Scientology & Fanaticism

[Gadfly]

GADFLY, I do appreciate your writings and viewpoints here, and inspite of the fact that the "Tech" has done well for many in earlier years, the viewpoints you have expressed are essentially mine also, and I can say that you have even helped me clarify them.

That means a small viewpoint shift sharpening my own to a finer edge.

Thank you.

I look forward to more posts from you, although I see you have many already that maybe I should read.

I am glad to get feedback from time to time. In all honestly, since I can be "overly-detailed" in my examination of things,I wonder at times if I am the only one looking at things as I do. It is good to know that some of the things I "see" are not entirely subjective - in other words some people have experienced and see similar things.

Also, it is not "in spite of". I had some huge wins in auditing and on various courses. THESE were real to me. At no point do I or do I expect to minimize those. But also, I was always aware and paid attention to the "indoctrination" process, somehow remaining slightly above it while involved. Even while involved, and actively onlines, I still looked around and noticed many crazy things. I watched it all, calmly, but always quietly wished to myself that this Church didn't have to be so damned "severe".

Cripes, a person could have big wins right now TODAY, but still SHOULD be able to view and understand the organizational manipulative factors in their personal involvement and experience with the Church of Scientology. Of course, that is not easy, because the whole system is set up in part to monitor and DETECT any such "critical" or "out of agreement" views. It is not easy remaining in the "middle of the road" with a group that, for all practical purposes, demands a near total commitment.

In a very real regard, the Church sucks one in on his or her own IDEALS, wishful thinking of a better tomorrow, and hope for real answers. Most members slide into the Scientology reality along a well-greased carrier wave of ones own lofty ideals, hopes and wishes. One quickly and automatically identifies THOSE with LRH, the Church and Church functioning.

Hubbard was a professional at marketing. Read his PR series and marketing series policies. This idea is critical:

Conduct a survey, find out what some person or group wants, and then tell them that THAT is what you will give them! It is the same in listing techniques. The auditor runs down a list, marks the biggest reads, and then tells you back YOUR ITEM! It's the same in the Dissem Drill where the prospect is pushed further and further into the ruin (that he or she just told you was his or her ruin), and then told to "imagine what it would be like if that got WORSE". It is a constant game of using YOU against YOU.

The staff member pushing a prospect into his or her "ruin" at one point asserts, with Tone 40 intention, "Scientology can handle that"! This staff member has NO IDEA if Scientology can handle that, and the staff member simply follows the LRH patter. Just tell them that Scientolgy can handle WHATEVER the prospect told you is wrong with him or her! Conduct the survey, get the results, find the button, and then pitch it back at the prospect. It is just a mechanism. There is no "truth" necessarily involved.

To me, in a certain sense, Hubbard sort of conducted a "survey" on Mankind, found out some of the "big buttons", and then shot them all back at you in books and policies telling you that THAT is what you will get from Scientology. Some of the buttons:

freedom
expanded awareness
understanding
certainty
stability
happiness
prosperity
ethics
justice

add more of your own . . . .

 

[Francois Tremblay]

1. If you actually sincerely mean that, well you must have been a VERY good Churchie.

What do you mean? I have never been a member of Scientology or any other church.

Personally, I don't see at all how being an adherent of any religion means being "ready in his heart to kill, deceive and hurt". THAT is the INSANE view.

How is it insane for someone who believes that he alone can save people, to do everything he can to save people? To do otherwise would be to have very little compassion indeed.

2. Dedication is not an equal-opportunity employer. I maintain that the very large portion of what any person "believes" is pure nonsense.

Well of course. I suppose that's true of everything.

People who are "dedicated" generally want to change the world in alignment with their "ideas". I think people desiring to change the world need to spend a GREAT DEAL of time first looking in the mirror.

That is a very true point.

Again, people with "ideals" and "purposes", ramming these down the throats of the rest of humanity is a LARGE reason why Earth is a Hell! These folks are always trying to rearrange the world around them into some alignment with their often meager and limited "ideals".

Once again, there's no disagreement about that from my quarters. But without some other people with good ideals and purposes, we would still be in the stone age. You're only seeing one side of the equation.

In the end, since any argument MUST get to a point where the person holds some unexamined assumption as TRUE, well, logic in the end is always nothing but circular reasoning.

That's perfectly fine, but the point of philosophy is to uproot those unexamined assumptions, eventually arriving at some result one can take full responsibility for.

Logic is a low form of thinking. A very low form of thinking.

If by that you mean linear thinking, then I agree. But if you mean all uses of logic, then I cannot agree at all.

That's like saying that English is a very low form of communication. it all depends how you use it, and based on what premises.

The psychology of belief is a fascinating subject.

If you haven't already, I highly recommend you read The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer.

Most people are unconscious of their own beliefs, as beliefs, and how these beliefs relate to and function in the world as a result of these beliefs. People are generally, at the effect of ones beliefs.

Once again, very true! But that doesn't mean it has to be that way.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Jumping in a river to save a drowning man involves a REAL situation in the REAL world. And really, there is no "belief" involved.

Wow, really? You're wrong about that, though. There is a whole host of beliefs involved in that evaluation. Unexamined, in your case, apparently.

But, the Muslim extremist who envisions a soon-to-be happy orgy with dozens of Virgins in Heaven, or the Scientologist who flakily envisions some "clear planet" where "all can be free and happy" both involve IMAGINARY situations.

And yet he believes in it just as much as you believe in the justice of saving someone's life.

The evil comes because some person is dealing with IMAGINARY realities, that the somewhat dull person, doesn't notice have much more of the color of imaginary, than of real. And, of course, the person is going to commit acts in the real world of people and life based on this tremendous mental universe of largely imaginary concepts and ideals.

Castles in the sky, yes. That's what all theology ultimately reduces itself to.

Sorry, people who somehow accept the idea that dedication to and honest acting upon any and all beliefs is a "good thing" have no idea exactly WHAT he or she is supporting and encouraging.

Actually, I have no unexamined premise about it, as far as I know. I know exactly what I am supporting.

 

[Challenge]

I love your posts, Gadfly. And I love your Avatar.
Please continue to post.

Chlng

 

[Gadfly]

I love your posts, Gadfly. And I love your Avatar.
Please continue to post.

Chlng

Thank-you!

The ostrich in my Avatar has a symbolic meaning. Ostriches, of course, bury their heads in the sand. Simply, TAKE YOU HEAD OUT OF THE SAND (or out of ones ass, whichever might apply). Besides that, the "look" on this ostrich's face is priceless! (to me anyway)

I have been busy the past few days. I have a few things that I need to organize in my head, write up and then post. As I have said before, it is always nice to hear positive things once in awhile, since usually one never hears much of anything, or instead gets the flaming e-mail or occassional "you are just a fuckin' idiot" type post.

 

[Gadfly]

What do you mean? I have never been a member of Scientology or any other church.

But, the Muslim extremist who envisions a soon-to-be happy orgy with dozens of Virgins in Heaven, or the Scientologist who flakily envisions some "clear planet" where "all can be free and happy" both involve IMAGINARY situations.

And yet he believes in it just as much as you believe in the justice of saving someone's life.

Why do you even post here if you have never been a member of the Church of Scientology? The name of the board is "ex-Scientologist Message Board". For the life of me I can't imagine surfing all over the web looking for boards to talk with people about something that doesn't apply to me.

I am curious. WHY do you post here? What is your interest in ex-Scientologists? What attracts you to this tiny insignificant corner of the Web?

On the last point, do you have any idea what it means to keep data in the same realm of importances? Or, on the same level of abstraction? The difference between apples and oranges?

Jumping in a river to save a drowning person involves a REAL person, a REAL river, and a REAL dangerous situation. There is not at all the same concatenation of logic involving very ABSTRACT notions as in the next example.

The Muslim extremist is doing what he does for some BELIEF in imaginary things that most likely have no correlation to anything anywhere outside of his own over-active imagination.

Yes, I read The True Believer. It well explains the mechanics of people who do really strange things in the name of some (often) very dumb set of ideas.

All beliefs aren't equal. All behaviors aren't equal. All opinions aren't equal. I know in this "liberal" world of "everybody is equal" nonsense, that some people have accepted the notion that ANY viewpoint is as valid as ANY OTHER viewpoint. THAT is utter hogwash. People might have a RIGHT to have an viewpoint, BUT no person has a right to express it in a way that HURTS another human being. Additionally, some people are just dumb, or uneducated, or extremely biased, or intellectually lazy, or ego-driven and unable to see past his or her own severe personal slant, and in those cases the views or opinions are simply FLAWED to some degree (incorrect, invalid, inaccurate, incomplete, too vague, too abstract, etc). There are MANY ways that any opinion can be misaligned with the DATA it claims to portray or represent.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

I am curious. WHY do you post here? What is your interest in ex-Scientologists? What attracts you to this tiny insignificant corner of the Web?

I have always been interested in Scientology. Therefore I seek out places which have information about Scientology that I do not yet possess, or different perspectives on various Scientology issues. This board is definitely one such place.

On the last point, do you have any idea what it means to keep data in the same realm of importances? Or, on the same level of abstraction? The difference between apples and oranges?

Yes, I do.

Jumping in a river to save a drowning person involves a REAL person, a REAL river, and a REAL dangerous situation.

REAL to YOU, because of your context of knowledge and your values. To another person (say, someone who has absolutely no empathy or sense of morality), it might be just as abstract as the idea of saving man's soul.

The Muslim extremist is doing what he does for some BELIEF in imaginary things that most likely have no correlation to anything anywhere outside of his own over-active imagination.

Yes... I know that and you know that. Obviously he doesn't.

Yes, I read The True Believer. It well explains the mechanics of people who do really strange things in the name of some (often) very dumb set of ideas.

I find it very strange that you claim to have read it, and at the same time display such ignorance. In fact, Hoffer himself has a far more nuanced opinion of mass movements.

All beliefs aren't equal. All behaviors aren't equal. All opinions aren't equal.

For you, they aren't. That's fine. We all have a singular and privileged perspective. In a purely personal way, I obviously agree with you, and so does any other person: we all hold to certain beliefs, act in certain ways, and hold certain opinions, because we believe they are better than others. Otherwise no one would have any beliefs, behaviours or opinions.

But that principle can be taken too far, such as in your case, where because you consider fanaticism immoral, you condemn ALL fanatics, including those who work for good purposes.

People might have a RIGHT to have an viewpoint

That's about as trivial as saying we have a right to breathe or a right have a roof to live under.

BUT no person has a right to express it in a way that HURTS another human being.

Hurts emotionally, financially, morally? Or are we talking strictly about physical hurt? Just saying "hurts" doesn't define much of anything, since there are any number of ways to "hurt" people, with said evaluation being dependent on the person's worldview.

Additionally, some people are just dumb, or uneducated, or extremely biased, or intellectually lazy, or ego-driven and unable to see past his or her own severe personal slant, and in those cases the views or opinions are simply FLAWED to some degree (incorrect, invalid, inaccurate, incomplete, too vague, too abstract, etc). There are MANY ways that any opinion can be misaligned with the DATA it claims to portray or represent.

Yes, of course. That doesn't mean you can elevate yourself as the judge of all opinions on the vague basis that it "hurts" someone.

 

[crm1978]

The big reason why for the fanaticism was that Hubbard made it that way .Funny thing is so much of the entry level stuff like the creed of a scientologist what is true for you the spirit of play etc is so antifanatical that newbees think that is what the cult is all about then the bait and switch happens .I see the way it worked now but at the time I did'nt have a clue.The other thing is that the abusive poverty for staff policy was so that Hubbard could get all of the money for himself.Something else I did'nt see is what a lie the what your fees buy HCOPl was.In other words the people were paying thousands for services the Org labor costs were next to nothing Where did all the Money go? The other control aspects like social isolation from critical family the us vs the wogs we have the only way to save the world etc. all helped to create fanatical belief.

 

[crm1978]

That elitism runs all through the cult I see it in the whole reward the upstat punish the downstat etc. The trouble is that Hubbard was a failure who dealt with things by pretending to himself that he was so much more then he was then getting others to believe the lie then he created a whole structure that is so much less then it claims to be The other thing about eliteism is that it so often is a put on by egotistical people who think they are better then others but in reality we are all just flawed human beings doing the best we can. I see that all through the cult indeed the "Bridge to total Freedom" may consist mostly of building up the ego and making them feel "special".A side effect of this is that people lose their humanity and their ability to honestly see them selves "as is" I see this in the we're better than wogs "I'm Ot so I'm better then people lower on the bridge" That kind of thinking also tends to make people fanatical and to crave more of the ego stroking that makes a narcisist happy. I would also say that that sort of narcisism is a barrier to a true spirituality