressing some aspects of this idea is "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament".

Arguing the devil's brief, it might be said that the degree to which any counselling might help an artist in restraining such dysfunctional aspects of personality might also be said to adversely impact his art.

It is certainly the case in the specific instance of some artists affected by bipolar disorder and medicated accordingly that some will choose to stop medicating themselves as they may feel better personally but that they consider the medication to adversely impact on their artistic output.

Whether it is true generally that an improving condition improves the quality of artistic output, seems to be more or less the assumption underlying your question. It's not clear that is true in itself. Maybe. Maybe not. It would be an interesting irony though if the personality damage created by the church should ultimately be considered as the source of the 'greatest artistic influence' associated with scientology.

Overall though, it is clearly an interesting question, however it is also a pretty vague matter as to what constitutes 'great art' and what forces specifically influence its production.


Mark A. Baker

Yes I do agree that society and even the art world loves a suffering artist. Amy Winehouse was a great example of someone sacrificed for her art. Often though there's suffering without increased ability as in Whitney Houston. The Americam political world loved Jackson Pollock because he was a drunk and because his art was so free of political statement. His work spoke of freedom without actually saying anything, so him and his mates had their work shown in Moscow to show the commies how great the west was.

Emotion can be a big thing in any art form, but it doesn't have to be painful it can be happy and exciting. It can be cerebral and even mathematic. Bach's Brandenburgs can have very cool IT chaps enthralled. Briget Riley paintings are hardly angst ridden.

Good scientologists make crap art if they follow the Art Series, because it's crap.

Being good scientologists their heads are full of platitudes that falsely resolve any questions, a scientologist artist can not question, can not think for themselves cannot even observe because their heads have answers to everything.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Hi, Disinfected and everybody!!

I was kind of a kid when I got into Scn. That may be why it was a bit different for me, emotionally. Well, we all have our individual stories...

Dad was into it when I was a kid, left in disgust, got back into it when I was in my last year of high school. He recommended that I take a comm course. I was 17, and I liked it. Mom didn't approve so I said no prob, I'll wait til I'm 18 in deference to her- which I did.

I did feel I needed something to calm my nerves (had a bunch of term papers all due at the same time) but was mostly ok. By that time, even though pretty young, I'd studied up on comparative religion and other things. I thought I'd just do some Scn and move on. But you know the cult- they don't want that approach. So I got stuck in it. "Stuck" isn't a bad word. Yes, I had my own decisions to make. Sure. But I was heavily influenced by the regging and then when I went on staff, seems like a portion of my brain turned into cottage cheese.

Now, I have said this before here and there but maybe not everyone's seen me say it, so here goes: Although I think some of Scn "tech" and ideology is beneficial and generally not harmful (I am talking about drills, word clearing, auditing) I also believe that given the fact that people often experience incredible duress, get cut off from family, have financial problems because of it, that they're better off never doing any of it. Even the stuff that I personally think was rather nice. And I do think some of it was rather nice. I ain't apologizin' for that. But of course, there's no trade off here.

And that may be why I am not displeased with some of my friends' interest in the FZ. Nobody's trying to get their kid into the SO or to make 'em cough up hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But even so, if I were to just go, ok, it's ideology, it's beliefs, nobody in the mix is a member of CofS, so is it worth it? Well, I say Freddie FreeZoner's an adult and had best figure it out for himself. He's a right to do this stuff but he really should read up on some other methods and ideas not pertaining to Hubbardism.

My personal opinion (and that's ALL it is) is that effective meditation may be more beneficial which is hilarious considering all the bitching the cult does about meditation.

We all have to figure this shit out ourselves. Look at how individual we all are. Someone the other week wrote a beautiful post about getting baptized. Others get into other religions. Some decide they are atheists or agnostics. Some become major activists, like Magoo. You can see that we've all got different takes on this.

One thing for sure, Scn left its mark on everyone who tried it. Whether they hate only the organization, hate all of it, like some of the stuff they did, hate Indies and FZers, love them, don't care- whatever it is- anyone who did any Scn has not been unaffected or, in many cases, unscathed.

So we talk this out.

Criticism is healthy. I don't care whether it's fuck the skull of L Ron Hubbard type stuff or whether it's very analytic or somewhere in between. I'll never gainsay anyone's doing it. But I might reply to some posts. When I do, it's sincere and is because I felt I had something to say on the matter, just as did the person to whom I was responding.

I'm constantly amazed at the many wonderful people here. It's worth a few bumps in the road. Some of the posts here on this thread- WOW. Really really thoughtful and interesting.