Re: Proofs and Evidence
Lakey,
It was a joke. Also, I'm an ex and I use Sciontologese all the time on here...it's fun! I had completely been out of it and away from it and picked it back up reading and posting here. Who knows about any factuality on "As-isness" as a premise. I like Uniquemand's response - reminds me of an interview of Timothy Leary.
Perhaps a non-dualistic enlightenment/ego-death is factual.
Well, you don't stand out as being pro Hubbard. If you don't appear to be pro Hubbard, you will most likely be left alone, using a little scientologese here and there.
Now, if you appear in the eyes of certain people, to have some vestige of pro Hubbardism still extant, then you will not be left alone if you use Scientologese. When I say, some vestige of pro Hubbardism, I am refering to some bits of Hubbard's tech.
A person may detest most of Hubbard's activities and detest C of S Orgs but if that person claims that they got something out of some piece of Hubbard's tech, say they liked TR0 or TR2 or the ARC triangle or claim that Objective Processes improved their perception a little, then such persons are attacked when they use scientologese.
The people who attack for these transgressions, such as saying that a TR helped one in life are not bad people, in fact some of the finest people on ESMB feel this way. Their goal is altruistic. They just don't want to see any brand new people brought into Scientology, whether it be the C of S, the Freezone or the Independent field.
If someone who has reasonable communication skills and seems rational touts a piece of Scientology, the "true exes" as I call them, fear that some new people will be hooked in and may undergo pain and be harmed as a result.
These 'true exes" feel that anything workable which Scientology has in it can be found in other mental or spiritual studies for much less money and without all the total "bullshit" involved in signing up with the official "Church". They fancy themselves as protectors of the innocent and to a degree, that is their main intent. They are "on guard" nobly attempting to ensure that no new people fall prey to Scientology, in any form including the Freezone or the Independent Field.
I like these people and admire their basic goal. The only negatives in all this as far as I can see is that Freedom of Speech is abridged a bit, though not drastically, and also there is no exception made if a person does not agree with their views.
These people also make a worthwhile point. If one had wins from some portion of Hubbard's tech, don't talk about it on certain portions of ESMB, i.e. threads where they have domain. They say, go talk it over on the the Freezone threads, et al.
Anyhow, that is why I did not use the word "as-is" a few posts back. I don't have any bone to pick with these people. I like them, admire them and agree strongly with about 80% of their positions. On those other 20% where we do not agree, I fought them tooth and nail on those points in March and April of this year until there was simply no more to be said. There is no need to fight that battle again so I comply with their wishes and do not use scientologese in my posts on the threads where they participate. No big deal. Its all good!
Lakey
