You will see in Panda's and Feral's replies the exact skepticism that I referred to,.
Your answers are clever but there are still the contradictions that litter your posting history on ESMB.
"I think that to some extent you find scientologists to be "dishonest" because of the stark difference in what you and they believe to be true.
A person can be wrong, or of a different viewpoint that doesnt match your idea of truth, and yet still be honest.
Honesty and the truth are not the same."
Reminds me of a scientology shore story or PR definition of acceptable truth. The "what is true for you" Scn datum is the perfect motivation for lying, all you have to do is believe your own lies and then you are being "truthful". A perfect Hubbardism!
We are ex-scientologists, we have experienced this believing lies mechanism, so we don't believe you because we have been scientologists too!
"Alas though true. I am subversive on many levels, manipulative and on my own agenda. I have done things that would have me declared instantly if found out by the church. I am sometimes amazed that I have not been tracked down and kicked out. There are photos of me at protests, and I have posted well beyond what I can conceive of as acceptable even if it were "for the cause"."
You have previously stated that you are ineligable for CofS services due to your inability to get through a sec check. This makes your defence of the CofS the more incomprehensible, unless of course you are not being truthful with us.
I like your rogue scientologist mock-up, it is entertaining but is it true?
"My support if for the part of it that aligns with my purposes, spiritual liberation. I support the people who sacrifice to keep it there, and to preserve what value is in the organization that so many have worked and donated for over the years. I also put forward counter intention for other parts in the little ways I can. I am certainly no hero of the revolution, just an insignificant part of an organiztion being sand in the gears."
If this is true, then it looks like you are positioning yourself for a coup that you hope will occur within the CofS and that you are subversively trying to forward. Do you think this makes you popular with a section of ESMB public?
"No. I didnt set it up that way, just observed that it was that way. The knowledgists could have addressed the issues I posed in a calm, considered manner following their own dictums, but chose to attack me as shitting on their beliefs."
If this is true, after you observed your undeliberate trap, you could have apologised to the knowledgists rather than pushing the trap and digging it deeper. That would have been the noble thing to do once you realised your unconscious laying of the trap! Instead the next part of your answers solidfy the trap you have set. This is pure Hubbard activity, sorry Alex, but it is!
You know that exes suspect scientologists for reasons that I have laid out and your posting experience has confirmed this to you. So once you trigger this suspicion, you need to recognise your causation of this suspicion because of the less than noble aspects of your "religion" and take responsibility for the un-edifying aspects of the "church" that you support.
Based upon this understanding, you could apologise for stirring up suspicion and find other ways to debate things you want to debate. This is the cross you have to bear due to you unethical "church". It is
your problem, not the exes problem. You have to find a solution, if you want to debate with us!
Unless you want to follow Ron's policy "always attack, never defend".
"I constantly observe myself. My participation on the web is a mirror to me, where I see in how I am responded to, how I seem to others. I am humbled at the consideration I am shown on occasion and disappointed in myself frequently. I dont believe Hubbard "set it up that way". This conceptually is probably the biggest difference between you and I. I see other causes, contributions and reasons. Yes the church is almost a failed attempt. The writings and recordings and technology taken completely out of that context have much to consider. Perhaps incomplete, but a treasure of ideas."
Good for you.
I refer to his Admissions "Men are your slaves" and note the slave culture he set up called Scientology.
"Elemental Spirits are your slaves" and therefore suspect the possible hidden agenda behind OTIII and NOTs
And his bragging about understanding people's psychology and how he can predict and control people's minds (don't have the reference to hand - but I suspect you know his Admissions at least as well as I do!) makes me suspect that he set up things deliberately to forward his evil purposes.
It seems hopeful at best and foolish at worst to assume that his Admissions were some silly post-adolescent nonsense that he grew out of. They seem a vital insight into his personality and explain so much of the nonsense that permeates scientology.
Have you chosen to ignore his Admissions as having an influence on the "church" that he created?
"Dont care. I say what I say. I dont speak for the church or even other scientologists. And surely my motives are not as pure as they should be. My motives are not exactly to criticise Alan or knowledgism, although that is a consequence of this thread. It is more like I wanted to discuss this and also make a point about the similarities between knowledgism and scientology, and also point out the drawbacks of knowledgism in a certain context."
So apologise for the way it came over! Why not! What's so terrible about apologising?
A
balanced discussion about the similarities
and the differences would be ok, but your operation comes over as purely an attack. Ideally comparative criticism of
both subjects and an
equal balance given to differences would be interesting and I don't know, beacause I don't talk to them, but I expect the knowledgists would be happier to take part in such a comparison.
"No. Scientology's influence on me is indeed very ingrained, but no I really do not think that. I have taken in what I beleive after inspection and comparison to life around me. But it is not something I am unwilling to consider if brought to my attention. A few years back I would say that there may be some truth to it...."
Good, that's what I am doing, inviting you to see what is ingrained and perhaps still uninspected.
"But I dont want to leave the church, I want the church to be what it had promised."
If the "church" became what it had promised, the "church" would leave itself!
This comes down to the PR vs the real, hidden Scn. Ron promised wonderful things. It was this purpose that hooked us and combined with the wins adhered us to his "church" and produced the hidden agenda of creating a slave society.
The promised "church" was PR. The less savoury aspects are fuelled by Hubbard's hidden agenda and the "church" cannot spearate the two.
But you are arguing semantics really. I described it as a "path of separation", you described it as a reform, either way there is a separation from the unsavoury aspects of the subject.
"It is one thing to study and believe and it is entirely a different scale of thing to live the knowledge and beliefs....scientology, knowledgism, christianity......very few raise up to that level of being examples of the ideal of their beliefs."
Beliefs determine or influence actions. The two are not divorced. Living up to ideals is rarely achieved, that is true. But the ideals do influence action to some degree.
Unfortunately scn has conflicting ideals. Some are noble, some are destructive and evil. This is a mirror of the founder's personality. So sometimes scientologists behave ethically and nobly, sometimes evilly. The overarching belief in Scn is that it is the sole solution and this is used to justify all manner of abusive actions.
Fortunately the "church" is not able to live up to the ideal it sets itself of an Orwellian totalitarian society! Phew! - thank goodness the goodness of scientologists prevents it from ever actually being achieved!
"Science of survival was a brilliant work of genius. Labeling people is dangerous in the absence of compassion, but the purpose of scientology as a philosophy and technology was not to subjugate, but to liberate, a purpose of compassion. That purpose seems to have been lost in the preversion and dramatizations of cherry picked bits of policy and tech by the church. Not mainly in the rank and file but in the entrenched beauracracy and the leadership."
Where's the compassion in his advice in SOS to isolate "perverts" and his advice on how to deal with those at 1.1 and generally those below 2.0?
Are you seriously suggesting that his analysis, recommendations and labelling didn't influence the policies of the "church" he created? Are you stupid?
Don't trot out the platitiude that compassion sometimes has to be firm. Or that the "church" has cherry picked parts of the policy and tech.
The book SOS lays out
exactly the template for the abusive "church" that he created.
Your "church" would be well advised to follow the "virtues" and "golden rule" as laid out in the PR piece The Way to Happiness". But it can't do so because of the labelling system and advices given in SOS and in Ron's Command Intention.
"My motives are not simple, pure or easy to understand. I suggest you take me as I come, and do not try to parse me. That is a most difficult thing, to fully duplicate what brings another person to the point they are communicating from. I usually feel that I am not really understood in terms of motive and intent, and all too often judged with suppositions not supported by evidence."
Nobody is simple, pure or easy to understand except for perhaps a few great souls. You are not unique in this. Many of us do our best to explain our position as clearly as possible and to understand others' positons.
You are perhaps understood a little better than you think! As ex-scns we use our experience and knowledge of the subject that we once adhered to to understand those who still adhere to it. That is our evidence! We know that a scientologist is skilled at appearing to be other than they are. That is your liability, your problem.
That's where I came in on this thread, you are being treated as a scientologist, which is what you say you are!
