What's new

Punditry

Winston Smith

Flunked Scientology
Re: Let's get this back on track

I think this thread has been derailed enough.

So I would like to ask readers if any of them think that those who've spent more time in the cult, done more training/OT levels, wrote books, etc- if they deserve a special status as opposed to being open to what they say, reading what they say and considering what they say on an individual basis per utterance/video/book/interview/whatever?

What do you guys think of altitude? Do you grant it to some critics? Why or why not?

And if the answer's yes, how did you feel when the cult made you do it?

Ha, in that I personally think of any and all things scientological as pure torture, I also think those who have lots of altitude in the cult are sadly deluded. At this point in my life I don't even like words associated with the cult. When someone posts "MEST" or "ARCx" or any word or concept in the scn dictionary I automatically suspect the person. I have a friend with a glancing knowledge of Scn who to this day spouts things like "intention" or (and I detest THIS one:) "validation." Go fuck your validation please. BUT this is just me; I am sure there are many in this forum who happily speak fluent cultese.

So in a word, I do not play the game, Claire :)
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Re: Let's get this back on track

I think this thread has been derailed enough.

So I would like to ask readers if any of them think that those who've spent more time in the cult, done more training/OT levels, wrote books, etc- if they deserve a special status as opposed to being open to what they say, reading what they say and considering what they say on an individual basis per utterance/video/book/interview/whatever?

What do you guys think of altitude? Do you grant it to some critics? Why or why not?

And if the answer's yes, how did you feel when the cult made you do it?
It's actually a pretty complex question Claire..

I think Scientology is a scam. I think Hubbard designed it AS a scam, a swindle.. With the intention to milk the marks for money and render them incapable of complaining about it.

So... With that in mind, is a 'highly trained' auditor with 30 year experience in Scientology deserving of respect.. Or to rephrase, is it his 'scientology experience' that makes him deserving?

Or.. A guy who realized the scam after only a year on staff? - This guy didn't learn as much 'Scientology', but he was obviously more 'spiritually' and intellectually alert than the above 'veteran scientologist' who took 30 years to smell the coffee.

Hmm.. There's even people who can spot Scientology as a scam without ever having entered an org.. From listening to a scientology idiot like I was for example..

I respect the veteran scientologist if and when he uses his experience to figure out just how Hubbard made the scam work.. Helping other victims to shed the spell.

I respect the other dude too.. He did recognize early what Scientology really was/is.

:yes:
 

FinallyMe

Silver Meritorious Patron
Hmm, applying my own criteria concerning "altitude" specifically to critics - interesting exercise - made me understand my position a bit better.

First, I was pretty much going to say what Schwimmy said about the length of time it took someone to figure it out, except that he had already said it. That said,

Critics, per se? No, I don't grant them any altitude based on their thoughts about or experiences with Scientology. I "respect" people who have left Scientology when it did not work for them, and who continued to examine and learn about life and who share specifics about how their lives have improved as a result of whatever they have done -- be it in Freezone, Buddhism, reading, chanting, organized religion, whatever. I would be more likely to be interested in what people like Alan Walter have to say, because he has examined, researched, grown, and applied what he discovered, with specific mention of his own gains and the gains of others. I respect what he has accomplished. I would be more likely to try out his suggestions to see if they work in my life as well.

As contrast, Marty Rathbun seems to spend more time bitching about the organized "church" rather than bettering his own life and the lives of others. What's to admire? How can I take that and try it out in my own life?

I think those who get my respect are those who can SHOW me what they've accomplished rather than those who just complain about stuff. Teachers.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Re: Let's get this back on track

It's actually a pretty complex question Claire..

I think Scientology is a scam. I think Hubbard designed it AS a scam, a swindle.. With the intention to milk the marks for money and render them incapable of complaining about it.

So... With that in mind, is a 'highly trained' auditor with 30 year experience in Scientology deserving of respect.. Or to rephrase, is it his 'scientology experience' that makes him deserving?

Or.. A guy who realized the scam after only a year on staff? - This guy didn't learn as much 'Scientology', but he was obviously more 'spiritually' and intellectually alert than the above 'veteran scientologist' who took 30 years to smell the coffee.

Hmm.. There's even people who can spot Scientology as a scam without ever having entered an org.. From listening to a scientology idiot like I was for example..

I respect the veteran scientologist if and when he uses his experience to figure out just how Hubbard made the scam work.. Helping other victims to shed the spell.

I respect the other dude too.. He did recognize early what Scientology really was/is.

:yes:

Really liking that post, Schwimmy.

That's my thing. I'd rather give careful consideration to one and all than altitude.

Come to think of it, there're people who stayed in for years and years and still are in there. So you have to wonder what they're thinking. Then, when/if they get out, do we treat them with more consideration than people who figured out the problem right away or less?

You know what I would suggest? Just going by what they say and do on an individual basis. So just as a newbie might have some great ideas, an old timer might be weak in some areas but also strong in others.
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
Hmm, applying my own criteria concerning "altitude" specifically to critics - interesting exercise - made me understand my position a bit better.

First, I was pretty much going to say what Schwimmy said about the length of time it took someone to figure it out, except that he had already said it. That said,

Critics, per se? No, I don't grant them any altitude based on their thoughts about or experiences with Scientology. I "respect" people who have left Scientology when it did not work for them, and who continued to examine and learn about life and who share specifics about how their lives have improved as a result of whatever they have done -- be it in Freezone, Buddhism, reading, chanting, organized religion, whatever. I would be more likely to be interested in what people like Alan Walter have to say, because he has examined, researched, grown, and applied what he discovered, with specific mention of his own gains and the gains of others. I respect what he has accomplished. I would be more likely to try out his suggestions to see if they work in my life as well.

As contrast, Marty Rathbun seems to spend more time bitching about the organized "church" rather than bettering his own life and the lives of others. What's to admire? How can I take that and try it out in my own life?

I think those who get my respect are those who can SHOW me what they've accomplished rather than those who just complain about stuff. Teachers.


You would have to listen to them before they could teach you anything.


You guys are zeroing in on length of time to leave cos?
I am looking at a broader picture. However, were I to want tech answers, I would rather get it from a seasoned auditor than, say, an ARC Straightwire Release.


If I want medical advice, I get it from a medical professional.
If I want any other advice, I will go to an experienced person before I will go to someone who read a book about the subject.


If I wanted info about COS, I would want it from one who had been thru the Mill, who had DONE it, and who had the ability to publish FACTs and REFERENCES about it, rather than one who was not experienced in the subject. Duh.


But that's just me. As I say, there are tons of people smarter than I am, AND I KNOW IT. That's why I would query the best expert that I could find to give me answers and opinions. Then I decide whether their answers/and or opinions are applicable to the situation that I am trying to solve. BUT, I have to LISTEN to that answer or opinion before I accept or reject it.


chlng




chlng
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Well, if you look at my opening post, you can see that I do not say not to listen to those with a lot of experience. I say that I do so and that it's a great idea. I just don't do the kow towing altitude thing, having a profound allergy to that.

I've named people on this board who were in the cult as long as anyone else mentioned here, years and years. I value their opinions greatly- and far more than those pundits I named (in response to Infinite's request).

But I also think newbies sometimes make some good points. I figure, just read what people write and go from there and there...problem solved.

I was in the cult most of my life. Far more than 6 years. I don't consider myself to be a pundit or OL, though. But occasionally, I "just might have something to say" as the song goes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYmX3jZvRKY
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . <snip> . . . I've named people on this board who were in the cult as long as anyone else mentioned here, years and years. I value their opinions greatly- and far more than those pundits I named (in response to Infinite's request). . . <snip> . . .

And thank you for doing so. I don't think the pundits you mention would themselves want to be treated with any more respect than is due any another participant in the wider Scientology critic scene. I agree with your post-by-post approach in terms of responding, but it would be foolish to ignore the body of work which has proceeded those posts. Part of the success of the Anon movement is the avoidance of the leader-fag label. Setting up opinion leaders is a possible vector for divide and rule as a means of diversion away from over-arching goals. Thus, when it comes to individuals, "trust but verify" is my general tendency, especially if I am going to repeat something I have only been told.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I like "trust but verify". My boss JUST said that to me last week re managing my team at work.

Sure, I read some of their stuff, but I don't really have as much regard for those 4 as I do for a lot of others in the critic's scene.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Excllent Infinite! :thumbsup:

That is also my attitude:

Thus, when it comes to individuals, "trust but verify" is my general tendency, especially if I am going to repeat something I have only been told.

I am sure that this idea exists in MANY areas and fields, but for me, I first contacted the idea of "verifying it personally" while involved in Scientology, as it is a basic "admin policy" for executives for determining whether some action has been completed. Being the reneragde that I was though, I would also use the idea to confirm all reports of anything, incuding verifying Hubbard's many claims and statements, only to find MANY to come up lacking.

That is an example, again, of where I found something of great value from the body of Scientology data, that I still use to this day. Of course, I understand that the idea surely exists elsewhere, but for me, I found that idea in the subject materials of Scientology, having had to study and extensively demo the notions involved in the concept "verify all claims personally".

Now, Hubbard did mean it ONLY as regards verifying the reporting of "dones" on "programs" and "projects", and I did take the liberty to extrapolate THAT idea further to include verifying ANY REPORT OR CLAIM OF ANYTHING - something Hubbard surely would NOT desire or recommend as far as himself or his subject went. I came across many valuable ideas while studying the subject of Scientology, but I quickly learned that for MANY of these ideas, they MUST be taken out of the organizational Scientology context to have any larger widespread meaning or value.

Hubbard often took ideas from other areas, and changed or distorted them to serve the purpose of his organization. A good example is the Data Series. I very much liked the ideas of the Data Series, but I always found the introduction of the notion of an "ideal scene" to be one of the additives that Hubbard himself described in the Data Series. I had actually early decided that the Data Series was a good way to "grade" the truth or falsity of any claim, statement, or assertion, in an attempt to see how well any claim, statement, or assertion lined up with observable reality, but I also saw that THAT is not what Hubbard was using it for. He set it all up to ONLY serve the purpose of expanding his Scn organization - thus the notion of an "ideal scene" that is almost entirely defined in terms of HIS claims, statements, demands and "imaginative ideals". I could and now can easily see how any person could describe clearly an "ideal scene" for any aspect of his or her life, and then using the idea of "outpoints" evaluate where and how the ideal scene is not being realized. The key is for YOU to choose and define the "ideal scene". Of course, Hubbard doesn't allow that possibility - though in all fairness the many business consulting companies that have spring up over the years using LRH admin tech HAVE reinterpreted the Data Series exactly in that way (with the approval of WISE).

It was only much later that I found out why what I noticed was true, when I came to study the subject of General Semantics that Hubbard's Data Series was based upon. I would need to restudy it all, but I doubt there was anything there that couldn't have been learned from General Semantics, though Hubbard did introduce the various "illogics" - added time, ommitted time, incorrect sequence, and other ideas that delienate ways in which a statement or idea can deviate from "what really is".

I had entered into Scientology because I was on my own search for "truth". It was fairly easy for me to see that the Data Series was a contrivance of Hubbard's developed and intended almost solely to benefit the survival of the Scn organization.

For me, I have a better understanding of these things having studied BOTH the Data Series and General Semantics. Neither alone could have brought me to the understanding I now have. That understanding includes both how Hubbard added to the subject in some positive ways and also how Hubbard distorted and sabotaged the VALID use of General Semantics as a tool to "evolve ones intellect and conceptual universe".
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I'm going to clarify my position again on this.

1) I have never said no one should listen to people who used to be in the cult a long time or whatnot.

However, I just don't give them reverence, altitude, toe sucking, whatever.

2) If someone wants to be a pundit, great. But I reserve the right to agree, disagree or half of one and half of the other re that person's opinions.

These are just people. That's all they are. They have their personal issues, frailties, strong points, just as well all do. I've yet to come across any Scn critical pundit or political pundit whose personal life is more moral than anyone else's. Trust me when I tell you that people tell me a lot of secrets- stuff I've never ever posted and never ever will. I don't look down on people who have stuff going on in their lives, but I sure am not seeing that anyone's more above reproach than some poor schmoe like me who is just a chick posting to some fora and who goes on the occasional picket and stuff like that.

Plus, don't get me started on all the crap that's come out about various political pundit's lives! Rush Limbaugh comes to mind. Hoo boy!

Yet, if I were far more right wing than I am, I guess I'd be a fan, right? I'd be interested in what he had to say about politics. But knowing that he's just a guy, I'd not be inclined to give him any altitude or reverence. He's just trying to figure this shit out like the rest of us.

3) No, it has nothing to do with my Scientological outlook. I don't really have one anymore. And even when I did, there were people (and still are) whose opinions I respected greatly.

A little while back, there was a hullabaloo about a comment I made about Caroline Letkeman. Now, had that been a comment about someone who just comes here and posts some cool shit sometimes, there'd not have been any fuss. But, oh no, it was unthinkable that I ever say anything because of who this person was. It was opined that my Scn'ological outlook affected things, that her husband listing me on his idiot webpage (Look at what the blinking letters spell then look at alll the people who are on this thing. It's too funny!) http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/goon-squad-follies.html was why I made the comment about her.

Nah. I just don't dig her stuff and her stuff doesn't resonate with me. Her being anyone's wife has nothing to do with it. I already didn't like Armstrong before I ever heard of Caroline.

I also tend to have higher regard for people who treat me decently than for those who don't. So the more they or their friends chide me about how dare I and all this, the more their stock plummets, as far as I'm concerned.

You think the Dalai Lama would care if I held him in low regard? (I don't but it's a pretty good hypothetical.) No! Maybe that's one of the reasons I kinda dig the dude...

So I'm not saying don't be a pundit or don't read or talk to any pundit but for god's sake, stop sucking up to people and would you please stop freaking out the second someone says they don't have much liking or regard for somebody's webpages or stance. I mean, so what. You get a lot out of reading about the symbolism with numerology and colors and all kinds of other stuff and the black magic and the old cultie with the rotten teeth and the this and the that? Great. Have at it. But don't expect everyone else to have the same thoughts on the matter. And others, like maybe me, maybe the guy posting in the next thread, may have great interest and take comfort in some other people's writings whose stuff that you, dear reader, might not find applicable at all.

That's how it goes.

So before people start scolding because someone doesn't like some pundit whom you think is just the dernier cri, well, maybe they've got stuff that resonates with them that you wouldn't like. So chill, already!
 
Top