Scientology Makes Sense to Scientologists

[Alanzo]

My comments are nothing personal Carmel, though you seem to delight in thinking so. In fact they are more aimed at other people who read here and perhaps would like another viewpoint.

My views are also not black and white. I think anybody who survived 35+ years in scio is well acquainted with shades of grey. They are the very thing that destroys personal integrity if you allow yourself to compromise.

I am agreeing with the OP, and explaining that. However if you can't see what I see - yet - then we can agree to disagree. It took me many, many years to gain the full picture, and once you do, the extent of it is truly shocking.

So I agree with Zinj.

Nice!

NICE!!!

Very well done!!!

The force is strong in this one!!!

 

[Carmel]

<snip>
I am agreeing with the OP, and explaining that. However if you can't see what I see - yet - then we can agree to disagree. It took me many, many years to gain the full picture, and once you do, the extent of it is truly shocking.

That "yet" that you put in there, says much about where you sit on this issue between us. The attitude that at some point I may 'graduate' to your way of thinking, is what I object to. Not all of our experiences were the same. We didn't all follow the same path. We didn't all get duped in the same way - To put everyone and everything in the same box, is just ludicrous IMO.

So I agree with Zinj.

I don't agree with him on this one, but I don't find his posts patronising, so all is good with Zinj in my books.

 

[Carmel]

<snip>

Look over FTSes post again and see EXACTLY what she wrote that you disagree with.

I think you will find very little.

Reason trumps emotion every time.

Try it. I'm sure you'll like it.

Conceptual understanding and intent comes up trumps for me, over carefully placed words and literal meanings, any day. I could say "try that", but I probably don't need to, because I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Carmel]

Nice!

NICE!!!

Very well done!!!

The force is strong in this one!!!

Yep, and the ole spoon is in full swing again with this one!

 

[Alanzo]

That "yet" that you put in there, says much about where you sit on this issue between us. The attitude that at some point I may 'graduate' to your way of thinking, is what I object to. Not all of our experiences were the same. We didn't all follow the same path. We didn't all get duped in the same way - To put everyone and everything in the same box, is just ludicrous IMO.

Now that's a good point.

Well done!

I don't agree with him on this one, but I don't find his posts patronising, so all is good with Zinj in my books.

Still personality based argument.

You will "come a cropper" as long as you use that as the basis for your critical thinking.

 

[Alanzo]

Conceptual understanding and intent comes up trumps for me, over carefully placed words and literal meanings, any day. I could say "try that", but I probably don't need to, because I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

You still use truthiness to guide your thinking if you are still trying to divine "intent" as the way to understand another person's point.

This is why you have not understood FTS, and why you have attacked her personally instead of simply read what she has written. Her post was not an attack on you, although you FEEL it was.

This is the cause of the conflict: your continued insistence on emotionally-based perceptions rather than reading what is there.

You will be less offended and defensive on ESMB if you simply read what is there, I promise.

 

[Free to shine]

Carmel -

FTS' post showed NO "black or white thinking".

In your post, you have not taken up ANY of her points that she made, nor have you made any of your own. You have simply personally attacked FTS as "pedantic" and a "black and white thinker".

This is a flunk in logic and critical thinking, and it is the use of the same old personal attack technology that L Ron Hubbard used on us constantly. It's a very bad habit that we all need to break after having this personal attack onslaught waged on us for so long.

Look over FTSes post again and see EXACTLY what she wrote that you disagree with.

I think you will find very little.

Reason trumps emotion every time.

Try it. I'm sure you'll like it.

Thankyou Lanzo. You have taught me much indeedy.

 

[Free to shine]

That "yet" that you put in there, says much about where you sit on this issue between us. The attitude that at some point I may 'graduate' to your way of thinking, is what I object to. Not all of our experiences were the same. We didn't all follow the same path. We didn't all get duped in the same way - To put everyone and everything in the same box, is just ludicrous IMO.


I don't agree with him on this one, but I don't find his posts patronising, so all is good with Zinj in my books.

Ah what the heck - it was only a little "yet" said with good intention.

There is no "issue between us", whatever are you on about? My views are much milder than some posted here, as I have experienced, shall we say, many shades of grey. If I happen to respond to your posts, then it's due to the subject matter, not some imagined personal issue.

 

[Carmel]

You still use truthiness to guide your thinking if you are still trying to divine "intent" as the way to understand another person's point.

This is why you have not understood FTS, and why you have attacked her personally instead of simply read what she has written. Her post was not an attack on you, although you FEEL it was.

This is the cause of the conflict: your continued insistence on emotionally-based perceptions rather than reading what is there.

You will be less offended and defensive on ESMB if you simply read what is there, I promise.

Are you trying to say here that you don't read between the lines and that there is no value in doing so, or are you just having some more fun with that spoon?

Anyways, I'm butting out of here, and am off ta bed. If you're looking for someone to banter or battle with today, you'll just have ta find someone else.

 

[lionheart]

Anything will make sense in theory if the conclusion can be derived logically from its premise. The question is: is the premise true. If the premise is false it can still be logical but wrong. The premises are wrong in Scientology. If you accept Hubbard's premises then it will look true to you. If you don't accept the premises then it looks like BS. When you accept the premises and use that acceptence to doubt your own sense of right and wrong or your own judgment about things, then you have accepted Scientology.

The Anabaptist Jacques

That is exactly what happened to me.

I suspended my judgement and can remember consciously deciding to allow, for now, that Hubbard's premises were correct. This is encouraged by Scn and is a vital step in the training.

I remember by the end of reading DMSMH twice through, thinking that it may or may not all be true, but if it was, it had to be looked into and I walked into an Org saying I wanted to be an auditor.

I was rapidly trained to put aside my own sense of right and wrong, but every now and then it would pop back up.

More than a decade later I was told I was an evil SP, trapped to be so for all eternity and I even believed that, sending me into a horrible nightmare two year mind-spin.

It was all a con with a few good bits laced in to further fix the con.

What a valuable lesson I learned. Thank you Ron!

 

[Alanzo]

Are you trying to say here that you don't read between the lines and that there is no value in doing so, or are you just having some more fun with that spoon?

Anyways, I'm butting out of here, and am off ta bed. If you're looking for someone to banter or battle with today, you'll just have ta find someone else.

I am saying that, especially in this case, the FEELING that you are being attacked goes away the more you look at what was actually written and set aside that FEELING and use REASON to discern the point the poster was making.

More often than not, you will see that the FEELING was a knee-jerk reaction to something that was never there. And that, through reading what is there, you will learn more about yourself, and more about the other person than trying to get their "intent" ever would.

Hubbard would always manipulate us by getting us to IGNORE WHAT WAS SAID and look at the "intent", which he usually twisted to make seem evil so that what they actually said would be "dead-agented" and discredited in your mind, and the whole person could be rejected.

It was manipulation. Don't keep using it after Scientology!

And don't keep doing to others what Hubbard did to you!

Learn the skills of critical thinking.

It's the best antidote to the poisonous manipulation of Scientology.

 

[Tiger Lily]

That is exactly what happened to me.

I suspended my judgement and can remember consciously deciding to allow, for now, that Hubbard's premises were correct. This is encouraged by Scn and is a vital step in the training.

I remember by the end of reading DMSMH twice through, thinking that it may or may not all be true, but if it was, it had to be looked into and I walked into an Org saying I wanted to be an auditor.

I was rapidly trained to put aside my own sense of right and wrong, but every now and then it would pop back up.

More than a decade later I was told I was an evil SP, trapped to be so for all eternity and I even believed that, sending me into a horrible nightmare two year mind-spin.

It was all a con with a few good bits laced in to further fix the con.

What a valuable lesson I learned. Thank you Ron!

Me too Lionheart! It was just like that! Well said

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I am saying that, especially in this case, the FEELING that you are being attacked goes away the more you look at what was actually written and set aside that FEELING and use REASON to discern the point the poster was making.

More often than not, you will see that the FEELING was a knee-jerk reaction to something that was never there. And that, through reading what is there, you will learn more about yourself, and more about the other person than trying to get their "intent" ever would.

Hubbard would always manipulate us by getting us to IGNORE WHAT WAS SAID and look at the "intent", which he usually twisted to make seem evil so that what they actually said would be "dead-agented" and discredited in your mind, and the whole person could be rejected.

It was manipulation. Don't keep using it after Scientology!

And don't keep doing to others what Hubbard did to you!

Learn the skills of critical thinking.

It's the best antidote to the poisonous manipulation of Scientology.

Good points. And if I may add, there is a difference between being attacked and being disagreed with. And there is a difference between having someone disagreeing with one's data, even vehemently disagreeing with it, and being attacked by that person. Hubbard set it up so that any disagreement with Scientology was labelled an attack on Scientology. Unfortunately, Scientologists tend to adapt this hyperbolic thinking to other areas of their lives.

Everybody has a right to express their opinion. But nobody has any inherent right to be taken seriously. One has to earn being taken seriously with a compelling reasoned argument. That's why this is a discussion board, not a statement board.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Alanzo]

Good points. And if I may add, there is a difference between being attacked and being disagreed with. And there is a difference between having someone disagreeing with one's data, even vehemently disagreeing with it, and being attacked by that person. Hubbard set it up so that any disagreement with Scientology was labelled an attack on Scientology. Unfortunately, Scientologists tend to adapt this hyperbolic thinking to other areas of their lives.

Everybody has a right to express their opinion. But nobody has any inherent right to be taken seriously. One has to earn being taken seriously with a compelling reasoned argument. That's why this is a discussion board, not a statement board.

The Anabaptist Jacques

TAJ -

You've given me an excellent idea!

I'm going to create the EX-SCIENTOLOGIST'S STATEMENT BOARD, or ESSB, where I can place all my statements and no one can disagree with me!!!

Who's up for ESSB????

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

TAJ -

You've given me an excellent idea!

I'm going to create the EX-SCIENTOLOGIST'S STATEMENT BOARD, or ESSB, where I can place all my statements and no one can disagree with me!!!

Who's up for ESSB????

I disagree already.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Alanzo]

I disagree already.

The Anabaptist Jacques

That's all right.

Our "moderators" will handle you.

 

[Dulloldfart]

TAJ -

You've given me an excellent idea!

I'm going to create the EX-SCIENTOLOGIST'S STATEMENT BOARD, or ESSB, where I can place all my statements and no one can disagree with me!!!

Who's up for ESSB????

Will you be on it full-time?

Paul

 

[Carmel]

I am saying that, especially in this case, the FEELING that you are being attacked goes away the more you look at what was actually written and set aside that FEELING and use REASON to discern the point the poster was making.

More often than not, you will see that the FEELING was a knee-jerk reaction to something that was never there. And that, through reading what is there, you will learn more about yourself, and more about the other person than trying to get their "intent" ever would.

Hubbard would always manipulate us by getting us to IGNORE WHAT WAS SAID and look at the "intent", which he usually twisted to make seem evil so that what they actually said would be "dead-agented" and discredited in your mind, and the whole person could be rejected.

It was manipulation. Don't keep using it after Scientology!

And don't keep doing to others what Hubbard did to you!

Learn the skills of critical thinking.

It's the best antidote to the poisonous manipulation of Scientology.

Christ Alanzo, wtf are you on about?

Between you and Free to shine, in the last few posts of yours, you have come to the conclusion that I am feeling personally attacked by FTS, not actualy reading what is written on posts, just taking intent, having 'personal' issues, etc, etc....when I haven't said or inferred any of that!

I didn't respond to any of the assumptions from the two of you before, because I considered it nonsense, and not worthy of attention.

On top of that, you are now accusing me of manipulation, and you're telling me to stop doing to others, what Hubbard did to me.

I suggest you had better re-read these posts, and look at who is manipulating and/or twisting what or who here.

Between the two of you, you have fabricated something that doesn't exist, somehow it's true to you, even though you didn't actually 'read' it in my posts, and now you have the audacity to lecture me about it. Give us a fucking break!

You should take a leaf out of your own book Alanzo, because what you are reading into my posts, you didn't actually READ!

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

A strait record...

My comments are nothing personal Carmel, though you seem to delight in thinking so. In fact they are more aimed at other people who read here and perhaps would like another viewpoint.

My views are also not black and white. I think anybody who survived 35+ years in scio is well acquainted with shades of grey. They are the very thing that destroys personal integrity if you allow yourself to compromise.

I am agreeing with the OP, and explaining that. However if you can't see what I see - yet - then we can agree to disagree. It took me many, many years to gain the full picture, and once you do, the extent of it is truly shocking.

So I agree with Zinj.

You still use truthiness to guide your thinking if you are still trying to divine "intent" as the way to understand another person's point.

This is why you have not understood FTS, and why you have attacked her personally instead of simply read what she has written. Her post was not an attack on you, although you FEEL it was.

This is the cause of the conflict: your continued insistence on emotionally-based perceptions rather than reading what is there.

You will be less offended and defensive on ESMB if you simply read what is there, I promise.

After reading Carmel's last post #98; I went back to where this started, and it is very clear to me that the assumptions that you both have made (bolded above) are totally unsubstantiated.:confused2:

Ah what the heck - it was only a little "yet" said with good intention.

There is no "issue between us", whatever are you on about? My views are much milder than some posted here, as I have experienced, shall we say, many shades of grey. If I happen to respond to your posts, then it's due to the subject matter, not some imagined personal issue.

Well, if I wanted to piss a person off, FTS, that's exactly the way I would go about it. Naturally, If I got called out on it, I would say "Aw.... it was well intentioned..." Just sayin'

And I must congratulate you on having gained the "full picture" You are most fortunate among mortals!

EP

 

[Alanzo]

Christ Alanzo, wtf are you on about?

Between you and Free to shine, in the last few posts of yours, you have come to the conclusion that I am feeling personally attacked by FTS, not actualy reading what is written on posts, just taking intent, having 'personal' issues, etc, etc....when I haven't said or inferred any of that!

I didn't respond to any of the assumptions from the two of you before, because I considered it nonsense, and not worthy of attention.

On top of that, you are now accusing me of manipulation, and you're telling me to stop doing to others, what Hubbard did to me.

I suggest you had better re-read these posts, and look at who is manipulating and/or twisting what or who here.

Between the two of you, you have fabricated something that doesn't exist, somehow it's true to you, even though you didn't actually 'read' it in my posts, and now you have the audacity to lecture me about it. Give us a fucking break!

You should take a leaf out of your own book Alanzo, because what you are reading into my posts, you didn't actually READ!

Excellent rant, Carmel!!!