Should Scientologists have the right to practice Scientology?

[Gadfly]

Gad,

I feel you here man, and much of this is why I can't define it, lies mixed with truths, help mixed with betrayals and paranoia ... good and bad.

Here is an interesting thought for you ARC. Affinity, is somewhat of a clinical term. To me, ARC is as much a control mechanism in the current Scilon culture as it is a tool to help people learn how to get along better. You can use ARC to get someone to do something they don't want to do in a technical sense.

What if we switched Affinity with Love. Love, Reality and communication? how would that change things in a spiritual sense? Love is not as clinical. I recall LRH only rarely speaking of love. It is a deep and meaningful word and action.

Well, I find the concept useful - ARC. Love is NOT "affinity".

I have found that ARC works as a mechanism, whether you know about it or not. It functions as a sort of "law".

I define affinity as "proximity", "willingness or desire to be in the same space as something else", and "degree of likingness". Very simply, it is quite true that when you "like" someone of something, you tend to also desire to be in the same space as that person or thing. That is just the way it is.

Communication is just communication, and again, one tends to be more willing to communicate with something, about something, or with somebody if one "likes" the something or somebody. It is just the way it is.

Reality is the KEY factor here. By that I mean WHAT and HOW YOU AGREE WITH SOMETHING. Whatever you agree to be true and not true, however you consider things to be, is how they are for you. What is REAL to and for you, is unique to you, different for every person, and entirely dependent on your unique "agreements" about everything and anything. It is what it is. It is TRUE that "what is true for you is what is true for you", but it doesn't mean it is "true". You will get closer to the truth if and when you base what you accept as true on honest and careful observations of the relevant data.

Now, I never accepted that ARC equals understanding. But, ARC, and mostly REALITY (agreement) do very much relate to whatever understanding you might have about something. Realize there can be good understandings, bad understandings, correct understandings, vague understandings, distorted understandings, and on and on. There are probably far more "incorrect" understandings floating around than correct ones.

It is simply true that any person's "understanding" about something is directly related to what he or she accepts as true (agrees with) about this something. This is of course limited and shaped by education, culture, biases, and all sorts of other factors. The concepts of ARC and Understanding have little or nothing to do with "truth". Now, if your understanding is based on agreements with things rooted in careful and honest observations, then, yes, ARC and U will have more to do with "truth".

Now, ARC gets abused as a tool of control and manipulation by the Church of Scientology and Scientologists - just as defined and encouraged by Hubbard. For example, the ruin-finding drill is an exercise in using ARC to control others.

With my own understanding of ARC, I find it useful, even though I rarely think in terms of the Scientology concepts anymore. I also almost NEVER "use ARC" to manipulate other people. I rarely try to "handle" anybody for any personal reason. I let life and people be just who they are - whereas Scientology is so often about CHANGING people and things to be something else (via "handlings").

Note: I found that when I looked around and observed about the various factors Hubbard described in "ARC", that what he was describing was there to be seen in the real world. And, if I abandoned the Scientology nomenclature, the same or similar behaviors were still observable. I didn't often blindly accept Hubbard's ideas, but I did often accept various ideas AFTER taking the time to observe the relevant areas IF my observations supported what Hubbard said.

Even while in Scientology, I would take the ideas that couldn't be confirmed or verified and label then "currently unverified". While I would keep it to myself, because I had seen that total agreement is demanded inside the C of S, I would have even these sort of ideas labelled as "currently unverified":

Having the Correct Technology (from KSW)

I saw that THIS IDEA was more a belief than any fact. I also saw that Scientology functioned to demand acceptance of this idea, whether you had ever verified it or not. What I saw it to be was an "assertion". It actually is a "claim" that pretends to be a fact and a reality. The notion that Scientology possesses the "correct technology" cannot really be verified, and instead, it almost always exists as a BELIEF (on "faith").

Lastly, yes, Hubbard rarely spoke of "love" (or its twin brother "compassion"), and to me, these ideas are VERY key to any legitimate spiritual practice.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

<snip> Reality is the KEY factor here. By that I mean WHAT and HOW YOU AGREE WITH SOMETHING. Whatever you agree to be true and not true.. <snip>

It is, however, one of Hubbard's little 'logic' traps to call this 'reality'.. Thus, it is important to point out, to a a scientologist, that one can 'have a reality' that is false, ie. not 'real'.. In fact 'your reality' may not be 'reality' at all.

IMO, this needs to be reworded. Concept unworkable. Agreement is not, and does not, create 'reality'.. Unless you believe that the world was really flat up until we agreed that it was round?

 

[Idle Morgue]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and an exact meaning of the term "Scientology" is too.

Hubbard MADE UP the word "Scientology". Hubbard then defined it in various ways. These various definitions were largely claims and statements, that were/are entirely unable to be verified or proven. How does one prove whether or not Scientology is "the science of knowing how to know? What happens when a person gets involved is that he or she simply accepts and BELIEVES that what Hubbard says is true.

Hubbard was a stage magician of ideas. He made things appear to exist that really did not. He created illusions - many of the ideas found within Scientology are illusions. They are the result of "tricks" (mental deception).

There is an organization and a Church of Scientology, and THAT can be analyzed, studied and learned about. It IS a "real thing" that can be observed. But too often people confuse some abstract IDEA ("Scientology") with the observable Church of Scientology.

Now, people indoctrinated with Scientology are taught to NEVER differentiate about Hubbard and Scientology. Hubbard and management worked very hard to have all Scientology ideas equal to all other Scientology ideas. I remember talking to the CO OSA CW back in the mid-1990s, and I mentioned that the organization of Scientology, and the ideas behind it, were very different than the auditing and ideas behind IT. He immediately ATTACKED me, loudly and viciously, "THAT IS ENEMY LINE". He asked, "who told you that"? See, within the framework of Scientology as created by Hubbard, one is NOT ALLOWED to isolate various parts and analyze them separate from the rest of the subject. Hubbard made it a "package deal". And, it seems that some of the people here on ESMB who were involved, and over-indoctrinated, STILL carry forward this idea that it is not okay to differentiate and examine details and isolated parts of the whole.

Indoctrination into Scientology creates minds that are filled with vague abstract ideas about all sorts of things. This is only to be expected because so many of the claims and statements made by Hubbard cannot be verified or connected to observations of the relevant information. How does one verify that "Scientology makes a better world"? You don't and you can't, and instead you accept and believe. And, by doing so, you have added just another of many vague ideas into your very sloppy mind.

Hubbard asserted that there was a body of knowledge, integrated and related, called "Scientology". THAT was more Hubbard fiction. There never was any "integrated" subject known as "Scientology". That idea, and it is ONLY an "idea" because it doesn't exist in the real world, was/is just another of many fictions created by Hubbard. Hubbard wrote about a great many different things, often UNRELATED things, and placed them all under this made-up word called "Scientology".

There are some isolated ideas and practices that can be useful. To me, the best way to define "Scientology" is as the full and complete subject materials of Hubbard's, as applied and used within the Church of Scientology organization. Hubbard himself stated that "true and legitimate Scientology" can only exist within the official organization. The ethics and justice codes are meaningless without the Scientology organization. So, for me, and for most others, when they talk of "Scientology" they are talking about the CHURCH of Scientology. You can point to a church of Scientology. You can point to a book about Scientology. But you cannot ever point to a "Scientology". Why? Because it is not a real thing of the physical universe - it is AN IDEA. It exists ONLY in your head.

I should discuss abstractions, what they are, and how they relate to real things. But, this is too long already. Simply, the term "Scientology" exists at the very top of the ladder of abstraction. It omits an immense variety of qualifiers to exist at that level of abstraction. Just like the word "cat". The abstract idea "cat" includes all sorts of cats, dead, alive, big, small, brown, black, white, and so forth. An IDEA only becomes specific when you add in the qualifiers - exact time, place and form (to use an idea from Hubbard). Just like one can't point to a "Christianity". Such abstract ideas are SO general, and cover so many specifics, as to be meaningless without the qualifiers.

Now, if you want to talk about isolated ideas that occur within the overall larger subject of Scientology, then these things should NOT be called "Scientology", because it can't really be Hubbard-defined Scientology unless the isolated decent parts exists along with all the extensive CRAP. Minimally, one should qualify the idea or practice as an isolated idea or practice taken out of the larger subject found in the writings of Hubbard's Scientology.

Without the use of qualifiers or adjectives, the term "Scientology" means something different to every person who thinks with the term. In truth, without the use of qualifiers or adjectives the term "Scientology" is meaningless. It is a made-up word that has no correlation to ANY reality outside of Hubbard's definition for the term.

Gad: This is excellent ^^^ !

Now - a few very sarcastic questions popped in my mind as I was reading your post (my mind has been totally sarcastic, cynical and sour on the subject of scientology and El Wrong Blubbard)! Nothing you posted - just me!:wink2:

"Get the idea of "a Scientology"?"

"Do you have a picture of "a Scientology"?"

What is "it" doing?

Good post Gad!

 

[Infinite]

Gad,

I feel you here man, and much of this is why I can't define it, lies mixed with truths, help mixed with betrayals and paranoia ... good and bad.

Here is an interesting thought for you ARC. Affinity, is somewhat of a clinical term. To me, ARC is as much a control mechanism in the current Scilon culture as it is a tool to help people learn how to get along better. You can use ARC to get someone to do something they don't want to do in a technical sense.

What if we switched Affinity with Love. Love, Reality and communication? how would that change things in a spiritual sense? Love is not as clinical. I recall LRH only rarely speaking of love. It is a deep and meaningful word and action.

Remind me, where's LOVE on the Tone Scale and what does it have to do with Scientology? L Ron Hubbard talked about LOVE in the Dissemination Manual where he referre to it as, something like, a "silly wog notion". Swapping the word "Affinity" for the word "LOVE" does nothing to reduce the manipulative uses to which ARC is put.

 

[Gadfly]

It is, however, one of Hubbard's little 'logic' traps to call this 'reality'.. Thus, it is important to point out, to a a scientologist, that one can 'have a reality' that is false, ie. not 'real'.. In fact 'your reality' may not be 'reality' at all.

IMO, this needs to be reworded. Concept unworkable. Agreement is not, and does not, create 'reality'.. Unless you believe that the world was really flat up until we agreed that it was round?

You are correct. Reality is NOT necessarily what you agree to be true - it is SOME of the time. I would term it AAC - Affinity Agreement Communication, because YES, "reality" is NOT the same as agreement.

In terms of personal subjectivity, yes, often, reality IS agreement. But as you and I both pointed out, VERY OFTEN what one accepts or believes to be true (or real) is NOT true or real. One example should suffice:

Based on the agreements of the people at the time, it was once fully believed that "the world is flat". This was the common view of reality by a great many people. They AGREED it to be true. But, it was NOT "true" at all. No amount of "agreement" can or would CHANGE the "nature of reality" (at least this is true for most people who aren't highly advanced Tibetan Buddhist monks).

By reality I mean:

1 : the quality or state of being real


2 : a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality>

b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

Now, these common definitions are a bit too slanted to the "physical". It is very REAL that I have ideas, feelings, and thoughts about all sorts of things. My subjective universe is real. It just can't be experienced by anyone else in the same exact way. Modern civilized people, at their current level of knowledge and awareness, consider "real" to be what everyone mostly agrees with as being real. For the meantime, THAT is the "physical universe".

Hubbard really threw a curve ball here. He came out a defined agreement to be the KEY and BASIC factor that enabled or brought about NAY reality. He explains in the Factors that this very same agreement created the entire physical universe.

What is tricky is that it is largely true that any person's subjective reality IS defined and held in place by unique personal agreements. Hubbard mixes up the objective with the subjective when her gets people to believe that ALL reality is based on agreement. It may be true, in a certain sense, that the physical universe is held in place by thought, BUT again this is largely true subjectively. While a person can make the physical universe "go away" for him or herself, it still has NOT "gone away" for everybody else.

Anyway, you are entirely correct. One has to use ARC ONLY as subjective things are concerned. One should also be taught, and this was always obvious to me even when involved with Scientology, that one can and often DOES agree with ideas and notions that are NOT TRUE. My attitude has always been to carefully and honestly observe things, and to link my ideas, agreements and considerations on those careful and honest observations. From Hubbard's nutty view, you can take ANY past historical event, that has been verified by 10,000 people, a FACT, and if you can get enough people to "agree" otherwise, then REALITY has changed. Yes, agreement HAS changed, but the reality has only changed IN THEIR MINDS. The sort of thinking you are describing brings about a breakdown and disconnection between observable reality and any person's own universe of ideas. THAT breakdown and disconnection are observable in MANY Scientologists!

 

[Infinite]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and an exact meaning of the term "Scientology" is too.

Hubbard MADE UP the word "Scientology". Hubbard then defined it in various ways. These various definitions were largely claims and statements, that were/are entirely unable to be verified or proven. How does one prove whether or not Scientology is "the science of knowing how to know? What happens when a person gets involved is that he or she simply accepts and BELIEVES that what Hubbard says is true.

Hubbard was a stage magician of ideas. He made things appear to exist that really did not. He created illusions - many of the ideas found within Scientology are illusions. They are the result of "tricks" (mental deception).

There is an organization and a Church of Scientology, and THAT can be analyzed, studied and learned about. It IS a "real thing" that can be observed. But too often people confuse some abstract IDEA ("Scientology") with the observable Church of Scientology.

Now, people indoctrinated with Scientology are taught to NEVER differentiate about Hubbard and Scientology. Hubbard and management worked very hard to have all Scientology ideas equal to all other Scientology ideas. I remember talking to the CO OSA CW back in the mid-1990s, and I mentioned that the organization of Scientology, and the ideas behind it, were very different than the auditing and ideas behind IT. He immediately ATTACKED me, loudly and viciously, "THAT IS ENEMY LINE". He asked, "who told you that"? See, within the framework of Scientology as created by Hubbard, one is NOT ALLOWED to isolate various parts and analyze them separate from the rest of the subject. Hubbard made it a "package deal". And, it seems that some of the people here on ESMB who were involved, and over-indoctrinated, STILL carry forward this idea that it is not okay to differentiate and examine details and isolated parts of the whole.

Indoctrination into Scientology creates minds that are filled with vague abstract ideas about all sorts of things. This is only to be expected because so many of the claims and statements made by Hubbard cannot be verified or connected to observations of the relevant information. How does one verify that "Scientology makes a better world"? You don't and you can't, and instead you accept and believe. And, by doing so, you have added just another of many vague ideas into your very sloppy mind.

Hubbard asserted that there was a body of knowledge, integrated and related, called "Scientology". THAT was more Hubbard fiction. There never was any "integrated" subject known as "Scientology". That idea, and it is ONLY an "idea" because it doesn't exist in the real world, was/is just another of many fictions created by Hubbard. Hubbard wrote about a great many different things, often UNRELATED things, and placed them all under this made-up word called "Scientology".

There are some isolated ideas and practices that can be useful. To me, the best way to define "Scientology" is as the full and complete subject materials of Hubbard's, as applied and used within the Church of Scientology organization. Hubbard himself stated that "true and legitimate Scientology" can only exist within the official organization. The ethics and justice codes are meaningless without the Scientology organization. So, for me, and for most others, when they talk of "Scientology" they are talking about the CHURCH of Scientology. You can point to a church of Scientology. You can point to a book about Scientology. But you cannot ever point to a "Scientology". Why? Because it is not a real thing of the physical universe - it is AN IDEA. It exists ONLY in your head.

I should discuss abstractions, what they are, and how they relate to real things. But, this is too long already. Simply, the term "Scientology" exists at the very top of the ladder of abstraction. It omits an immense variety of qualifiers to exist at that level of abstraction. Just like the word "cat". The abstract idea "cat" includes all sorts of cats, dead, alive, big, small, brown, black, white, and so forth. An IDEA only becomes specific when you add in the qualifiers - exact time, place and form (to use an idea from Hubbard). Just like one can't point to a "Christianity". Such abstract ideas are SO general, and cover so many specifics, as to be meaningless without the qualifiers.

Now, if you want to talk about isolated ideas that occur within the overall larger subject of Scientology, then these things should NOT be called "Scientology", because it can't really be Hubbard-defined Scientology unless the isolated decent parts exists along with all the extensive CRAP. Minimally, one should qualify the idea or practice as an isolated idea or practice taken out of the larger subject found in the writings of Hubbard's Scientology.

Without the use of qualifiers or adjectives, the term "Scientology" means something different to every person who thinks with the term. In truth, without the use of qualifiers or adjectives the term "Scientology" is meaningless. It is a made-up word that has no correlation to ANY reality outside of Hubbard's definition for the term.

I disagree. Scientology has a very real tangible meaning both inside and outside the cult environment. Scientology is a fraud. Just like, say, a Ponzi scheme, what ever benefits Scientology affords are not unique to it and nor are they sustained. Rather, those scant and usually initial benefits act as an attractant for an individual to become more deeply immersed and/or to gather information for the subsequent active isolation and silencing. That latter aspect, thank goodness, is becoming less and less effective. L Ron Hubbard's magic trick was to make the fraud look like an exercise in spiritual development which achieves miraculous results. Bernie Madoff did the same thing, only it wasn't spiritual development he was selling as much as the miraculous results and he didn't use twisted words, Bernie used twisted spreadsheets.

I agree, however, that defining Scientology appears something of a nightmare but suggest that apparent dillema has been deliberately contrived. Because of the essentially subjective nature of Scientology [STRIKE]brainwashing[/STRIKE] processing, there are as many ways to define Scientology as there are people who have an opinion of it. Red Tech, Green Tech, KSW, Science, Religion, Therapy, collection of tools, applied philospophy . . . all that is a mountain of gobbledeegook to distract from the magician's sleight of hand.

If Scientology is as abstraction . . . all in my mind . . . just a word . . . then what are the results of the PTS/SP Disconnection Doctrine?

 

[Gadfly]

Remind me, where's LOVE on the Tone Scale and what does it have to do with Scientology? L Ron Hubbard talked about LOVE in the Dissemination Manual where he referre to it as, something like, a "silly wog notion". Swapping the word "Affinity" for the word "LOVE" does nothing to reduce the manipulative uses to which ARC is put.

To me, with a higher use of the term "love" (in the unconditional sense), one never attempts or aims to change anything. You accept it just as it is, and LOVE it just as it is. Love rains down upon us like the rain on the flowers.

See, a very basic use of ARC in Scientology is to GET OTHERS to CHANGE THEIR MINDS through an application of ARC. The aim is to bring about a modification in the content of another person's mind. Your aim is to get them to agree with something they didn't before, or to change how and what they agree with. It is a common idea that one mimics a Tone Level, and creates appropriate communication, while exhibiting high affinity for some person (love bombing), in some attempt to "bring about some understanding" on the other end. It is wholly manipulative.

The concept "love" simply has nothing to do with such things. I cannot even envision a use of ARC with "love" standing in for "affinity". To me, people who try to say that love is the same as affinity are GOOFY! Affinity, as an emotional response, is all about EFFECT and INLFOW. The higher love mentioned in spiritual subjects is an OUTFLOW. It also has no concern for what YOU or YOUR GROUP might get, achieve, produce or obtain in the process of "loving". To me, ARC is incompatible with any concept of "love".

 

[In present time]

Remind me, where's LOVE on the Tone Scale and what does it have to do with Scientology? L Ron Hubbard talked about LOVE in the Dissemination Manual where he referre to it as, something like, a "silly wog notion". Swapping the word "Affinity" for the word "LOVE" does nothing to reduce the manipulative uses to which ARC is put.

and then doing the card trick of never mentioning compassion but replacing it with the word "sympathy". isnt sympathy somewhere below body death on the tone scale, and anyone you felt sorry for, well you may as well be an SP on their lines because you were only making them worse with your help, which of course was motivated by compassion.
i dont see lies sprinkled with truth in $cn. i see many shades of grey (no not that book i didnt read it, lol). for example i do realise that you can make someone less able with sugary sympathy... but it is not a black and white issue. scientology is black and white, and that isnt how real life works, except if you are standard KSW and NOI at a pic-nic.

wait, they dont HAVE pic-nics, they have fundraisers. please bring your "in ethics"children. that comment alone in the fundraiser hat, is loaded.

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

Gad,

I feel you here man, and much of this is why I can't define it, lies mixed with truths, help mixed with betrayals and paranoia ... good and bad.

Here is an interesting thought for you ARC. Affinity, is somewhat of a clinical term. To me, ARC is as much a control mechanism in the current Scilon culture as it is a tool to help people learn how to get along better. You can use ARC to get someone to do something they don't want to do in a technical sense.

What if we switched Affinity with Love. Love, Reality and communication? how would that change things in a spiritual sense? Love is not as clinical. I recall LRH only rarely speaking of love. It is a deep and meaningful word and action.

Then it would be too much like the thoughts that already exist, wouldn't it? The 'affinity' thing, hm, I have always suspected that Hubbard actually avoided addressing 'love' per-se, and he knew that some sort of caring had to be expressed on a personal level, but as the dysfunctional being he was, with so much failure and twisted thought coursing through his Id, he had to come up with something, so 'affinity' it was. Is it possible he used that because then he could skirt around what real love was about, the caring, the giving without expectations, things he himself was incapable of, or admonished within his own construct? From what I have observed over the years of studying this, there is no 'selfless giving', no love without constraint in the church-of-the-most-ethical, that'd be 'out-exchange' would it not?
Just a wee thought this beautiful sunny afternoon.




Not knowing, just a gut feeling

 

[Gadfly]

I disagree. Scientology has a very real tangible meaning both inside and outside the cult environment. Scientology is a fraud. Just like, say, a Ponzi scheme, what ever benefits Scientology affords are not unique to it and nor are they sustained. Rather, those scant and usually initial benefits act as an attractant to become either more deeply immersed or actively isolated and silenced. That latter aspect, thank goodness, is becoming less and less effective. L Ron Hubbard's magic trick was to make the fraud look like an exercise in spiritual development which achieves miraculous results. Bernie Madoff did the same thing, only it wasn't spiritual development he was selling as much as the miraculous results and he didn't use twisted words, Bernie used twisted spreadsheets.

I agree, however, that defining Scientology appears something of a nightmare but suggest that apparent dillema has been deliberately contrived. Because of the essentially subjective nature of Scientology [STRIKE]brainwashing[/STRIKE] processing, there are as many ways to define Scientology as there are people who have an opinion of it. Red Tech, Green Tech, KSW, Science, Religion, Therapy, collection of tools, applied philospophy . . . all that is a mountain of gobbledeegook to distract from the magician's sleight of hand.

If Scientology is as abstraction . . . all in my mind . . . just a word . . . then what are the results of the PTS/SP Disconnection Doctrine?

You agree with me but you just don't want to admit it (you did so in your second paragraph).

The PTS/SP Disconnection Doctrine is a specific set of ideas and practices that Hubbard SAID was a part of this made-up subject called Scientology. IT is a real thing, as there are policies, and HCOBs, and so forth, with the label Scientology printed on the top or surface.

You know what I mean, and I agree with most of what you say, and anything else is largely a matter of "technical details" that get into nit-picking various meanings and terms.

Go out and point to a "Scientology". You can't do it. It is an abstract idea. Yes, that idea most certainly relates and connects in various ways to all sorts of topics and actions that occur by people as a result of studying and using something under this subject Hubbard called Scientology.

My point is only that without specifics, such general terms mean NOTHING, because they mean something different to every person. Once specifics are entered in, THEN and ONLY THEN, can a genuine discussion occur. When people talk about "Scientology", most often they are talking about the Church of Scientology (whether they know it or not). They simply too often leave out "the Church of".

Now, to me there is data about SPs and PTSs, written by Hubbard, and some is slightly sensible, and a great deal of it is absurd. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "doctrine", and I see that this way of labeling it came about somewhere in the "critic community". The ONLY place where it exists as any sort of strict "doctrine" is in the official Church of Scientology. Outside of the confines of the C of S, different people interpret and use it in different ways - and it no loner exists as any sort of "doctrine". So again, this notion is in many cases an IDEA that does NOT exist in reality. The concept of disconnection, as one small part of the subject of PTS/SP, is understood, viewed, and practiced VERY differently outside of the corporate C of S.

Again, one must give specifics and qualify these things if any meaningful discussion is to occur. In fact, once any two people start talking about "Scientology", they will naturally find themselves talking about specifics very quickly. The devil is in the details - just as it is with Scientology.

 

[Idle Morgue]

I disagree. Scientology has a very real tangible meaning both inside and outside the cult environment. Scientology is a fraud. Just like, say, a Ponzi scheme, what ever benefits Scientology affords are not unique to it and nor are they sustained. Rather, those scant and usually initial benefits act as an attractant for an individual to become more deeply immersed and/or to gather information for the subsequent active isolation and silencing. That latter aspect, thank goodness, is becoming less and less effective. L Ron Hubbard's magic trick was to make the fraud look like an exercise in spiritual development which achieves miraculous results. Bernie Madoff did the same thing, only it wasn't spiritual development he was selling as much as the miraculous results and he didn't use twisted words, Bernie used twisted spreadsheets.

I agree, however, that defining Scientology appears something of a nightmare but suggest that apparent dillema has been deliberately contrived. Because of the essentially subjective nature of Scientology [STRIKE]brainwashing[/STRIKE] processing, there are as many ways to define Scientology as there are people who have an opinion of it. Red Tech, Green Tech, KSW, Science, Religion, Therapy, collection of tools, applied philospophy . . . all that is a mountain of gobbledeegook to distract from the magician's sleight of hand.

If Scientology is as abstraction . . . all in my mind . . . just a word . . . then what are the results of the PTS/SP Disconnection Doctrine?

I just had a wognition:

WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?

Scientology is the "Bernie Madoff" of modern church! It uses the same techniques Bernie used - just on a larger scale and it hides behind it's religious "cloak" like Bernie Madoff hid behind his position with the SEC - so it does not get caught...but the crimes get bigger and bigger and bigger and inside - Bernie really just wanted it to end - he wanted to get caught. When do you think David Miscavige will have had enough? Is he reaching his tipping point with the crazy Idle Morgues, crazy revised tech, crazy new e-meters, crazy Sell-Ebbs / BFF's...

When will he give up or will he die in the process?

Sadaam Hussein actually ended up hiding in a hole - they found him. He was hung in front of his peers - the most dishonorable way for that dictator to die....he begged to be shot and not in front of his peers....they hung him in front of his peers.

What and when will it be over for David Miscavige?

 

[Lulu Belle]

Remind me, where's LOVE on the Tone Scale and what does it have to do with Scientology? L Ron Hubbard talked about LOVE in the Dissemination Manual where he referre to it as, something like, a "silly wog notion".

I agree with you here. The only time I can clearly remember a reference to "love" was a taped lecture transcript I read in the original R&D volumes.

The gist of it was that what humanoids felt as "love" was an aberrant response that came from something they had done to someone on the track.

 

[Panda Termint]

Maybe Hubbard didn't speak of or write about the subject of love because he had no Reality on it. :confused2:

 

[degraded being]

Well, I find the concept useful - ARC. Love is NOT "affinity".

I have found that ARC works as a mechanism, whether you know about it or not. It functions as a sort of "law".

I define affinity as "proximity", "willingness or desire to be in the same space as something else", and "degree of likingness". Very simply, it is quite true that when you "like" someone of something, you tend to also desire to be in the same space as that person or thing. That is just the way it is.

Communication is just communication, and again, one tends to be more willing to communicate with something, about something, or with somebody if one "likes" the something or somebody. It is just the way it is.

Reality is the KEY factor here. By that I mean WHAT and HOW YOU AGREE WITH SOMETHING. Whatever you agree to be true and not true, however you consider things to be, is how they are for you. What is REAL to and for you, is unique to you, different for every person, and entirely dependent on your unique "agreements" about everything and anything. It is what it is. It is TRUE that "what is true for you is what is true for you", but it doesn't mean it is "true". You will get closer to the truth if and when you base what you accept as true on honest and careful observations of the relevant data.

Now, I never accepted that ARC equals understanding. But, ARC, and mostly REALITY (agreement) do very much relate to whatever understanding you might have about something. Realize there can be good understandings, bad understandings, correct understandings, vague understandings, distorted understandings, and on and on. There are probably far more "incorrect" understandings floating around than correct ones.

It is simply true that any person's "understanding" about something is directly related to what he or she accepts as true (agrees with) about this something. This is of course limited and shaped by education, culture, biases, and all sorts of other factors. The concepts of ARC and Understanding have little or nothing to do with "truth". Now, if your understanding is based on agreements with things rooted in careful and honest observations, then, yes, ARC and U will have more to do with "truth".

Now, ARC gets abused as a tool of control and manipulation by the Church of Scientology and Scientologists - just as defined and encouraged by Hubbard. For example, the ruin-finding drill is an exercise in using ARC to control others.

With my own understanding of ARC, I find it useful, even though I rarely think in terms of the Scientology concepts anymore. I also almost NEVER "use ARC" to manipulate other people. I rarely try to "handle" anybody for any personal reason. I let life and people be just who they are - whereas Scientology is so often about CHANGING people and things to be something else (via "handlings").

Note: I found that when I looked around and observed about the various factors Hubbard described in "ARC", that what he was describing was there to be seen in the real world. And, if I abandoned the Scientology nomenclature, the same or similar behaviors were still observable. I didn't often blindly accept Hubbard's ideas, but I did often accept various ideas AFTER taking the time to observe the relevant areas IF my observations supported what Hubbard said.

Even while in Scientology, I would take the ideas that couldn't be confirmed or verified and label then "currently unverified". While I would keep it to myself, because I had seen that total agreement is demanded inside the C of S, I would have even these sort of ideas labelled as "currently unverified":

Having the Correct Technology (from KSW)

I saw that THIS IDEA was more a belief than any fact. I also saw that Scientology functioned to demand acceptance of this idea, whether you had ever verified it or not. What I saw it to be was an "assertion". It actually is a "claim" that pretends to be a fact and a reality. The notion that Scientology possesses the "correct technology" cannot really be verified, and instead, it almost always exists as a BELIEF (on "faith").

Lastly, yes, Hubbard rarely spoke of "love" (or its twin brother "compassion"), and to me, these ideas are VERY key to any legitimate spiritual practice.

Quote: "...With my own understanding of ARC, I find it useful, even though I rarely think in terms of the Scientology concepts anymore...."

For someone who rarely thinks in terms of the Scientology concepts anymore, you spend way too much time explaining how those concepts 'work'.

 

[Veda]

Maybe Hubbard didn't speak of or write about the subject of love because he had no Reality on it. :confused2:

A fair amount of early Scientology derives from the works of Aleister Crowley. One of Hubbard's "borrowings" was Crowley's, "Love is the Law. Love under Will."

Crowley has described "Love" in terms of "gravitation, chemical affinity, electrical potential."

"There is then little indeed in common between Love and such tepid passions as regard, affection, and kindness..."

WILL is senior to LOVE, and LOVE is seen as "affinity."

Add this to Hubbard's 1938 "SURVIVE!' as the central pillar of his "philosophy," and one can see why Scientology has gone the way it has.

Oh, and one more ingredient: sneakiness. Despite the chest thumping of, "I can make Napoleon look like a punk," Hubbard, 1938, and "I can make Captain Bligh look like a Sunday school teacher," Hubbard, 1969, Scientology's primary tactic is deception and deviousness.

The sneakiness goes back to 1938 too, when Hubbard wrote of his secret "real goal."

 

[Panda Termint]

That Crowley was a real card, eh?

 

[Lone Star]

....

 

[Veda]

One more "Affinity" related item...

Hubbard's 'The Factors' appears to be a re-working of Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement', complete with Hubbard's substitution of "Affinity, Reality, Communication" for Crowley's yogic "Bliss, Knowledge, Being."

And Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement' was, itself, a re-write of older Kabbalistic (and other) ideas, with Crowley's addition of a bit of Yogic teaching.

Hubbard removed the earlier part of Crowley's Naples Arrangement which posits a primordial 0+ and 0- (boy and girl aspect of "zero") which somehow generate a kind of pre-cosmic tension that begins the creation of (a) (the) universe.

However, Hubbard kept Crowley's insertion of "Bliss, Knowledge, Being" which became "Affinity, Reality, Communication."

Bliss, Knowledge, Being is inserted in the same place that Hubbard later added "Affinity (Bliss), Reality (Knowledge), Communication (Being)" to his 'The Factors'.

From Crowley's 'Book of Thoth':

"These ideas of Being, Thought and Bliss [or Bliss, Knowledge, Being] constitute the minimum possible qualities which a point must possess if it is to have a real sensible experience of itself..." : http://www.etarot.info/naples-arrangement

Other things, such as Scientology's Four Conditions of Existence (as-isness, alter-isness, isness, not-isness), many of its scales, and much more, derive from Hubbard's study of Crowley.

Sometimes people become enchanted by these introductory pieces of Scientology and follow Hubbard's yellow brick road,

ultimately, to their detriment.

 

[Idle Morgue]

That Crowley was a real card, eh?

He most certainly "contributed to the motion" now didn't he?

 

[Gadfly]

Quote: "...With my own understanding of ARC, I find it useful, even though I rarely think in terms of the Scientology concepts anymore...."

For someone who rarely thinks in terms of the Scientology concepts anymore, you spend way too much time explaining how those concepts 'work'.

Thank-you for your concern (and evaluation).

Your post is a perfect example of "talking about the poster", instead of talking about the content of the post.

If you feel that something I said was incorrect, and that various ideas do not align with honest and careful observations of reality, then please say so. Explain it. But then, you would have to talk about the topic of the post instead of about the poster.

The truth is that here on ESMB is the ONLY place I ever discuss ANY Scientology ideas. I don't have any friends in the "real world" who know much of anything about Scientology. In fact, I don't currently have anybody in my life who has ever had any involvement with Scientology other than my daughter (who never seems to have any need to talk about any of it anymore). Also, in my living of my life, I simply never find myself thinking about Scientology concepts much at all. That is the truth. I mean I do occasionally, but it is rare these days. But if and when the need arises, mainly because I read something here and feel like adding my two cents, I can quickly focus on some aspect of Scientology, shine the light of my attention and rather hefty memory upon some area of concern, and explain it as best as I can (from my current viewpoint and understanding).

I post a few posts every couple of days. Sometimes I miss a day, and sometimes I post a bit more. I think, analysis, correlate data and write VERY QUICKLY. What may appear to you as "way too much time" is but a tiny amount of time from my point of view, and compared to everything else I do each day. Now, maybe you are a slow thinker and writer, and thus you can't possibly imagine how anybody else might be able to do it "well", without sending much time on it (back at ya . . . . ).