Scientology: hard and soft, tech and religion

lkwdblds

Crusader
I came to explain more but.....

Thanks, Lakey; I'll be happy to return the favor if you ask for something comparable. And if you can find time later to explain more, that would be great.

I came to explain more items but after reading your post, I have decided not to do so.

What can I say, though? The gains you describe in normal language sound like real and worthwhile things, all right. But: I'm pretty sure lots of people gain those kinds of understanding without any help from Scientology. Most people, in fact, at some point or other.

You say, "I'm pretty sure lots of people...." and to me that is your problem. To learn anything or to grow spiritually, the first step is knowing that there is something that you don't know. In my humble opinion, I do not think that you have reached that level yet, of knowing that you do not know. I don't mean that as a put down. I have been straight up with you so far, going the extra mile to tell you the truth as I see it. I would be less than honest if I shifted gears now and lied to you or failed to say something which I believe is very germane to our discussion.

The only things I see here as being particular to Scientology are the apparent insistence that all problems involve being caught between two goals, and that all solutions involve finding some similar problem earlier in one's life. Those kinds of conflicting-goal problems do exist, and they're bad; but not all problems are like that. And some problems turn out to have roots in childhood incidents, but not all do. So, other approaches than Scientology seem to me to provide just as much insight, with more flexibility.

S of T, I think you are acting very lazy. First you impose on me to tell you wins in plain English - spoon feed you so to speak. I go out of my way to oblige you and I give you several rudimentary answers in a very simplified form, kind of thinking they may register in your mind and you might dig deeper and do some more research into the various areas, life repair and having problems. Instead, you paraphrase a few sentences of my simplified anectdotes, which themselves were paraphrased from dozens of hours of processing which I received and then you summarize with "So, other approaches than Scientology seem to me to provide just as much insight, with more flexibility."

At this point my impression is that at least the early parts of Scientology might help a lot more than simply sitting around being miserable, but that if you've got the initiative to look for and apply a solution to the things in your life that suck, there are lots of even more effective solutions than Scientology. Heck, listening to one's grandmother might do the job, and most grandmothers work for free. So it's not really the right question, to ask whether Scientology works at all. The question is whether it works better than other things that are readily available and come without the cost and toxic additives. So far, I'm not seeing any signs that it does.

And this is where the Scientologese seems to me to be a serious problem in itself. It makes basic common sense and ordinary human wisdom sound like some kind of exotic high technology. It's like selling bottled tapwater as Dihydrogen Monoxide, for a hundred bucks a pint. It sucks people in to paying for stuff that's available elsewhere for free, and it may get people to swallow a lot of bad stuff along with the good, because good and bad are hard to tell apart when they're both described in Hubbard's jargon.

What I see from you is that you feel you know it all and have a predetermined mind set before you bait someone to be so kind as to answer your questions.

Look at your lead ins, "I'm pretty sure...", "It seems to me", "Heck, listening to one's Grandma might do the job.... ", "At This point my impression is....," "So far, i'm not seeing any signs of..." These are all banal comments, they are circuits in your mind which you use to put a subject down without appearing to be very offensive and falsely trying to create the perception that you have applied a scientific methodology to reach your conclusions.

My sincere advice to you is that if you are against a subject, just say so, just say you feel it harms people and not only that, but the sums charged are outrageous. That would be an honest take. It would be much better yet if you had researched the subject honestly, had taken the time to learn its vocabulary and its jargon, worked out with pencil and paper or with little small object such as paper clips how things could be the way this subject says they are and could not be that way. Perhaps, even try some piece of the subject out on yourself.

To come onto a Board of exes in that subject and ask questions and when they are answered, simply claim you don't understand the jargon and request that someone spoon feed you and put it into plain English and then cherry pick that person's write up and make unqualified comments based on snips of what he said, well that is not an evil thing to do and is not a crime. It merely reveals that you believe you already have the answers, from your wise old Grandma of wherever and your only purpose here is to convince yourself that you made a sincere effort to communicate with a bunch of exes and you objectively deduced that though many of them seemed nice, they were a deluded bunch of people who fell for a worthless subject and lost a ton of money doing so and are now just trying to pretend or convince themselves that they got something out of it only to mitigate their losses of money and self esteem.

You knew that coming in and you have reinforced your previous knowledge by testing the waters here without bias. Congratulations, you proved yourself right vis a vis Scientology. Perhaps now you should move on to the next cult like subject which you plan on dissecting to prove it also has no merit.
Lakey
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
OK. Sounds like some massive PTP handling on Grade One - an outpoint in itself but never mind. I'm glad Life Repair had more to it than just the Dynamics handling.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Of all of the different aspects of Scientology it is the Expanded Lower Grades that are the Creme de la Creme. They are fairly easy to deliver, they are the most predictably certain in the results they produce, the results are very real to people and make big differences in their lives that can be easily recognised by themselves and by others. It is on the Expended Grades that the person expands as a being. He experiences it, and he then knows it as a certainty. And the gains and changes are lasting; they don't fade away.

With such a sure fire thing to deliver it is utterly mind-boggling why the CofS goes to such lengths to stuff it up. With poor training of auditors compounded with cutatives and quicky delivery of the auditing and the inapplicable irrelevant additives to the lower bridge, this whole area has been stuffed beyond recognition.

LRH may have been groping in the dark with the upper levels, they are somewhat hit or miss and are variable in their results. But the Lower Grades, standardly delivered, are bang on target every time. Delivered standardly - and I mean just more or less standardly, it doesn't have to be "perfect" (which doesn't exist anyway) - they can and do deliver what is promised.

And yet they have stuffed it up, and thereby lost the best avenue to public accceptance that Scientology ever had.
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
Excellent post!

Of all of the different aspects of Scientology it is the Expanded Lower Grades that are the Creme de la Creme. The are fairly easy to deliver, they are the most predictably certain in the results they produce, the results are very real to people and make big differences in their lives that can be easily recognised by themselves and by others. It is on the Expended Grades that the person expands as a being. He experiences it, and he then knows it as a certainty. And the gains and changes are lasting; they don't fade away.

With such a sure fire thing to deliver it is utterly mind-boggling why the CofS goes to such lengths to stuff it up. With poor training of auditors compounded with cutatives and quicky delivery of the auditing and the inapplicable irrelevant additives to the lower bridge, this whole area has been stuffed beyond recognition.

LRH may have been groping in the dark with the upper levels, they are somewhat hit or miss and are variable in there results. But the Lower Grades, standardly delivered, are bang on target every time. Delivered standardly - and I mean just more or less standardly, it doesn't have to be "perfect" (which doesn't exist anyway) - they can and do deliver what is promised.

And yet they have stuffed it up, and thereby lost the best avenue to public accceptance that Scientology ever had.

Leon - Excellent post, very well organized, perfectly stated. Just a fine post!
Lakey
 

Veda

Sponsor
Terrible isn't it? The CofS has screwed up the "bait" part of the "bait and switch." How do they expect to run a mental-healing-coated LRH fan(atic) club on Hubbard's model of what he called a "psycho-political operation" by doing that? Miscavige definitely needs to be replaced by someone who can put the tech IN! http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I apologize to Lakey if my reading of his kind explanations gave offence. I did acknowledge that the insights he described sounded real and valuable. And this is after all the subforum for evaluating and criticizing Scientology. ESMBers who don't want Scientology criticized or evaluated don't have to read it.

I post here as an outsider, having read on the forum FAQ that outsiders are welcome because they may bring a different perspective. Well, part of that outsider perspective is this. There is not much competition on the market against the strong paranormal claims of 'hard' Scientology; if they were true, Scientology would be sweeping the planet with little opposition. But the marketplace for the more subjective spiritual growth and wisdom offered by 'soft' Scientology is a whole lot more crowded. To people who have been in Scientology for years, Scientology is bound to seem like a major contender, even a default value, even once it has been admitted that there are no true clears or OTs being made. To an outsider, though, it is really only the superpowers that would make Scientology stand out, and without them, Scientology has no special claim on attention.

There are a LOT of other religions, philosophies, disciplines, even sciences, that offer comparable benefits to the insights, character training, and wisdom offered by soft Scientology. To an outsider, mostly what stands out about soft Scientology is its cost, its rigidity, its connection (even if it's not so important) to loopy 1950's space opera fantasies, and its addiction to jargon.

Part of the Scientology bait-and-switch is that the 'hard' claims get you thinking of Scientology as a unique thing without any comparable alternatives. Then when you're switched onto 'soft' benefits, you're still accepting that all Scientology has to do to be worthwhile is to work — that is, work better than nothing. But actually, once you've come down from hard to soft Scientology, the right question isn't whether Scientology works, but whether it delivers more for its cost than anything else. That's a much higher standard, but that's the standard in the real world.

And once you realize how much competition is out there, the Scientology addiction to jargon looks pretty suspicious. If a web host uses a unique encrypted data structure that's incompatible with the rest of the universe, they can lock their customers in, charging far above-average fees for service that's not even average, just because it will be too hard for the customers to move their data elsewhere. If this isn't what's going on with Scientology ... why all the Scientologese?
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
A much better post!

I apologize to Lakey if my reading of his kind explanations gave offence. I did acknowledge that the insights he described sounded real and valuable. And this is after all the subforum for evaluating and criticizing Scientology. ESMBers who don't want Scientology criticized or evaluated don't have to read it.

It was not the reading of them but going in with your attitude already set and that setting being very unflexible and not subject to any possiblity of change, as I saw it.

I post here as an outsider, having read on the forum FAQ that outsiders are welcome because they may bring a different perspective. Well, part of that outsider perspective is this. There is not much competition on the market against the strong paranormal claims of 'hard' Scientology; if they were true, Scientology would be sweeping the planet with little opposition. But the marketplace for the more subjective spiritual growth and wisdom offered by 'soft' Scientology is a whole lot more crowded. To people who have been in Scientology for years, Scientology is bound to seem like a major contender, even a default value, even once it has been admitted that there are no true clears or OTs being made. To an outsider, though, it is really only the superpowers that would make Scientology stand out, and without them, Scientology has no special claim on attention.

There are a LOT of other religions, philosophies, disciplines, even sciences, that offer comparable benefits to the insights, character training, and wisdom offered by soft Scientology. To an outsider, mostly what stands out about soft Scientology is its cost, its rigidity, its connection (even if it's not so important) to loopy 1950's space opera fantasies, and its addiction to jargon.

Part of the Scientology bait-and-switch is that the 'hard' claims get you thinking of Scientology as a unique thing without any comparable alternatives. Then when you're switched onto 'soft' benefits, you're still accepting that all Scientology has to do to be worthwhile is to work — that is, work better than nothing. But actually, once you've come down from hard to soft Scientology, the right question isn't whether Scientology works, but whether it delivers more for its cost than anything else. That's a much higher standard, but that's the standard in the real world.

And once you realize how much competition is out there, the Scientology addiction to jargon looks pretty suspicious. If a web host uses a unique encrypted data structure that's incompatible with the rest of the universe, they can lock their customers in, charging far above-average fees for service that's not even average, just because it will be too hard for the customers to move their data elsewhere. If this isn't what's going on with Scientology ... why all the Scientologese?

S of T - To me, this is a good post. You introduced some terminology that is new to me, soft Scientology and hard Scientology. Your theory that hard Scientology is what made the subject somewhat unique and interesting and that if they only have soft Scientology to offer, there are many other alternatives available, at much lower prices, is a valid and serious opinion which merits consideration. Also, the fact that other alternatives usually do not try to lock one in to only their system is a good point. You have your opinion and you stated it in a positive manner with out the "lead ins" I think this is a good post.

There is one area where I do not agree with you and that is all the jargon, i.e. Scientologese. If you had ever read any early Hubbard, you would see why he has introduced his own word for a particular thing. The classic example is the word "soul". If he were to use the existing word and call his levels, OS levels, Operating Souls, instead of Operating Thetans, confusion would be added. The word "soul" means different things to so many different groups. In Christianity, which is probably your belief system, based on your screen name, (am I right?), a soul is something which "you" have. If you have a soul, then there has to be a definition for "you", which is never defined by Christianity or really in any Western teachings. It is tacitly assumed that "you" refers to your body and in particular the emphasis is on the organ of the brain within your body. There are supposed to be some atoms whizzing around at high speed which combine into molectules and some randomly caused chemical reactions occur and then "voila!" human consciousness is created. There are other words with meaning which are similar to soul such as spirit or the phrase "elan vital". When starting a new subject such as Hubbard desired to do, he felt too much confusion would occur if older terms were kept. There is nothing wrong wih a subject having its own jargon and many fields besides Scientology have that.

How about the military? It is all alphabet soup, equal or worse than Scientology. Try listening to the police band on the radio, you can not tell what the despatcher is saying, the jargon is so thick. The same goes for the aerospace program which I participated in as a young man. How about the medical field and surgeons? How about baseball, a guy takes a girlfriend to a game, a girlfriend who never followed baseball, and to her, she might as well be on Mars, when it comes to understanding the game. The bags are full, the hurler goes to the resin bag, the catcher gives a sign, the pitcher shakes him off. The batter is trying to hit for the circuit, maybe Barry Bonds will hit a "big fly" or "go deep". I believe the jargon of a particular field makes for flavor, interest and excitement, it is the spice of life. I guess there is no right or wrong on this, some people think the jargon adds color and some people prefer standard language be used. It is okay to differ.

One last point about Scientology where you say that it would have grown faster if it really had something new to offer the world. You have to realize that Hubbard tromped down hard on the psychiatric profession with his Dianetics book and also began practicing medicine without a license, thus incurring the ire of the Medical profession. This created great enemies for him who had powerful connections and lobbies in the Governments of the world. When Scientology became a religion, it also created more opposition but also picked up friends, in doing so. Despite enormous opposition from the medical, physchiatric and governmental groups, with their allies in the mass media, Hubbard's movement grew rapidly, with only local funding and no money whatsoever from the grants of private foundations and governments. Huge efforts were made to stamp out Hubbard's movement and yet not only did it survive but it expanded, say from 1950 to 1975, the worlwide expansion was enormous, in spite of all the heavily funded attacks against it.

I do not think you have this point in proper perspective! Hubbard had some good ideas, had he actually followed his own codes and his own teachings, Scientology may have become a mainstream religion and may have played a much larger role in world affairs than what it is now doing. Much of the reason why this has not happened is because the original stated beliefs of Scio were not pursued within the management body, both during Hubbard's time and even more so under DM's administration. The seeds of their remaining small in numbers arose from within the Management apparatus of the C of S and had more to do with that than with failings in achieving the aims stated in hard Scientology.
Lakey
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
I have a subtle new understanding of things today.

In early 2007, I thought I had a pretty good understanding of Scientology. I had read Dianetics, Scientology 8-8008, Self-Analysis, Advanced procedure and Axiom, Dianetics 55, Scientology 0-8, History of Man, Science of Survival, Understanding the Emeter, and course packs for Academy Levels 0-IV. I had had about 25 hours of professional auditing: Life-Repair Completion, and some ARC Straightwire. (All outside of the church). Then I did the Hubbard Dianetics Seminar (in the church just to see the course room and get some first hand look inside a Scientology org).

When the Basic Books & Lectures came out, I started all over. I did every book and lecture in order for all of the basics and congresses. This was done independently using materials I bought off ebay for ~ $900. I thought I knew the subject before, but this line up expanded my understanding of the subject so much that I look back and say, this really is the way to know the subject through and through. You simply can't know what you're missing if you haven't done it.


Something that I've been looking for in all of this study is "well what could I give to someone that I am confident that they would be able to understand and see value in without getting wrong ideas because they don't have the correct context?" And I have been disappointed. In over 1000 lectures, I have not found one that I feel could really be given to someone without them likely forming misconceptions.

If someone isn't willing to work for it, they won't understand it.

Since I've done both an initial cursory study (up to 2007, described above) and a more complete study (since 2007) - it is my opinion that the best approach for anyone interested in the subject is to start with Dianetics or New Slant on Life or Self-Analysis or The Scientology Handbook - and after that do the basics line up WITH THE LECTURES and THE CONGRESSES!!! (The extension course program was effectively worthless, and I don't know about the lecture courses).


So much of what LRH says IS exaggeration, but with the context you can see it. Without the context you think he may mean it that by auditing technique 88 your legs might explode. On the lectures you hear the audience laugh. They all know it was metaphoric. It was fun. It was good natured, exciting, stimulating.

When he talks about 'command over life' and 'command over MEST' - the context is subtle - YES there is an intention to explore and learn more about telekinesis and see if and how this could be possible - but if you can get a person up to a point where he can use his hands to clean up his room who refused and protested and wouldn't do it before - now you have the result of a person who is AT COMMAND OVER MEST. If you want to build a skyscraper there is a workable technology for doing it. Using your mind is part of that, visualizing the finished product, mapping out the steps, being willing to exert the effort to coordinate the team, selling the project to investors, making it happen - that real world technology is THE RIGHT TECHNOLOGY for building skyscrapers. Trying to materialize them out of nothing is THE WRONG TECHNOLOGY (until someone figures out how - which shouldn't have the door closed completely on - just recognize that there is a more workable technology out there).

Trying to get someone to believe something contrary to reality is wrong. Many Scientology Staff members may have been guilty of this, thinking that they had to tow the line. It is still, and always will be, the individuals responsibility to decide EXACTLY what some statement will mean. Is it literal, metaphorical, hyperbolic for effect, allegorical, ... , is there some bit of this that is real, is there something here that I can use, is there some way that this could help me?

If you're not studying looking for the RIGHT CONTEXT, and if you're not studying to APPLY what you're studying, and if you're not actively comparing what you're studying to reality - then you're missing it.

The only way I believe you can get the context is by doing the full chronological study - every book, issue, lecture - in order. It's not absolutely necessary. As long as you study with the intention to apply it, and as long as you compare it to reality - you'll be fine. You may get confused, you may get the wrong idea, you may get frustrated that you thought it was one way, but then it isn't that way in reality - and you're SURE that you understood what LRH MEANT by it.

Having been through it, it makes sense to me that DM would say: "all staff of all orgs - close your doors and get through the basics" or even "if you haven't done the basics you don't know your subject".

That isn't an attempt to invalidate class VI+s that haven't done their basics. it's just that if you haven't done it, you don't know what you don't know. I was SHOCKED by the new depth of understanding that I got out of the lectures for Thought, Emotion, & Effort; Milestone One; The Route to Infinity; Technique 88; The Source of Life Energy; The PDC; The Factors; ACC 1 (only ACC that I've listened to so far)... and the congresses...

There are many things that I would like to study that I haven't. There is almost nothing that "I don't want to study" - but I have to choose because time is limited. I love it when a salesman helps me see the value in a product that I then go out, invest my time/money/energy into and FIND that value that was promised. I would love to see more sales presentations for anything that could compete with Scientology. (TIR is good - dianetics repackaged) (EFT & Thought Field Therapy are both good - simple actions the work at a physical/emotional level with surprising results)... (I'd like to hear about others as well). Each is another tool in my toolbox - not something I surrender my rational thought to - just another tool.

Hard Scientology is largerly LRH's hyperbolic/metaphoric statements taken out of context by people who misrepresent the subject through their own misunderstandings. (Both in and out of the church.)

Soft Scientology delivers results that thousands have found to be both valuable and worth what was paid for them.

I cleaned my office today - something I've been avoiding. I enjoyed feeling AT Command over that 'MESS' er 'MEST'. I did it with my mind... by controlling my hands.

Being OT means using the right technology for the specific results you want to achieve - and then achieving the results you intended: "Making Your Postulate Stick".

If you are getting what you want in life, you are OT... or you have compromised with what you really want... or you have selected to play a game smaller than me.

Let's make life on this planet the most fun that we have ever had!

Yon
 

Veda

Sponsor
Having been through it, it makes sense to me that DM would say: "all staff of all orgs - close your doors and get through the basics" or even "if you haven't done the basics you don't know your subject".

Why you giving a PR pep talk about Hubbard and Scientology to ex-Scientologists, many of whom are already familiar with these materials? More familiar, in fact, than are you.

And studying the basics will not enable you to "know" the "subject."

But then again, neither you, nor "DM," want the secretive parts of the subject of Scientology publicly acknowledged and understood. (And, I'm not referring to Xenu, etc.)

We know his motive, what's yours?
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Let's make life on this planet the most fun that we have ever had!

Yon

Prosecution of the 'Church' of Scientology will put a smile on thousands of faces.

Other than that, if somebody wants to dedicate 30 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars (or equivalent) to discover (in context) that getting out of bed involves putting your feet on the floor; well it'd be nice if they were told that to start with.

Zinj
 
Last edited:

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Lots of fields have jargon; the military is a good example, and one I'm familiar with. The ubiquitous military acronyms, though, all have exact translations into perfectly ordinary language, which anyone will understand immediately. If you ask a soldier to translate his alphabet soup, he'll do so easily and immediately, and generally be quite pleased to do so. Everything he says has a very concrete meaning that can be expressed exactly in ordinary language — it just takes more than a handful of letters. There will be no claims that you can only understand what a soldier means if you invest months in learning the necessary context. Being able to do what he does might take a lot of training; understanding why he does it might take even more; but understanding just what he does, that's really easy.
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
Look out: exploding myth!

So much of what LRH says IS exaggeration, but with the context you can see it. Without the context you think he may mean it that by auditing technique 88 your legs might explode. On the lectures you hear the audience laugh. They all know it was metaphoric. It was fun. It was good natured, exciting, stimulating.

You can talk about exaggeration, or humour for reasons of emphasis, or metaphors, but I still say that LRH was his own worst enemy. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that he became Scientology's worst enemy. And no amount of nervous of sycophantic laughter on those old recordings will make them more palatable.

The amount of ammunition that LRH handed his critics on a silver platter... well, thank you Ron. I'm not sure it was quite worth the $200m a year you siphoned off, but it's certainly doing far more damage to CoS than the fantasies that DM has about Pfizer and the Jews.

When LRH gave a date for Incident One that put it a long, long time before the beginning of the universe...
When he endorsed the Piltdown man hoax...
When he claimed to be a nuclear physicist, and tried to speak on the subject...
When he tried to demonstrate a Clear...
When he decided to use Xenu in the OT manuals instead of publishing it as pulp sci-fi...
When he said that South African blacks were "too stupid to register on a E-meter"...
When he declared that leukemia was caused by the phrase "it turns my blood to water"...
When he married Sara Northrup, bigamously...

And so many, many other times. All sources of cognitive dissonance for the faithful, and excellent ammunition for the awakening critic. Sorry, but the man was a pathalogical liar. He exhibited all the symptoms of megalomania, and developed a blend of psychoses during his life, including paranoia. A less fit man to think up or convey a system of ethics and morality, I can't conceive.

When Scientology finally comes crashing down, the root cause will be LRH. He pulled it in.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Scientology has complete dictionaries.

Lots of fields have jargon; the military is a good example, and one I'm familiar with. The ubiquitous military acronyms, though, all have exact translations into perfectly ordinary language, which anyone will understand immediately. If you ask a soldier to translate his alphabet soup, he'll do so easily and immediately, and generally be quite pleased to do so. Everything he says has a very concrete meaning that can be expressed exactly in ordinary language — it just takes more than a handful of letters. There will be no claims that you can only understand what a soldier means if you invest months in learning the necessary context. Being able to do what he does might take a lot of training; understanding why he does it might take even more; but understanding just what he does, that's really easy.

Scientoology has several dictionaries of their terms. When I first got in, the Scientology Dictionary was merely a soft cover pamphlet type of thing. Shortly afterwards, the full Scientology Tech Dictionary came out. A lot of work went into this and it is well written and the definitions are quite easy to understand. Several years later the giant Moden Management Dictionary came out, a large tome listing all Scientology business terms and ommon standard business terms side by side in one volume. A tremendous amount of work went into compiling this one.

S of T, I really think it is okay to form opinions without doing a lot of research but perhaps a cursory reading of these dictionaries might be wise before commenting on on Scientology jargon. I joined Scn in June of 1970 not knowing a word of the jargon, and I would say that in about two months, I knew almost all of it without any outside study. If one is attracted to a subject, the jargon is very easy to pick up. Everyone else I know had my same experience. Being an outsider not willing to put in a lot of time such as yon8008 did, I still think it behooves you to at least scan the dictionaries and spend an hour or two with them to really be able to comment on the jargon.

I liken Scientology jargon to baseball jargon. Here is a little joke. A goup of older women snuck a case of booze into a baseball game and by the botton of the 5th, the "bags" were loaded. Now to get a laugh out of this clever play on words, you have know that the "bags" can mean the bases on a baseball diamond or it can mean a group of older leadies. The bags being loaded can be construed to mean that the bases are loaded with runners or that the old ladies got drunk. Lastly, the bottom of the 5th could mean the home team's turn at bat in the fifth inning or it could mean when a fifth of booze was emptied. This is the way I see Scientology jargon, if you hang around baseball a short time you quickly acquire its jargon, the same with Scn.

Yon2008 - I salute you for your excellent post. In attempting to understand a subject, you approached it seriously and immersed in it and reimmersed in a later iteration of it. Well done as far as I am concerned. Whatever opinions you form, I would respect them, pro or con. I think that you should be the one dialoguing with S of T and not some crusty old buzzard such as me.
Lakey
 
Last edited:

yon8008

Patron with Honors
Why you giving a PR pep talk about Hubbard and Scientology to ex-Scientologists, many of whom are already familiar with these materials? More familiar, in fact, than are you.

The goal lines and vision of a civilization that we can be proud of are still there for many. Frustration with an organization, and/or a person who started it, and/or one idea system that express a goal but misses - does not invalidate the goal itself. Here is the Admin Scale:

Goals
Purposes
Policy
Plans
Programs
Projects
Orders
Ideal Scenes
Statistics
Valuable Final Products

If one program (like CoS) isn't working, that doesn't mean the Goals and Purposes are wrong.

So WHY am I expressing any positivity towards Scientology? Precisely because Scientology has in the past effectively ATTRACTED INCREDIBLE PEOPLE - people who share similar goals as I have. I'm looking for team mates in a great game where everyone wins: A civilization of honest and decent interactions. I am not attached to Scientology, it's something I have found value in - as have many others. But for any particular Person, CoS is ONLY A PROGRAM - one possible way to work towards a Goal.

I haven't claimed that I know the most - I have simply explained what I do know. Studying the basics and congresses allows you know what is in the basics and congresses - it's a context, it has information, and in my opinion that information is valuable in itself, and the context is important for understanding the rest of Scientology. I believe that anyone who studies the Basics would be interested in co-creating A GAME where WE can improve ourselves and assist others in improving in the direction of SANITY and DECENCY ... toward a real CIVILIZATION!




And studying the basics will not enable you to "know" the "subject."

Please explain this. I would suggest that studying something, ie LOOKING is the route most effective at coming to understanding. Mystical forms of knowing without comparison to reality have little value (like 'knowing' that one day OT powers will be regained - or like 'knowing' that one understands a subject without being able to show how it could applied with valuable results).

But then again, neither you, nor "DM," want the secretive parts of the subject of Scientology publicly acknowledged and understood. (And, I'm not referring to Xenu, etc.)

We know his motive, what's yours?

I am in support of a full disclosure of all of Scientology (excluding only: PC Folder contents). I am curious as to which 'secretive parts' of Scientology you think I wouldn't want publicly acknowledged and understood. All I can think of is that you believe LRH made up the whole subject to intentionally NOT get results and then PDHed everyone into thinking they got results when really they just got more trapped. I have looked at it from that angle too, and I'd encourage everyone to at least consider the possibility, but then go and look for themselves and decide if there is any value in the subject. If this were true, I would support full disclosure of that.

My focus is ON THE GOAL of a CIVILIZATION - not with some specific PROGRAM. And on this thread, I am also interested specifically with investigating the stated goals and claims of Scientology.

Understanding THE CONTEXT - the hyperbole, the metaphoric, the allegorical, the literal, the 'LRH not understanding physics', that is important information if you want to understand what Scientology really is claiming.

LRH claims that Preclears audited on Technique 88 have to promise not to destroy the solar system, and that if they weren't careful it just might go 'poof'. LRH claims OT Powers for everyone. LRH claims...
YES, it's all in there. But if you get the context, it becomes far more obvious that these statements are for stimulation and fun - these statements engender the feelings of being part of an exciting group with big goals and big visions, that "that is where we are going". Is it PR? Is it manipulation? If you have some familiarity with the subject, listen to the Route to Infinity Lectures and Decide for yourself.


As far as I can see - Life has no purpose, no meaning, except the purpose and meaning that YOU PUT THERE. Agreeing to play a game and have a goal because someone else said it was a good goal to have is a trap. But looking at life and deciding for yourself what goal you might have that would be worth working for, then seeking out others that share that same goal/vision, and then creating NEW Policies/Plans/Programs/Projects that can be widely agreed upon, and getting the show on the road... now that to me sounds like a way to have a whole lot of fun, make a lot of incredible friends, and fill my life with wonder/adventure/excitement!

Achieving the STATED goals of Scientology, in THE REAL WORLD, by getting REAL RESULTS, using WHATEVER TECHNOLOGY delivers REAL WORLD RESULTS, is what I am proposing. The technology that LRH developed seems like a natural starting point for this discussion on this forum. GUT everything that doesn't work, verify EXACTLY what results ARE achieved, work to EXTEND/ENHANCE results, be honest about what is real and what can be expected, Apply Ethics as a truly SELF-DETERMINED action, Use Justice very sparingly if at all, Use Disconnection only as a short term solution and assist preclears in quickly reaching a level where they can accept any communication from their families no matter how suppressive it may seem.

Obsolete the Church of Scientology by: creating a better game, with better results, faster, for cheaper prices, that can be embraced more widely, that doesn't have or need anti-competition or draconian practices, where people are happy about being there BECAUSE they know that they are welcome to leave and find or create something better.

The vision is unfolding. Someone is going to create it, is it you?
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The hidden agenda to Scientology jargon is that it presupposes an *agreement* with the concepts being jargonized. Such as 'suppressive person' and 'potential trouble source' and 'Pain Drug Hypnosis (PDH)' etc.

Much of Scientology works on the basis of, 'well, we have a word for it, so it must exist'.

So, 'He would be OT but he was PDHed by some SPs and now he's PTS.'

If you actually translate that into garden variety humanoid it sounds even more insane than the jargonized version.

Zinj
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
Hey Zinj,
Just curious, but when you read the Anti-Social Personality, did you suspect yourself? (somehow I think that line is just too funny, asked only in partial seriousness.)
- Yon
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
The hidden agenda to Scientology jargon is that it presupposes an *agreement* with the concepts being jargonized. Such as 'suppressive person' and 'potential trouble source' and 'Pain Drug Hypnosis (PDH)' etc.

Much of Scientology works on the basis of, 'well, we have a word for it, so it must exist'.

So, 'He would be OT but he was PDHed by some SPs and now he's PTS.'

If you actually translate that into garden variety humanoid it sounds even more insane than the jargonized version.

Zinj

Just because a there is a word doesn't mean it exists. Possibilities and Potentialities and hypotheticals can all be discussed without actually existing, and new words may be appropriate if you're going to be spending considerable amount of time on those subjects.

OT: was introduced as a hypothetical goal, a direction of investigation, an a de facto achievement.

PDH: A possibility real enough that a number of movies have made it their subject or included it (Machurian Candidate, Conspiracy Theory)

SP: Suppressive Person - a person who is actively seeking your destruction, often covertly. Such are rare, but you can imagine the relief of person A who suddenly identifies that person SP has been steadily undermining him with rumors and invalidations and subtle manipulations.

PTS: Potential Trouble Source - a person who is in contact with an SP, and as a result is being continuously put down, often confused, and working with wrong data received from the SP; or is still acting on false data and suppression received from an SP in an earlier experience.

These are words that describe complex kinds of human interaction. When you understand what they mean, and when you consider the amount of attention that Scientology pays to these kinds of interactions and how remedy them, it makes sense that they would have specific words for them.

SP/PTS is pretty common - every time you see one person put another down, and the one being put down goes into agreement with it, you are looking at PTS and an SP.

If the one receiving the put down stands up for him/her self and says, "I don't like the way you are treating me right now. I can turn any situation to my advantage, and there is no reason for me to feel bad about this one - I will either fix it, or learn from it, or in some way figure it out - but feeling bad does not help me or anyone in any way. Either help me turn this situation into a positive, or don't say anything at all." And thus beings the Glare Fight - and we see who backs down first. Most likely the SP dodges and comes back with some sly evasion: non sequitur, valid a-point but dodges THE point, true fact taken out of context, divert blame, etc. If the person doing the standing up is able to continue holding his/her space the SP will fall apart thus "Shattering the suppression".

Concepts like Power (in Scientology "Power" is "ability to hold ones position in space") and Confront ("face without flinching") - you can see how both of these concepts would be very valuable for handling the subtle manipulations and attacks and invalidations that abound in this ANTI-civilization.

(Note: on this topic most of my ideas are coming from Neo-Tech, re-integrated with Scientology. I haven't done the SP/PTS course, and don't want to sound like an authority on that one.)

By showing how these terms have REAL WORLD APPLICATION - suddenly they are not just 'well, we have a word for it, so it must exist'. This is real technology for self-defense in a world of people who are generally unable to see beyond negatives, cynicisms, foes to be stopped, and impossibilities.

"Genius is the ability to turn any situation to your advantage, and I am a Genius!"
You could make that statement your stable datum, use it to solve many interpersonal situations simply by insisting that it is true. Watch how suppressive people come out of the woodwork because that high toned made up hypothetical statement undermines their source of false power: making others feel bad.

Love Ya!
- Yon
 
Top