Should Scientologists have the right to practice Scientology?

[degraded being]

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 . . . . ).

I just thought that your post was actually thinking in scientology concepts...eg. using Hubbards definition of "affinity" as the way you think about affinity, and similarly with "agreement(s)" as being so tied up with "reality" per scientology dogma/tek/religion...whatever anyone wants to call it.
Then you finished with saying you don't actually think in scientology concepts these days. It seemed contradictory to me. If you had explained it as how scientologists think and not how YOU think I wouldn't have seen any contradiction.

You even started with:

Well, I find the concept useful - ARC. Love is NOT "affinity". (Post 321).

 

[Gadfly]

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.

I would like someone to explain the details of a correlation between Crowley's Bliss, Knowledge, Being with Hubbard's "Affinity, Reality, Communication." I have read lots of Crowley in the past, and lots of Hubbard. I don't see that ANY connection is at all obvious, and any attempt to explain how one led to the other is an absurd and big STRETCH. I mean, other than each having THREE key components, I do not find them in any way similar.

Now, if somebody could show explanations by Crowley in how the components of Bliss, Knowledge, Being each affect each other and work to create some FOURTH thing (in Hubbard's case "understanding"), then I might consider the possibility.

But, short of that I continue to view this idea as totally absurd. It would be like saying the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the heir of ARC or KRC. Just because the ideas involve a "trinity". By the way there probably could be found some similarity between Crowley's BKB and the Holy Trinity, as there are similarities between Christian Mysticism (i.e. Rudolf Steiner's writings) and various Kabbalistic ideas.

Please, somebody, CONNECT THE DOTS for me, on HOW 'The Factors' appears to be a re-working of Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement', and how, in any way, Hubbard's ARC=U (don't forget the 4th key aspect "U") somehow relates to Crowley's BKB.

For what its worth, I read and studied a great deal of mysticism, including the Kabbala, Crowley, Golden Dawn, Theosophy, Rosicrucianism, Anthroposophy, etc., before getting involved with Scientology, and what struck me right off and which continued throughout my involvement with Scientology was how DIFFERENT it was from the common themes found in these other areas. While Hubbard may have been influenced by these other areas, and by Crowley, he changed and added SO MUCH to his own subject to make these "earlier influences" unrecognizable.

Like when people try to make comparisons between the Advanced OT Levels and the upper grades of Masonry or Crowley's OTO. Other than the fact that Hubbard set them up as "secret", "with severe penalties if one divulges any of it to the uninitiated", and "being set up in some sort of systematic ascending order", there is no similarity at all. Hubbard took the vague and general ideas of secrecy and ascending grades (i.e. Grade Chart) and worked them into his scam. Hubbard may have borrowed the general outline in some cases, but for the most part the DETAILS are very different.

By the way, if ARC=U (not that it does, but that is what Hubbard said), what does BKB equal? :confused2:

And, if Hubbard did somehow morph his ARC from BKB, how does THAT DATUM necessarily invalidate some observably accurate aspects of ARC?

As a mention, in the past I have seen critics try to pooh-pooh Scientology by getting others to accept and believe that Scientology is some form of Satanism, or descended-from-Crowley Black Magick. There is plenty enough WRONG with Hubbard and Scientology, just as he was, and just at it is, without the need to enter in BIG STRETCHES and forced similarities (that largely do not exist except in vague and general ways).

 

[Gadfly]

I just thought that your post was actually thinking in scientology concepts...eg. using Hubbards definition of "affinity" as the way you think about affinity, and similarly with "agreement(s)" as being so tied up with "reality" per scientology dogma/tek/religion...whatever anyone wants to call it.
Then you finished with saying you don't actually think in scientology concepts these days. It seemed contradictory to me. If you had explained it as how scientologists think and not how YOU think I wouldn't have seen any contradiction.

You even started with:

Well, I find the concept useful - ARC. Love is NOT "affinity". (Post 321).

Well, how else would you say that a person's understanding is largely dependent and based upon what he or she accepts as true and agrees with as being true?

In an earlier example I gave, of the world being flat, people "understood" the world to be flat, and they "agreed it to be so". It seems to me the agreement precedes and enables the understanding.

To me THAT is accurate in describing how most people's minds function.

If you can get a person to agree with something, then THAT is how they will "understand" it to be. Understanding, whether right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate, is directly connected to and rooted in how any person agrees (or considers something to be).

From my own extensive observations of people, that is true, and I don't know quite how else to say it. "Understanding" is NOT a word unique only to Scientology. "Agreement" is NOT a word unique only to Scientology. Do you disagree? That understandings of any sort are NOT linked and based in some type of agreement? If so, give me a few examples where this isn't true. I would be happy to change my mind.

I did later acknowledge a poster who brought up the point that agreement does NOT equal "reality", and that is true. It doesn't. But anyway you look at it, where you are 1) in proximity to some thing, near or far, 2) with some quality and quantity of communication with that thing, then 3) what you accept and agree about that thing relates to 4) how you understand that thing to be. I do NOT have the view that ARC equals U, and while there is a relationship, it is not quite exact like Hubbard stated.

Obviously there is something to it, because it is the foundation of every manipulative reg or recruit cycle that has ever happened in Scientology. It IS a great tool to manipulate others with. It "works" to do that. Yes? No? :confused2:

My understanding of it is MUCH looser than any typical Scientology-based understanding. I add all sorts of blemishes and wrinkles, and alter it in various ways.

But simply, any person, you included, view the world just as you see it because of various agreements and considerations you hold about it. I don't mean the raw physical universe, but every value, every opinion, every like, and every dislike that you have about any aspect of it, past, preset or future. Your understandings about everything and anything are closely linked to your own IDEAS about these things. By ideas I mean agreements and considerations.

For me, what I find useful is how ones view of reality (as opinion, belief, conviction), also called "understanding", is closely related to what he or she agrees with. I find it useful as a psychological understanding about HOW and WHY people possess differing subjective views about things. I don't place much attention or value on the "affinity" or "communication". Mocking up affinity and communication to "create effects" is Scientology trickery, and I have little use for any of that. I say "little" because I have used ARC to manipulate others but only when I have found myself in very dangerous situations (being robbed at gunpoint in Harlem NYC, getting mugged at 4 am at 42nd Street in a subway station, getting a violent drunk out of my taxi cab, etc.). In fact, I would say that I would probably be dead if I hadn't known about and used ARC trickery at various points in my past - to handle getting out of dangerous situations.

It "worked" to save my life. I would be glad to explain the details of what happened and how exactly I "applied" what I knew of ARC to defuse the situations. But other than that, I see no use for it in real life, not as a "tool", and only slightly as a way to understand how people come to develop their own unique sets of "understandings" about things.

I am not "defending" ARC as it is written, as Hubbard explains it, or as it is used by Scientologists. I am simply saying that certain aspects of it ring true for me. I apologize - in truth, I should not have said that I find the concept useful. What I find useful are my own various alterations, distortions and morphings that are somehow rooted in or related to that original concept.

 

[Gadfly]

Regarding "reality", it has become more common to view this NOT as the fixed thing that it was previously defined to be.

It is usually defined as, and commonly thought to be, "the real things" or "something that exists independently of ideas concerning it."

But that view has been shifting. The concept of reality has been growing with the notion that your experience of reality IS affected by you, by your beliefs about it, by HOW you look at it. This is from The Institute of Human Understanding:

The ability for you to change how you experience your realities is more valuable than changing the details of the reality.

Reality is a crazy construct, often incorrectly identified as a thing. Everyone experiences their own reality each second of everyday. While it may not have come to your attention that you have a say as to what you can do to change, impact or create your reality, this shall provide relevant insights to impact your understanding.

I want you to look at the picture below and decide on what the picture is.

To some the picture may be of a vase. To others it may be a picture of two faces staring at each other. What if I were to tell you, both were correct? The answer is of course; both are present in this picture/reality. However, if you were not aware of both appearing in the picture and had to determine what the picture was, it can be said with almost certainty that your beliefs of what you saw would be strong. In fact, in the studies we have witnessed many would downright argue and believe even stronger in their original beliefs as to what they saw. This of course was their reality.

What is rather insightful with this study is the revelation that when a disagreement is present, humans tend to become more certain in their beliefs without any exploration into someone else’s reality or perspective. However, once the other persons reality is expressed in an EFFECTIVE way, the certainty turns to doubt. The guard then comes down and an understanding is reached. At this point their reality is changed.

Lastly, Einstein made it quite clear that ANY experience of any aspect of reality is dependent on the OBSERVER. He made it clear that any perception of this "reality" is entirely dependent on HOW that aspect of reality is viewed. There is no "true and accurate" version of reality, not according to his theory of relativity. There are only VERSIONS that each solely depends upon the state or condition of the observer. I find it useful to apply the same idea to human consciousness and psychology. The "state or condition" of any human being is determined by his or her set of ideas, strong opinions, beliefs, certainties, and convictions (aka: postulates, agreements, and considerations). The resultant "understanding" affects, colors and could be said to even determine how any person views and experiences the world around him or her. This view is not unique to Scientology, though Hubbard's ARC=U only brushes up against the idea. But, it is more and more a commonly accepted view and idea that people have "differing realities" (based on what I explained above). And that their realities are based on what they happen to agree with.

We each have a different "reality" from other people about a great many things, and while Hubbard was the first I ever saw who talked about it in this way, others have been doing so too (probably quite unrelated to him or Scientology in any way). (Raw) Reality and the experience of reality are two somewhat different, but tightly interconnected things. The understanding of each and how they relate to each other is still evolving and growing as I write this.

I have mixed up Hubbard's ideas with many many other ideas. :confused2:

 

[Veda]

-snip-

I have read lots of Crowley in the past, and lots of Hubbard. I don't see that ANY connection

-snip-

Yup. You, and a few Scientologists - with whom the topic has been broached - who say much the same thing, and who seem to think I am duty bound to "connect the dots" for them, and to persist in trying to convince them until they are convinced. For some reason they all feel I must do this to their satisfaction.

What I've done is present some information, some clues. In other places, I've presented some more information. Some see it, some don't. You don't, and that's fine with me.

 

[Leon]

You need to dub in the connection the way Veda dubs it in. That's the only way to get the dots into line.

 

[Infinite]

You need to dub in the connection the way Veda dubs it in. That's the only way to get the dots into line.

That's one way of understanding Scientollogy. But not the only one. If its the devil worship aspect of Scientology which interests you, one can't really go past Hugh Urban's "Occult Roots of Scientology". Spooky stuff - with DOX.

 

[Idle Morgue]

For those of you who think it is okay to practice Scientology - please read Lawrence Brennan's book online - "The Miscavige Legal Statements: A Study in Perjury, Lies and Misdirection".

I just found this book online and am reading it. Lawrence Brennan was a Sea Org staff member and here are his credentials:

Executive Positions Held in Organized Scientology



Following a year on staff in an administrative capacity, I was recruited into the legal bureau of the Guardian’s Office (“GO”) and advanced through the ranks of the GO until I oversaw all of organized scientology’s legal operations that were outside of litigation around the world.After the GO was disbanded in 1981 I oversaw a complete corporate restructuring of organizedscientology and was later promoted to run scientology’s secret organization known as the“Special Unit” which oversaw their main external affairs actions following the disbanding of theGO. I was also posted within scientology’s Watchdog Committee (“WDC”) where I was one of approximately a dozen people in the highest management body within organized scientology.
The various posts I held while being a member of the scientology organization issummarized as follows:1)

Assistant Guardian Legal AOLA(1974)2)

Legal Handling USGO(1974-75)3)


Legal Branch I Director USGO(1975-76)4)

Legal Branch I Director GOWW(1976-81)5)

Corporate Missionaire / Office of the Controller (1980-81)6)

Special Unit Corporate Execution(1982)7)

Special Unit In Charge/Watchdog Committee Member X(1982-84

Lawrence Brennan worked for L Ron Hubbard. Hubbard WAS the source of power in Scientology at all times - even though he told his members that he was "off doing research". Read all about it - find out the truth about LRH and David Miscavige.

This will help you understand that Scientology WAS and IS Hubbard's case being forced on you!

Lawrence Brennan not only served in the legal and corporate entities of this Church, he also did the OT levels.

This will help you make sense of "What Is Scientology".

 

[Infinite]

For those of you who think it is okay to practice Scientology - please read Lawrence Brennan's book online - "The Miscavige Legal Statements: A Study in Perjury, Lies and Misdirection" . . . <ship> . . .

Yep. Essential reading: http://paulsrabbit.com/LHBvol1a.pdf

 

[Panda Termint]

For those of you who think it is okay to practice Scientology <snip...>

It is indeed an excellent read. How you think it speaks to the question regarding a scientologist's right to practice scientology escapes me. We're talking about freedom of choice and individual rights here, aren't we?

 

[Infinite]

It is indeed an excellent read. How you think it speaks to the question regarding a scientologist's right to practice scientology escapes me. We're talking about freedom of choice and individual rights here, aren't we?

Ahhh . . . Human Rights. Is it a human right to have your mind fucked by some kitchen hypnotist who believes in Engrams?

 

[Panda Termint]

Ahhh . . . Human Rights. Is it a human right to have your mind fucked by some kitchen hypnotist who believes in Engrams?

Personally, I'd advise against it but if that's what you really want to do with your life, Infinite, I support your right to do such things.

 

[Infinite]

Personally, I'd advise against it but if that's what you really want to do with your life, Infinite, I support your right to do such things.

Really - you would advise against it? Why's that? Genuine question, if you don't mind me asking.

 

[Panda Termint]

Really - you would advise against it? Why's that? Genuine question, if you don't mind me asking.

I think you've already spent way too much of your life thinking about "kitchen hypnotists" and the existence of "engrams". (just kidding)

If someone mentioned to me that they were thinking of trying Dianetics as a therapy, I'd advise them to get themselves fully informed about the theory and consider alternatives as a more beneficial possibility. If they were insistent on going the Dianetics route I'd advise them to find a capable, caring auditor with a proven track record and to avoid, like the plague, any involvement with the CofS. Honest answer.

 

[Infinite]

I think you've already spent way too much of your life thinking about "kitchen hypnotists" and the existence of "engrams". (just kidding)

If someone mentioned to me that they were thinking of trying Dianetics as a therapy, I'd advise them to get themselves fully informed about the theory and consider alternatives as a more beneficial possibility. If they were insistent on going the Dianetics route I'd advise them to find a capable, caring auditor with a proven track record and to avoid, like the plague, any involvement with the CofS. Honest answer.

Ummm . . . where's the advise to AVOID? If a friend came to me and said they were thinking about getting some L Ron Hubbard Kool Aid, I'd - at the very least - encourage research and would recommend particular authors and sources of data. If the friend was insistent on going forward with it, I would recommend more reading rather than suggest there was such a thing as a "capable, caring auditor with a proven track record". When it comes to capable auditing and proven track records, I have yet to meet, or even see, a Clear. I know that's because there is no such thing as Engrams which is why I couldn't let a friend go off and be hynotised into believing in them.

Its a tricky one, though. I accept there's nothing I can do about a friend actually picking up the hypno-cans. What would make that a more comfortable outcome for me is if the Auditor concerned had some sort of formal training in counselling, licensed ideally, and made it abundantly apparent where they stood on certain specific L Ron Hubbard scripture. Even then I would still do a double-plus-good black-belt google-fu on them. And then there's the friendship dynamic going forward. Do I bite my tongue for the sake of the friendship and in the knowledge that they might need all the friends they can get at the end of the road, or would I just be cut off anyway as an easily identifiable PTS menace?

Still, its not really dilemma for me. I don't think there's anyone I know who doesn't know what I think of the L Ron Hubbard Bridge to Xenu. The idea that any of then would come to to me for advice on the matter is rather redundant, I suspect. In the meantime, I am left to exercise my human right to free speech and participation in the wider conversation.

One conundrum I have on this matter relates to the wonderful comment by the remarkable senator: a person is free to believe what they like, but not to do what they like. I wonder if Scientology being a practical philosophy means that a Scientologist has no choice but to measure people on an insane scale of emotions and seek to dispose of without sorrow some of those people. If so, then, no, practising Scientology is not a Human Right, it is an abuse of Human Rights. If they are not seeking to dispose of (without sorrow) some people, then are they actually practising Scientology? Obvously not. Which, of course, brings me back to my perennial position: why not call it something else and make clear the distinction between Scientology - "the religion" - and Scientology - the what ever the hell bits we can get away with? To that extent, the OP question itself seems a bt ahead of the situation in that the terms have not been defined. What does "practise Scientology" actually mean?

 

[Lulu Belle]

One conundrum I have on this matter relates to the wonderful comment by the remarkable senator: a person is free to believe what they like, but not to do what they like. I wonder if Scientology being a practical philosophy means that a Scientologist has no choice but to measure people on an insane scale of emotions and seek to dispose of without sorrow some of those people. If so, then, no, practising Scientology is not a Human Right, it is an abuse of Human Rights. If they are not seeking to dispose of (without sorrow) some people, then are they actually practising Scientology? Obvously not. Which, of course, brings me back to my perennial position: why not call it something else and make clear the distinction between Scientology - "the religion" - and Scientology - the what ever the hell bits we can get away with? To that extent, the OP question itself seems a bt ahead of the situation in that the terms have not been defined. What does "practise Scientology" actually mean?

You know, you're right.

I think this is a lot of the issue that occurs when an ex or an anti butts heads with Indies/Freezies.

We are going by totally different definitions of "what Scientology is".

Maybe it all boils down to....

...a misunderstood word.

It's definitely a word that has a way different meaning to me than it does to anyone in the FZ.

 

[Terril park]

You know, you're right.

I think this is a lot of the issue that occurs when an ex or an anti butts heads with Indies/Freezies.

We are going by totally different definitions of "what Scientology is".

Maybe it all boils down to....

...a misunderstood word.

It's definitely a word that has a way different meaning to me than it does to anyone in the FZ.

How do you define "Scientology"?

 

[TG1]

If I said what I thought about the last several pages of this thread, the general response would be, "Then don't read this thread."

But honestly, all this bitter debate about how and why and under which influences Hubbard was when he created and continuously modified the verkochte mish mash he came to call Scientology seems nearly pointless to me. Scientology was one thing one decade and other stuff another decade. Scientology was simply whatever extortion scheme Hubbard determined he preferred at any given time. Scientology was whatever Hubbard was even paying attention to at the time. Scientology was his insanity that became OUR group insanity.

To try and view it through even an illogical prism is also nearly pointless. It's like trying to rationalize Caligula's behavior as an applied philosophy. Scientologists spend their lives trying to understand Hubbard's thinking. We waste so much time doing this. It is not an intellectual exercise, but a cultic exercise.

At some point we understand we were part of an insane control freak's world. And that's enough for me to understand.

TG1

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Someone who has nevergotten - or done - any scientology ? Gonna tell 'em run hide from that stuff & go look at some things with an infinitely better track record that are faster, more effectice & a whole less expensive. Easy enough !

But, ah, what about our friends who are still " in " & also know where we stand re their " church" ? 'tis a little delicate as they know they are supposed to be disconnected from us but they still come to us for a discussion where they can be honest ( & not get KR'd ! ) & they still value what us as a friend.

As I bite my tongue with blood running down my throat as they describe some ethics action going insanely against them as administered by some teenager - or how they need to come with umpteen thousands of dollars to go for yet another 6 months check - or whatever thing that is currently causing them a life stopping problem they have to solve before Thursday at ... well, you know the drill.

How far in their face can I get & not get disconnected from ? Not far at all.

Do I stay in touch with them & ( hopefully ) plant little seeds here & there ? Do I just bald faced tell 'em the truth & therby make them end contact with me ?

More than sort of feel bad to see a friend I love dearly still blinded by the cult think so much so it is now self blinded & know that to open my mouth will cost me the position to be able to throw them a lifeline when they are ready for it.....and - sooner or later - they will all need a hand getting out.

This should be easy.............shouldn't it ?

 

[Gadfly]

If I said what I thought about the last several pages of this thread, the general response would be, "Then don't read this thread."

But honestly, all this bitter debate about how and why and under which influences Hubbard was when he created and continuously modified the verkochte mish mash he came to call Scientology seems nearly pointless to me. Scientology was one thing one decade and other stuff another decade. Scientology was simply whatever extortion scheme Hubbard determined he preferred at any given time. Scientology was whatever Hubbard was even paying attention to at the time. Scientology was his insanity that became OUR group insanity.

To try and view it through even an illogical prism is also nearly pointless. It's like trying to rationalize Caligula's behavior as an applied philosophy. Scientologists spend their lives trying to understand Hubbard's thinking. We waste so much time doing this. It is not an intellectual exercise, but a cultic exercise.

At some point we understand we were part of an insane control freak's world. And that's enough for me to understand.

TG1

You bring up a great point. At some point in the late 1950s or early 1960s, Hubbard came up with this word, "Scientology".

Then, day after day, month after month, and year after year, he added some things and took out other things, and still always called this mixture "Scientology".

It always seemed so weird to me that since 1965 and the advent of KSW, that Scientologists were told to accept and believe that "we have the technology" and that the "technology always works when correctly applied". But at the same time Hubbard was ALWAYS greatly changing the content of this supposed subject called "Scientology".

Hubbard was constantly coming up with new processes to "undercut" WHY the earlier stuff wasn't "getting the results" (which he never stated or actually admitted).

It always floored me that we were supposed to accept and believe that "Scientology was the only valid workable mental & spiritual technology", yet it was ALWAYS being added to and taken away from by Hubbard - yet he always claimed that it was fine and perfect at any time, and that Scientologists should NEVER alter it in any way because it HAD to be "applied exactly to get the exact results". What Hubbard basically admitted by his endless additions to the "tech" is that it DID NOT WORK at the earlier points of time, even though at every earlier time he claimed that it did work as it should!

I really liked how you put it:

"Scientology was simply whatever extortion scheme Hubbard determined he preferred at any given time. Scientology was whatever Hubbard was even paying attention to at the time. Scientology was his insanity that became OUR group insanity".