Scientology: Why doesn't it work?

[Voltaire's Child]

A very nicely written comment which, if true, is based on good reading. I only say "if true" because I did not go back and read through the thread again myself. It does point out the irrelvancy-that-seems-to-be-relevant that you often inject, fluffy. It is relevant if it's in the relevant thread. And it is a point that I think many more agree with than you think. It's just that we don't need to be reminded in threads which are not on that point.

I have no idea what "irrelvancy(sic)-that-seems to be relevant" means. If I post something that you think does not pertain to what's being discussed, please let me know at the time rather than "you often inject" with no examples given. Otherwise, it's just a potshot.

I specifically commented on a comment made by Uniquemand in this thread and why I disagreed. And I did it on this thread.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Oh really? Gosh I should turn off my thinking and stop perceiving so much.

Coke works because:

It is successful.

It once had coke in it.

It gives a caffeine and sugar rush.

It's cool.

It had great PR.

It provides a pleasant drink for those who like it.

None of which mean that it is of any good to the consumer.

I haven't asked you to turn off your thinking and stop observing. I posted my opinions, just as you are doing and have done and just as everyone else is doing and has done. I don't feel it's an apt analogy and I've said why I think so.

I could probably (depending on what points would be made) with a post comparing whether or not Coca Cola delivers what it promises with what CofS promises and then delivers but that's not what I was referring to or thinking of in my previous post. It evidently was what you were thinking of and that's fine an' dandy- but then again, I wasn't replying to your post- I was replying to Uniquemand's. It was his post with which I disagreed and I said why.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

This statement is being made from a naive, preconditioned mindset.

I have neither. I've completely changed my thinking and stance in the the several years I've spent on forums. This is more than a lot of people can say. I'm quite worldly, well read and well travelled and, thus, far from naive.

The argument on this thread pertaining to the phrase 'The Tech Works' is being looked at very specifically. It in itself is a generality. As such many intelligent posts have been made examining how this generality is used in an irresponsible way.

And I've said that I think those things are a matter of degree. I don't do all or nothing.

This topic in this threads discussion has occurred without any compulsive statements regarding 'The tech Never Works' or 'It's impossible for anyone to believe in the tech since The Tech Doesn't Work'.

So perhaps going back and reading and being willing to observe that both in the intelligent discussions on this thread as in Real Life there are aspects of 'The Tech' that may be of value subjectively to some but which objectively do not hold ground as a highly dependable statement of truth.

I've done so.

Anybody who is posting to this thread injecting that it is about a useless argument of generality... is simply misinformed and coping a generality themselves so as to distract from the specific subject being intelligently debated.

I didn't say it was about a useless argument of generality.

HTH.

 

[Tim Skog]

Not really that apt a comparison. To ascertain whether or not something is effective, the first thing one has to figure out is what is that method or thing trying to do, then, secondly, does it do it.

It's a lot like the stupid "Heroin works, too" analogy that some of the dumber critics sometimes use.

I wouldn't compare a drug or something meant to quench thirst with Scn. Nor, conversely, would I compare Scn with anything like that, either.However, I would compare one organizations' delivery methods with another, depending on what was being dicussed.

Actually, I said it was "interesting" not "apt." Lighten up there.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Mew!

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, I hadn't quoted your post, Tim.

 

[KnightVision]

Bump.

This statement is being made from a naive, preconditioned mindset.

The argument on this thread pertaining to the phrase 'The Tech Works' is being looked at very specifically. It in itself is a generality. As such many intelligent posts have been made examining how this generality is used in an irresponsible way.

This topic in this threads discussion has occurred without any compulsive statements regarding 'The tech Never Works' or 'It's impossible for anyone to believe in the tech since The Tech Doesn't Work'.

So perhaps going back and reading and being willing to observe that both in the intelligent discussions on this thread as in Real Life there are aspects of 'The Tech' that may be of value subjectively to some but which objectively do not hold ground as a highly dependable statement of truth.

Anybody who is posting to this thread injecting that it is about a useless argument of generality... is simply misinformed and coping a generality themselves so as to distract from the specific subject being intelligently debated.

A very nicely written comment which, if true, is based on good reading. I only say "if true" because I did not go back and read through the thread again myself. It does point out the irrelvancy-that-seems-to-be-relevant that you often inject, fluffy. It is relevant if it's in the relevant thread. And it is a point that I think many more agree with than you think. It's just that we don't need to be reminded in threads which are not on that point.

 

[KnightVision]

Nicely Put!

Actually its a wonderfully apt comparison.

Coca Cola the Company's goal is not to "quench thirst" or provide any long-term benefit to anyone, it's to make money, make money, make more money and even more money by insinuating its "product" (Cocal Cola the drink) into the entire world at all levels of society.

It's actually done quite a remarkable job in doing that, and in doing so has contributed to poor health conditions in people all over the world.

As KV pointed out, Coca Cola the drink once contained cocaine (and was therefore highly addictive); now it contains caffeine, sugar and we're not sure what else in its highly secret formula -- it's still addictive.

As to "quenching thirst" it gives one a short-term rush that feels great, then creates a greater thirst. Its harmful and addictive effects, though destructive in the long run, are not very dramatic in the short run, so it's generally socially acceptable and even socially desirable.

Coca Cola the drink is similar in many ways to scientology-the-philosophy.

Coca Cola the Company has done a masterful job of insinuating its product into every corner of the world. It's remarkable growth is a study in marketing and PR, one which Scientology the Company (oh, sorry, Scientology the Church) with Hubbard at the helm has in many ways attempted to emulate.

But (thankfully) the CoS didn't follow that model close enough to achieve Coca Cola's level of success. Instead, Hubbard designed his own unwieldly "business model," preserved forever in the green-on-white, and doomed his followers to use that model only to "grow" their organizations.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Could you take out the gratuitous jabs at other contributors when you bump things, KV? That would be much appreciated. Easy enough to snip 'em and you still get your initial point across.

 

[KnightVision]

Having grown up in a very puritanical religion before getting tangled up in $cn, "walking the dog" was definitely a continuing overt in PT.

 

[Magpie]

There is ample indication of success ... if you look ...

If you look, you will find ample indications and gradations of success.

This is how it was in 1949, the year before dianetics was introduced:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3772&page=4

A civilization does not change instantly. But it certainly is improved due to the development of dianetics in 1950.

 

[KnightVision]

If you look, you will find ample indications and gradations of success.

This is how it was in 1949, the year before dianetics was introduced:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3772&page=4

A civilization does not change instantly. But it certainly is improved due to the development of dianetics in 1950.

Would you care to document and show here specifically how LRH's workings have been the major reason for the changes that you are alluding to?

 

[Alanzo]

Not really that apt a comparison. To ascertain whether or not something is effective, the first thing one has to figure out is what is that method or thing trying to do, then, secondly, does it do it.

It's a lot like the stupid "Heroin works, too" analogy that some of the dumber critics sometimes use.

I wouldn't compare a drug or something meant to quench thirst with Scn. Nor, conversely, would I compare Scn with anything like that, either.However, I would compare one organizations' delivery methods with another, depending on what was being dicussed.

Just to throw one more dog on the pile...

I've seen you compare Mozart and Beethoven's music with Scientology.

If Coke's no good, then can you explain how those are an apt comparison?

 

[Neo]

If you look, you will find ample indications and gradations of success.

This is how it was in 1949, the year before dianetics was introduced:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3772&page=4

A civilization does not change instantly. But it certainly is improved due to the development of dianetics in 1950.

I'm looking, but sorry I don't see what you are alluding to. Dianetics, which lead to the fail cult of Scientology is what you are claiming to have "saved the world"? That is some wild leap of logic. And let me guess, that link leads to the lobotomist thread again, doesn't it?

Since 1950, when your beloved Dianetics was released, we had - the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War I & II, the Cuban Missile Crisis, several economic crisis, including a very severe one at the moment, continual world poverty and starvation, corrupt dictatorships in 3rd world countries supported by our own western governments, etc etc. Is dianetics also responsible for these?

Neo

 

[degraded being]

I'm looking, but sorry I don't see what you are alluding to. Dianetics, which lead to the fail cult of Scientology is what you are claiming to have "saved the world"? That is some wild leap of logic. And let me guess, that link leads to the lobotomist thread again, doesn't it?

Since 1950, when your beloved Dianetics was released, we had - the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War I & II, the Cuban Missile Crisis, several economic crisis, including a very severe one at the moment, continual world poverty and starvation, corrupt dictatorships in 3rd world countries supported by our own western governments, etc etc. Is dianetics also responsible for these?

Neo

Very good point.

Magpie?

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

This is getting needlessly pedantic.

No. Scientology in any form has not made any significant improvement to the world at large.

Yes. Some bits of tech (whether invented or copied by lrh) as understood and applied by some people can help a person or their acquaintances in certain areas of their lives.

Every person is different and that means the TECH will have varying results, in the same way that nuts will have varying effects on those classified as allergic.

The problem within the "org" is the thinking that in every case of "X", then "Y" is the answer, but just like the medical community is forced to admit, sometimes "Y" will have undesirable side-effects.

As far as $cn admin goes, the Green Vols are an amazing insight into the insanity that was L. Ron Hubbard. They have no value in "Administration" or "Organization", so much so, that they make the Pentagram/CIA/FBI/NSA conglomerate look competent, efficient and ETHICAL.

 

[KnightVision]

Very Nice RPX, thank you for that!

-snip-
No. Scientology in any form has not made any significant improvement to the world at large.

Yes. Some bits of tech (whether invented or copied by lrh) as understood and applied by some people can help a person or their acquaintances in certain areas of their lives.

Every person is different and that means the TECH will have varying results, in the same way that nuts will have varying effects on those classified as allergic.

The problem within the "org" is the thinking that in every case of "X", then "Y" is the answer, but just like the medical community is forced to admit, sometimes "Y" will have undesirable side-effects.

As far as $cn admin goes, the Green Vols are an amazing insight into the insanity that was L. Ron Hubbard. They have no value in "Administration" or "Organization", so much so, that they make the Pentagram/CIA/FBI/NSA conglomerate look competent, efficient and ETHICAL.

 

[Sir Facer]

WOW!!!!

Show me the motherfu*cking clear!!

Where is this 'Clear'?

Yes where is that motherfu**ing Clear ????

but the following quote written on this thread is priceless to all those who have actually tried & tried to correct things:
(Good work KV )

"Why doesn't Scientology work?

Contrary to what one might expect, Scientologists really do know there are problems in the Church of Scientology. They even talk about it with each other. While they don't see the big picture, they see the local manifestations.

They see the local problems, but they believe that things are better elsewhere; things are better for other Scientologists.

And they expect that, sooner or later, someone will notice that things are going bad for this Scientologist, or things aren't going well with this local church -- and someone will come and fix it.

And these loyal Scientologists carefully write up reports, sometimes to "RTC", sometimes to David Miscavige, sometimes to someone else who is "in charge". They carefully look up the policies, they carefully document all their problems, they carefully present their information, they carefully suggest what should be done -- then they wait.

And they wait.

And the problems persist and get worse.

So they carefully write it all up again. And they carefully send it "up lines" again.

Surely this time, someone will read their report, see the horrible misapplication of Hubbard's policies or technology, and they will fix it. It's obvious what is wrong. It's obvious what should be done. All it takes is that one person in authority reads their careful report and sends the proper orders.

But it doesn't happen. Scientologists all over the world are having serious problems, they are carefully writing up their reports and sending them "up lines" to RTC or Miscavige or someone in authority -- and nothing is getting corrected. Why?

Why doesn't Scientology work?"

 

[Carmel]

Yes where is that motherfu**ing Clear ????

but the following quote written on this thread is priceless to all those who have actually tried & tried to correct things:
(Good work KV )

"Why doesn't Scientology work?

Contrary to what one might expect, Scientologists really do know there are problems in the Church of Scientology. They even talk about it with each other. While they don't see the big picture, they see the local manifestations.

They see the local problems, but they believe that things are better elsewhere; things are better for other Scientologists.

And they expect that, sooner or later, someone will notice that things are going bad for this Scientologist, or things aren't going well with this local church -- and someone will come and fix it.

And these loyal Scientologists carefully write up reports, sometimes to "RTC", sometimes to David Miscavige, sometimes to someone else who is "in charge". They carefully look up the policies, they carefully document all their problems, they carefully present their information, they carefully suggest what should be done -- then they wait.

And they wait.

And the problems persist and get worse.

So they carefully write it all up again. And they carefully send it "up lines" again.

Surely this time, someone will read their report, see the horrible misapplication of Hubbard's policies or technology, and they will fix it. It's obvious what is wrong. It's obvious what should be done. All it takes is that one person in authority reads their careful report and sends the proper orders.

But it doesn't happen. Scientologists all over the world are having serious problems, they are carefully writing up their reports and sending them "up lines" to RTC or Miscavige or someone in authority -- and nothing is getting corrected. Why?

Why doesn't Scientology work?"

Spot on Sir Facer - how many times has this been done? How silly were we thinking that it could or should be that simple?

Crikey, it could have worked if the powers that be had wanted it to, but obviously not - they had other plans and were laughing at us all the way to the bank.

 

[Leon]

The really big change that happened over the last sixty years or so is that it has become part of common culture that by changing your mind you can change your life. This was never there before. It was always "That's the way you were born and so that's the way you always will be. Get used to it."

That is now pretrty much gone. Now it is broadly accepted that the entire pattern of your life is determined by what is going on inside your head.

Now I am definitely NOT saying that Dianetics and Scientology were the cause of this. But they were part of it, and so have a share in the credit.