Polarity

[VaD]

Warning!

There is something I have to add to the post above.

It's about sects.

To those who can read Russian, here is the link: http://lurkmore.ru/Секта

I will translate one example given there:
If you drink beer with your neighbor, you already have little sect which is certain that that beer was great or shitty ... Then, when the third one comes along, his only choice is to either agree with you, and your certainty, or GTFO. Most agree with the group's opinion.

And THAT's the danger of FZers and Indies promoting Scn on EX-Scn message board.
They kinda invite exes to come over and get back to drinking that beer after exes had already chosen to GTFO from that group of beer drinkers (disaffected with them).

See what I mean?

P.S. To clarify. Two or more people supporting each other's views about how great Scn is on Ex-Scn MB are likely to create some kind of curiousity amongst those who have just left the Church or Indie field or FZ (lurkers and newbies). It's quite possible that "inquiring mind" (NOT!) / gullible soul will fall for it.
THAT creates the possibility that ESMB works against itself (i.e. instead of getting people out giving great deal of factual information about fallacies of Scn, abuses, ..., gives a platform for some to get gullible ones to fall back into the same trap they felt they just got out of).

 

[VaD]

Afterthought

Perhaps, I was the lucky one in my days while being in SO. I wasn't grading people according to their attitude toward Scn. I dealt with business people outside of Co$, doing business with them. I liked them, and they liked me... And we hardly ever touched upon our beliefs.

But this queston: "What is your attitude to Scientology?" might be a contagious one. Amongst those who are still in, amongst those who are out, amongst exes, amongst Indies, amongst Freezoners.

I believe that this question should be left behind by anyone, with any kind of view toward Scn.

If not, it becomes "grading and labeling" thing. Again! - Just like CoS does, and just like Scilons do.

My warning is:
don't make people guilty (stupid, crazy) for believing in Scn.

Scintology has taught us quite well - to forcefully counter those whose views are opposing, or not the same as ours.

Don't use that thing.
THAT's what ruins relations with those who are not of the same mind as you.

Think about it! - It was a perspective from Hubbard: you are either with Scn, or you are against. If you are against, our (pre-programmed) measures will ensue.

If we use the same view as our opponents (Scilons), what makes us better than them, then?

 

[uniquemand]

Regardless of whether or not Freezoners are batshit crazy, evil, good, perfect godsend OTs, or whatever, they are still promoting the agenda of L Ron Hubbard, by calling themselves scientologists. Scientology doesn't exist without Hubbard. It is defined by his agenda, his policies, and his issues on "tech". If you are a Scientologist, then you are a Hubbardite. If you are not a Hubbardite, then you are not a Scientologist.

If you reject the large body of Scientology, and use what wisdom you did happen to find in the subject, then you are misrepresenting yourself as a Scientologist. Scientology is about Hubbard's command intention. Either you're a follower, or you're not.

Don't lend your good name to Scientology.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I think that people should call themselves what they want to call themselves. I had said before that I think it's a Protestant Reformation thing, wherein what constitutes a "...ian" or "...ist" is redefined. So then the connotations would change as has happened historically.

But, having said that, I also think that saying one is a "ist" or "ian" or whatever not be so good for the individual in that it may box him or her in, in a way. But I'm extending that to everyone who calls himself something like that, not just to Scientologists.

So indies and FZers, call yourselves Scientologists, if you want. You're a new breed of Scientologist. You're like neo Lutherans. You're not at all like CofS members and anyone who seeks to tar you with that particular brush is off base. However, you now have the same situation going as do those who specifically refer to themselves as Baptists, Jews, Hindus, Christians and so on. Being anything other than a "Janeologist" or a "Dexterologist" tends to both you in. Words are powerful. Naming yourself as a specific thing has its pitfalls.

 

[Enthetan]

Regarding Scientology, my current viewpoint on the tech is:

Is there something there that seems to do positive things? Yes.

Is it worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? No.

Have I seen evidence that Scientology can produce a dramatic increase in ability level? No. Somewhat, yes, dramatic, no.

Here's my bottom line: if scientology OTs (in or out of the Church) were anywhere close to dramaticly more able than the non-Scientologists, then we would be seeing a LOT more extremely successful Scientologists.

As it stands, a Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Steve Jobs, etc, can start from relatively modest beginnings (middle to upper-middle class, but not ultra-rich) and create immense fortunes. I don't see comparable stories of successful Scientologists.

If Scientology could increase IQ by 10 or 20 points, and you could do that on people who were already at IQ 140 and produce IQ 150, 160 or more, then you would see Nobel prize winning Scientologist, or at least people famous in their fields.

We don't see that. That was the outpoint that I finally couldn't ignore, that precipitated my decision to stop taking services.

 

[Oneflewover]

Think about it! - It was a perspective from Hubbard: you are either with Scn, or you are against. If you are against, our (pre-programmed) measures will ensue.

If we use the same view as our opponents (Scilons), what makes us better than them, then?

That strikes me as kind of ironic. The thread is about polarity, the essence of which is side taking and opposition.

As long as someone thinks in terms of opponents they'd like to see themselves as "better than", the game just goes on and on.

Live and let live is a healthy attitude.

 

[Zinjifar]

Live and let live is a healthy attitude.

To be, or not to be--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.

There's a polarity for you. Live and let live is healthy; as is opposition.

Zinj

 

[Dulloldfart]

As it stands, a Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Steve Jobs, etc, can start from relatively modest beginnings (middle to upper-middle class, but not ultra-rich) and create immense fortunes.

How about Reed Slatkin? Didn't he create a personal fortune of $100 million or something?

Paul

 

[uniquemand]

I think that people should call themselves what they want to call themselves. I had said before that I think it's a Protestant Reformation thing, wherein what constitutes a "...ian" or "...ist" is redefined. So then the connotations would change as has happened historically.

But, having said that, I also think that saying one is a "ist" or "ian" or whatever not be so good for the individual in that it may box him or her in, in a way. But I'm extending that to everyone who calls himself something like that, not just to Scientologists.

So indies and FZers, call yourselves Scientologists, if you want. You're a new breed of Scientologist. You're like neo Lutherans. You're not at all like CofS members and anyone who seeks to tar you with that particular brush is off base. However, you now have the same situation going as do those who specifically refer to themselves as Baptists, Jews, Hindus, Christians and so on. Being anything other than a "Janeologist" or a "Dexterologist" tends to both you in. Words are powerful. Naming yourself as a specific thing has its pitfalls.

Yeah. I'm a Nazi, but I don't want to be lumped in with those Nazis that burned the Jews! I'm a Nazi who doesn't believe in hurting people, or in dominating governments, or in brainwashing through propaganda. You may ask why I still call myself a Nazi? Well, I'm just sentimental.

 

[Enthetan]

How about Reed Slatkin? Didn't he create a personal fortune of $100 million or something?

Paul

You mean the Scientologist Reed Slatkin currently serving 14 years in federal prison for fraud and running a Ponzi scheme?