-
leny@skat.usc.edu (leny) wrote in article
<66pcaf$q16$1@skat.usc.edu> (alt.religion.scientology):Hi, Leny
>Perhaps I can put this argument in some perspective which will undoubtedly invite criticism from both sides. Saying "no" is not as easy as it sounds when one has associated much value with being part of a group, wishes to obtain benefits from being in that group and is confronted with peer pressure. The concepts of group thought and group loyalty are often confused. This kind of pressure can and often does create a blind loyalty. Now the person is open for manipulation for ostensible reasons.
I agree. The vocable "no" however is fundamental when you consider how the "mind-control" issue has developed and how it has led to forcible kidnapping and deprogramming under the pretense that the "cult member" has lost his freedom of choice.
The bottom line is this: there is no "mind-control" because the member is not physically restrained, and therefore can always say "no" and leave.
It's in this context that it has to be understood.
Now, critics often mix "influence" and "mind-control". What you describe is influence, and at this point I can agree with you that, under certain circumstances, the influence can be such that it is very difficult for the person to say no. The bottom line, however, is that the person *can* say no at any time and leave, so the ultimate responsibility lays with the individual and not, like some critics like to point out, with an evil cult that brainwash its member.
>In my opinion the services sold by the church are over hyped and over priced but they are not without truth and value. The value I have received from the training and the processing has endured and grown over the last 24 years. The value from my personal benefits is such to translate into a very high dollar amount and I have no regrets.
Good for you. As an ex-Scientologist myself I also had positive experiences, even though I have chosen an independent path from the tech. My opinion is that what I call "insight" comes first, then you can chose to use part of the tech or not. I chose not to, because I think it does not lead me where I want to go, but I can understand that people can build an honest life around it as well. I have no problem with that, as long as they don't start behaving like jerks.
For many anti-Scientologists, of course, the fact that the tech does not work is as important as it is for Scientologists that it works. They each need to believe in their own way. No wonder each side try to convince anybody else about their own fixed viewpoint. The truth, of course, is considerably more complicate than that, and is probably somewhere in between. Since it is much of a personal experience, it usually is useless arguing about it.
>Do not think I am saying this out of some kind "brainwashing" scheme. I have not taken a service in 4 years and I screen my phone calls to avoid the church's telemarketers. I have observed that many of the churches members have taken on a "cult" type personality and they are the ones who bring on many of the churches problems. I have also observed that many more are normal regular people at all levels of the grade chart, both public, staff and Sea Org.
Yes, just like on the outside. The fanatics and extremists are always the ones who bring about the group's disrepute.
>I find both truth and lies coming from both sides and for that reason I hold both sides in equal contempt.
Same here. There has been a fair amount of intelligent ex-members who have posted here for a very short while with the same opinion (which actually is something rather obvious for anyone with experience in the CoS and who isn't half-witted, caught in a personal vedenta, or in the anti-cult ideology). Mmm, do you think we can start a club. Something like "ex-members and outside observers without a grudge against Scn", or something like that? ;-)
Thanks for your post. Moderate and sensible views are always welcome, especially when they are so clearly and concisely stated.
Bernie
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: REFUSING TO FACE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS BY BLAMING SCIENTOLOGY
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:44:01 GMT
Message-ID: 3498e7dc.5337462@snews.zippo.com
deomorto@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote in article
<19971212035700.WAA19599@ladder02.news.aol.com>
(alt.religion.scientology):>Your post was, I thought, a pretty balanced reply as, indeed was the original poster. I think the "brainwashing" "mind control" thing is, indeed, a red herring -after all it seems to me to be impossible to delineate where simple persuasion ends and "control" begins. But there is one major major point that seems to be glossed over time and again. What is the MOST important thing in scientology as far as scientology itself is concerned? Its OT levels. The whole point of getting into scientology is to get up the bridge to full OT - as the church keeps promoting to the faithful - "you are at risk until you go OT"
I can agree with that. That's why I, personally, stopped with it. I want to know where I am heading to. There may be considerable benefit in the tech, but does it lead me to where I want to go at the end? It's an individual matter, maybe it does lead some people where they want to go.Who is to say? I personally don't think it leads where I want to go.
As a friend of mine told, he wanted a Ferrari, but only received a Mercedes. Well, I still want my Ferrari :-) (I understand that some only got a deux-chevaux and others got robbed from their money all together. That's possible too).
> and yet the whole concept of scientology "marketing" is
>a) to get people in any way they can
>b) persuade them that scientology can handle their most pressing problems
>c) then convince them to take the next step.Yes, I think it's wrong, but that's probably what keeps them going.
> For me the worst aspects of scientology are caught up in that simple little equation. The church hides its real aims. It lies, pure and simple.
> If you are prodding and pushing people toward a goal that you have and they do not know about then it may well not be officially mind control - it certainly is deceit.
I don't view it that way. I don't think that cult leaders and management *consciously* defraud people. I think that they are as much a believer as the rank and files. They may, unconsciously, aim for more power, but then, can you say that the rank and file does not do that just as well? Who is to say that the motivation of the person who wants to become OT isn't a mixture of genuine desire to improve and unconscious desire for power? I don't think that things are just as simple as what we want them to be, which is why I find that the approach saying that the CoS is a criminal organization turning their members into brainwashed zombies and slaves is just as stupid as the grandiose claims of the CoS itself.
Bernie
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: REFUSING TO FACE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS BY BLAMING SCIENTOLOGY
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:50:43 GMT
Message-ID: 349ae934.5682034@snews.zippo.com
Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote in article
<3490AFA5.544F@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> (alt.religion.scientology):>Bernie wrote:
>> They each need to believe in their own way.
>I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I assure you that you are wrong in my case.
I can't speak for everybody nor can I say how it is for you. It is for you to decide whether it is the case or not. Mind you, to say "I don't need to believe" doesn't mean a thing, because usually the need to believe is an unconscious phenomenon.
>I don't "need to believe" that the "tech" doesn't work. What I insist on is that, if the Church of Scientology[tm] wishes to make those extravagant claims, they need to support those claims.
Maybe the CoS, but not individual Scientologists. Why would they need to prove if they are satisfied with it?
We are speaking of two different thing, and probably more, and mostly speaking about something we haven't defined. I am one of those who say that the tech doesn't work. Why? Because, IMO, it does not bring about the ultimate proclaimed aim of Scn: total freedom, etc. Does it mean that it can't have any beneficial effects? No. So, in that sense, the tech does work.
For example, I have been helped by the tech in the past to release emotional charge, to be gone completely, never to reappear (at least this one ;-) It's quite something. There you sit with this tremendous charge, and a few moment later it has disappeared and you can enjoy life again, and reconsider the problem under a completely different viewpoint. Only those who have experienced such a release can appreciate it. Now go an tell them that "the tech doesn't work". They will laugh at your face, and rightly so.
Does it mean that it works consistently, like the CoS claims? No. Does it mean that it always works? No. There are times when, in the same situation, I have not been helped by the tech. Does it mean that you can't achieve the same effect without the tech? No. I did it without the tech as well, just as many other people undoubtedly did too. Others, however, are sitting in unresolved emotional situation for years on end, and may actually be helped by the tech.
So, on which basis are we saying that the tech works or doesn't work? You'll need to define your criteria and the context first. In this respect, both claims are equally valid in their own rights and this discussion does not have much sense. The truth is somewhere in between, and I do not agree with your radical assertion that it either works or not.
Besides, C.B. Willis made a good point as well in an article posted to a.c.t. in saying that there is not such thing as a "tech". There are just a series of processes. Some process work on some individual under certain circumstances, others don't.
Does it lead to a stable state such as "Clear" or "OT"? I personally don't think so, but then, others say they achieved it and are happy with it. What do I know? My question always is "and then"? As long as the end of the road isn't arrived at, whether there is such a state or not is not very relevant nor that important.
Bernie
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: REFUSING TO FACE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS BY BLAMING SCIENTOLOGY
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 00:14:44 GMT
Message-ID: 34b275f6.10311441@snews.zippo.com
jimbo@bolt.sonic.net (Jim Bianchi) wrote in article
<slrn695i0u.ab3.jimbo@bolt.sonic.net> (alt.religion.scientology):>>On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:50:43 GMT, Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie) wrote:
>>> For example, I have been helped by the tech in the past to release emotional charge, to be gone completely, never to reappear (at least this one ;-) It's quite something. There you sit with this tremendous charge, and a few moment later it has disappeared and you can enjoy life again, and reconsider the problem under a completely different viewpoint. Only those who have experienced such a release can appreciate it. Now go an
> So 'confession is good for the soul.' Wooo. What an utterly fantastic 'breakthrough' THAT is.
It wasn't a confessional.
>Scarcely an indication that the tech as a whole works, however.
Nor did I said so.
>>> Does it mean that it works consistently, like the CoS claims? No. Does it mean that it always works? No. There are times when, in the same situation, I have not been helped by the tech. Does it mean that you can't achieve the same effect without the tech? No. I did it without the tech as well, just as many other people undoubtedly did too. Others, however, are sitting in unresolved emotional situation for years on end, and may actually be helped by the tech
> Hmmm, lemme see if I have this straight, Bernie. You're saying that because many people are in some kind of emotional distress and *may* be helped by the tech, we're expected to turn a blind eye to the undisputed facts of the many unethical actions of the co$, as well as to the fact that it was founded by a man who felt it necessary to deliberately and consistantly lie to his followers and the publiic at large about his personal history, educational attainments, medical history, and military record in order to attract and retain followers?
Nope, Jim, that's not what I say.
>>> So, on which basis are we saying that the tech works or doesn't work? You'll need to define your criteria and the context first. In this respect, both claims are equally valid in
> Can't you READ? (Oh, I forgot, you're a scientologist.)
No, I am not a Scientologists.
>I've been around here for some time and I've not yet seen a critic denigriating the individual successes a sperson might have had.
You just did.
>The point of my criticism (and that of most oithers) is that Hubbard claimed objective, scientific, evidence existed to support his many bizarre discoveries and breakthroughs. The consistant refusal of any scientologists to even *discuss* the lack of support for Hubbard's many weird theories -- even if producing such proof would decidedly stop most criticism and result in a phenomenal increase in the groups membership --only lends credence to the claims of skeptics and critics (esp when the past record of scientology is taken into consideration).
You are free to criticize as much as you like, Jim. I just hope you'll find a more positive outlet for yourself sometime.
Bernie
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Ralph Hilton, The Tech, and the Cultic Mindset [was: Re: ANNOUNCE - BLITHERING BARNACLE PRACTICES HIDING & DISCONNECTION]
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 23:23:40 GMT
Message-ID: 353e3af0.39767429@snews.zippo.com
Sister Clara <clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <f8558ef047%clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk> (alt.religion.scientology):
>In message <u0+vjvBjuxf0EwHu@xemu.demon.co.uk>
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <DevNull@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:>> Well, I dunno: some of the stuff Ralph believes in are IMO pretty ridiculous. But we can agree to disagree about that. The real conflict here is not about beliefs but actions and policies...
>.....which all stem from the same "Source"......
[warning: long]
Yes. That's the point. The actions of the CoS we object to in this newsgroup do not come all of a sudden out of the blue. The psychological mechanism at the back of them can be traced right back at LRH. To dismiss it as coming from the "evil OSA" and blind oneself at the source OSA operated on is extremely simplistic. I have known Jane Kember and quite a few others at the GO level and I can tell you that these people *believed* in what they did, and they constantly checked that they were "on source". The example LRH set (tone 40, make things go right, etc) descended all the way down the line. Their conditioning wasn't that fundamentally different than the conditioning of the "tech" or the "admin" staff.
When you are a scienos for years on end, you start to think along a defined set of lines. Because the Scn tech is "all encompassing", it has an "answer" for about everything. You get heavily conditioned by the "tech", and this is undistinguishingly enmeshed with the admin, all in LRH sausage.
When I went out from the CoS, I had to make a conscious work of deconditioning myself from the concepts that were often included in the words. You have to stop, for example, to think along the concept of "dynamics". you have to start using other words, and in the beginning it's not easy. What's an other word for "theta" for example, or for "entheta"?
When you are a freezoner, of course, you can get in a bit of a mess, because you have to make a sorting out of concepts that are useful, and those that are mistaken. All the same, you have to try and see what are the concepts that you misunderstand/misapply, and how much you are being conditioned by them. It's not that easy, and some do a better job at it than others. They also don't have the external structure and the group support anymore, so it can be hard too...
The point, like with anything, is the amount of insight, discernment, one has. You could also call it "good judgement" or maybe even "common sense". This will often make the difference between a "correct" application and a conditioned one.
Some freezoners have a better insight than others, but then, this is *exactly* the same in the CoS, which is why some Scientologists can make the best use of what they have at hand, and other will, unwittingly, apply the tech destructively.
You can see the same phenomenon with Christians, for example. Some will use the Christian notions in a positive, constructive way, stressing the love your neighbor aspect, will be tolerant of other faith because they are "many mansion in my Father's house", etc, while others will try to control other people through fire and brimstone, launch holy wars, etc. What makes the difference between the two?
In the case at hand, Ralph demonstrated an astounding lack of insight, which contrast with how he comes out when he speaks, theoretically, about the tech. This has been further confirmed for me with some of the things I have been reading from him, and his rather stupid support for the German discriminative measures.
He started to dismiss Diane's posts as "ranting", "crap", "bitcheness", all the while acknowledging her positive posts as well, and even said that, on balance, the positives ones makes up for the rest. But he did use Diane's illness against herself, whether he realizes that or not. This was not done with bad intent, and he probably even thought himself to be "wise" making such a statement. Nevertheless it was inexact and derogatory, and most importantly it was done in the middle of a flame war when this subject was among the heated debates. His accusations were false and unwarranted, made at an awfully bad timing. Other things in the same posts were silly as well.
This was his first mistake. If he applied his own Scn principles, that would be a no, no. You don't use case information against a person (I speak theoretically here, not as "demonstrate" by the CoS).
I admittedly got upset with Ralph's post. It upsets me more when I see an intelligent person make a stupid blunder than a blunt person making it. You get used to the later, but you expect more from the former.
Now, if you correctly use the tech, you have to distinguish between different type of communication. If it's a genuine "origination", you have to consider and "handle" it. But what does Ralph do? He "disconnect", saying he is not interested in further communication anymore. Now even a non-scienos wouldn't do that. I never saw a person answer a genuine protest, especially not a first and only one, with a *plonk*.
So how come this was Ralph's reaction? It comes simply from the other tech principles: that you don't want "entheta" on your lines, that you don't have to accept a communication if you don't want to, etc, etc... All of these principles may be true in their own context, but how do you distinguish which one is the right one? This takes insight... perception.
Ralph, instead, got hurt from my remarks and decided that he won't accept an "entheta" or "low tone", "low level", communication, and also decided, he thought wisely, to be "above" it and ignore me and my protest.
He made the wrong choice, the second mistake, and we can see 1) lack of insight, or perception of "what-is" in an holistic, global, kind of way 2) ego reaction (being hurt, getting angry), and 3) reacting according to his own conditioning (be above it, etc).
Someone with insight would have addressed my protest, either by explaining/clarifying himself or apologizing, and that would be all. Ralph, on the contrary, created a "ridge in time", if you want, that pursued him. Much like Scn is doing with its own blunders that upset people and pursue the scienos for years on end.
After that, a study of Ralph's interaction with me will show how he goes further and further down, from saying "nice invitation for flames but maybe later", to end up reaching the Bird Brain level of making completely ludicrous and unsubstantiated allegations, and really loosing it in all kinds of insults. Finally, he winds down to the idea to create... a DA pack against me. And here we are straight at the level of what he himself accuses "OSA" of.
I would propose that this is *exactly*, at a smaller scale, the psychological mechanism behind the CoS behavior in which it ends up doing about exactly the contrary than what its highest principles promotes... The "ego" reaction of LRH and it's lack of insight at this level, translates itself throughout the bulk of the tech and admin, making it a mixture of good and bad from which sorting out which is which is extremely difficult.
The tech doesn't work because it does not seem to provide this insight, which is a deeply individual quality (that we all need to develop). It doesn't address the basic human "ignorance", that, if really addressed, would fundamentally and effectively change the person.
You could make good use of the tech with insight, but, with insight you also don't need any tech at all... On the one hand, the tech is an "help", on the other hand it is an hindrance, because you tend to see through the tech rather than look at the situation directly. That's what conditioning or stupidity does. You react to something that is on your mind, rather than to something that is right in front of you, and inevitably, on the long run, you create conflicts in which you get enmeshed.
Bernie
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: REFUSING TO FACE YOUR OWN PROBLEMS BY BLAMING SCIENTOLOGY
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:33:28 GMT
Message-ID: 3522c146.126470348@snews.zippo.com
