And you have to be asking, WTF? Why would a Scientologist suggest that other Scientologists apply the Doubt Formula? Wouldn't that result in the Scientologist leaving?
And this leads to related questions on the basic idea of using Scientology "solutions" to solve problems with the Church of Scientology.
Things like writing reports about problems and sending them "up lines" to Scientology management.
Things like seeing the Ethics Officer, or applying conditions.
Each of these Scientology "solutions" is perfectly acceptable to the Church of Scientology and its representatives (and trolls).
The answer as to why these are acceptable should be obvious, but if I left it at that, I'd leave this article a bit short.
The church thinks these are acceptable "solutions" because they are part of the mechanisms that keep Scientologists in line and well-behaved. They are not actual solutions.
It doesn't take long to figure that out, but this fact is mostly hidden from Scientologists.
Let's take a look at a few of these "solutions".
Report any problems "up lines" to management!
And...
What? This informs management and David Miscavige that the reporting party is a troublemaker. No, really. If the problems of Scientology are systemic, and they are, it is obvious that the source of the problems is at the top. Otherwise the problems would be localized -- and eventually handled.
Woe betide the person who reports something about how Miscavige's training now violates Hubbard's policies -- they will get declared. Woe betide the person who reports that the emphasis on money-money-money is ruining the church. You really don't want to do that.
At best, someone will acknowledge they "received your report". And that is it. Guess what? There is no one "up lines" posted to handle such reports! That post is empty. The only person posted is someone to do the "acknowledgements", part-time. The International Base used to have over 1000 staff. Now there are around 300, with quite a few of those "off post, doing conditions".
Will the problem get resolved? Magic 8 Ball says: "Don't hold your breath".
Talk to the Ethics Officer about it.
The Scientology Ethics Officer is the person in charge of handling the local troublemakers to get them back into the fold.
What do you think will happen? The person "with the problem" will be "handled". That's the deal. The squeaky wheel gets, um, "handled".
Most likely the Scientologist will be assigned a lower condition, and supervised to ensure that they comply and, ultimately, stop complaining and start doing good Scientology things, like giving more money.
The "condition formulas" are designed to force the person back into agreement and compliance with Scientology. The "problem" the formulas are designed to handle is wayward Scientologists. More on this below.
But will the Ethics Officer solve the original problem? Nope. Not her job. Per Hubbard policy, reports get filed. Yep, that's it, filed.
The Ethics Officer's job is to handle the complainer, the troublemaker, so that the environment becomes "peaceful" again.
Talk to the Chaplain.
This is an especially delightful "solution". The post of Chaplain in a Church of Scientology is never posted. Isn't that the funniest thing? The one post in every Church of Scientology in the world that you can guarantee is never posted is Chaplain!
However, someone will "hold it from above" so the Scientologist can find someone to talk to.
And the power of the Chaplain to do anything? Zero. Another delightful irony, the post is one of the lowest in the entire organization. No power. So what is going to happen? Yes, nothing.
Apply the Doubt Formula.
We get back to this one. The Church of Scientology actually wants people who are wavering or have questions to apply this formula. Scientology trolls have said it should be done. They are all very, very certain that this "formula" will bring the wavering Scientologist back into obedience.
Why are they so sure?
Because the whole thing is designed to work that way. Let me explain. Yes, I've done this before, but, since I got such nice arguments from trolls, I figured it deserved more attention.
To recap, the Doubt Formula looks like this. L. Ron Hubbard wrote, in part:
When one cannot make up one's mind as to an individual, a group, organization or project, a condition of Doubt exists.
Doubt Formula:
Then,
- Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group, project or organization, brushing aside all prejudice and rumor.
- Examine the statistics of the individual, group, project or organization.
(The missing parts say you have to choose, and uses a bunch of Scientologese to say it.)
- Evaluate oneself or one’s own group, project or organization as to intentions and objectives.
- Evaluate one's own or one's group, project or organization's statistics.
Now, combine this with several pieces of very important information.
One is that the real, complete and raw statistics of the Church of Scientology are completely hidden and will not be shown to anyone. Ever.
Another is that the real activities, intentions and objective of the Church of Scientology are hidden and, again, will not be available to a Scientologist.
A third factor is that Scientologists, especially those applying this Doubt Formula, are forbidden to access any source of information that is at all negative about Scientology. Their only source is, and must always be, the Church of Scientology.
The last factor is that, in many, many writings and lectures, Hubbard says that the Church of Scientology is the only group working for good in the entire universe! And that they are opposed by a vast, evil, conspiracy!
Now, Scientologist, go and apply your Doubt Formula, OK?
Get it?
It's completely booby-trapped. If the Scientologist is still "following all the rules", they cannot apply the formula. If they are still "following all the rules" they must come to the conclusion that all doubts are evil, all opposition to the church is evil. And they must come to the conclusion that they have been evil to have had any doubts.
And, ta dah! They are back in the fold.
It's designed that way. This is not accidental, it is deliberate. And, yes, this is thought control
The real solution.
The basic concept here, which is so very important, is: If the problem is with Scientology, then using those "solutions" is pretty much guaranteed to be part of the problem.
You need to step outside the problem to see the truth, and see the solution.
And it is simple.
I trust people. I trust that people will recognize truth when they see it -- if they are willing to see it. And I trust that people, when they have the truth, will do the right thing, whatever that is.
All you need to solve the problem is enough data. Step outside your preconceptions, step outside the control of those who are causing the problem, and look for the information you are missing.
And the information is abundant. I suggest they check out Recovering from Scientology -- the sub-section titled Get more information has links to a lot of great sources for more information.
Scientologists don't need the "Doubt Formula" or Ethics Officers or Chaplains. To solve their problems in Scientology, they just need the truth.
-
Posts
The same can happen with one's loyalty to his "nation". Mister X is in doubt about his government, he does a doubt condition and finds out that his nation's constitution is theta and should be helped. Further investigation shows that his elected officials are perverting the constitution or unable to uphold it. Does he leave his nation and throw his culture in the trash? LOL, of course not. Most just put their head in the sand (CoS members) and develop some kind of low-tone stoic philosophy.
ReplyDeleteOthers decide to take matters in their own hands and get elected or make a coup to reform their government.
The essential idea behind Scientology is being at cause and handling things. Running away or throwing the rag is antipathetic to anything Scientology.
Many leave the CoS to join the Freezone or become independents like me. Throwing the baby with the bathwater is quite stupid. And blaming CoS for DM's idiocy is stupid and fatalistic.
@Pascal,
ReplyDeleteDavid Miscavige is a product of Scientology. He was raised in Scientology. Scientology is all he knows or has ever known. His rise to power was facilitated by the policies and practices of Hubbard. He was able to perform his coup because of the policies and blind spots of Hubbard. He uses pure, standard LRH policy letters to retain power and abuse the people around him. Hubbard's policies help him in his evil, abusive activities.
If Miscavige hadn't taken over, it was inevitable that someone else who could see the opportunity for such power and such abuse would have and would have been just as bad, or worse.
Blaming Hubbard and Scientology for Miscavige is not idiocy, it is simply a statement of fact.
If Hubbard were as perceptive as you believe, if Scientology were as effective as you believe, no one of Miscavige's ilk would have even been possible. But, today, the entire upper management is filled with such abusive people -- and their victims.
Miscavige is a product of Scientology. That's his schooling, that's his training, that's his life. He truly represents what Scientology is all about: control, money, power.
You really are something! Your blind faith in the marvels of Scientology make it impossible for you to see the flaws. This is exactly what is wrong with Hubbard and all Scientologists. You ignore the flaws, the problems, the gaping holes, you have faith, and when someone comes along and uses Scientology to take over, to abuse, to control -- you think it isn't Scientology! But it very truly is.
You, the True Believer, just can't see -- Miscavige used Scientology to take control and uses it today to abuse, control and defraud. Your blindness is to blame for it, really. All Scientologists' blindness and faith is to blame.
Just Bill,
ReplyDeleteIn reading the Doubt Formula again, I finally get what you're saying about the "switch". The individual person has some doubts about his group, Scientology. He applies the Doubt Formula.
So, obviously, step 3, about "one's own group" is about the Church of Scientology. The person just has doubts, but that's still his group. He hasn't left. He hasn't joined another group. So step 3 and 4 are about Scientology...
Then what are steps 1 and 2 about? Who is "that group, project or organization"? There is no "that group". There is just the individual and the church.
You're right. It changes it from the individual, having doubts about Scientology to "Them versus Us"! Amazing! I hadn't seen that before.
No wonder that "formula" was always so difficult to figure out.
The essential idea behind Scientology is not “being at cause and handling things.” If it was, then Scientologists would be at cause and they would be handling things. To the contrary, they are at effect and handling nothing.
ReplyDeleteSure, Scientologists should reform their “church.” And if they were “at cause and handling things,” they would. Well?
No, IMHO, the essential idea behind Scientology is hypocrisy and duplicity. Saying one thing and doing quite another.
Scientology talks about the “Road to Truth,” yet Hubbard was a pathological liar. He lied about his personal history, his qualifications, his “research.” And he taught his followers to lie – to tell “acceptable truths,” to parrot “shore stories,” to lie about activities and intentions. He claimed he was not profiting from Scientology while raking off millions into overseas accounts – a practice Scientology continues to this day.
Scientology talks about “thinking for yourself,” yet any disagreement with Hubbard’s “tech” is not tolerated and will end you up in Cramming or in Ethics or, if you still don’t toe the line, out of the Church.
Scientology talks about the importance of communication, yet forces members to disconnect from family and friends who dare to challenge Hubbard’s ideas.
Scientology talks about “total freedom,” yet imprisons its staff behind razor wire fences and forbids them cell phones, internet or television, and censors their mail and phone calls.
Scientology preaches about “human rights” yet runs RPF slave labor prison camps.
Scientology talks about “Clearing the Planet,” yet has never produced a single actual demonstrable Clear. They talk about a “Bridge to OT,” yet have never produced an actual, demonstrable OT. Hubbard himself died in hiding, sick and insane.
All this isn’t “a perversion of Scientology.” It IS Scientology. It’s in its DNA.
Yet still, people continue to believe the rhetoric, the public statements, the PR. They continue to believe that “the tech works” despite overwhelming evidence of continuing and epic failure on a grand scale.
There is a point where idealism ends and gullibility begins.
@Bill: As much as I enjoy arguing with you it's not fun when you start using rhetoric and personal attacks. I don't make it personal with you so I'd appreciate the same. Let's attack our arguments, not our 1st dynamics.
ReplyDeleteDM is DM, a cruel idiot with an immense feeling of duty. People like him abound so to say this is the result of Scientology is silly. That people like him are the only ones getting up in CoS is obvious due to ARC with DM's valence.
I'm a Scientologist and have nothing in common with DM's cruel and stupid identity. There are many others in my position out of the CoS too.
I apply Scientology to my life EVERY day and have done so for over 15 years. I get incredible wins and have no frustrations re my religion.
I don't assign oddball ethics conditions to discipline my family or to "handle" enturbulation in the name of "head on a pike" PL. I use Scientology for the greatest good. No like stupid CoS staffers, desperate, underpaid and unqualified for HCO posting in the first place.
DM is not qualified to be COB, he has not gained his rank as captain. CoS is not in the hands of real scientologists. The low-tone mockery you are criticizing is not Scientology. Wake up!
@Pascal,
ReplyDeleteAs long as you declare completely unproven beliefs as fact, I reserve the right to call you a True Believer. That is not intended as an insult, it is merely a factual description.
You believe in the flawless goodness of Scientology. You believe in a state of OT that does not exist. You believe that what Scientology/Hubbard says they "can do", says they "intend" is really what they can do and intend to do.
How else to describe your mindset than "True Believer"?
What Hubbard and Scientology accomplished was not one step in the direction of what they said they were doing. But you believe what they said, not what they did.
A person who believes what they are told despite all evidence that what they have been told is false is a True Believer. If that is insulting to you, review the facts and review your beliefs. Where facts contradict your beliefs, which do you choose? From all your comments, I have seen that you choose your beliefs over all the evidence. That's your privilege, but that does make you, by definition, a True Believer.
I have woken up. You are still asleep.
@Bill: We disagree on the "facts" as you call them. I don't recall claiming any facts. I only express my opinions here. I would be foolish to claim facts on the Internet as there is no way to prove anything. I'm sorry if this has confused you.
ReplyDeleteIt's a half-full, half-empty thingy I guess.
As for my "blind faith", well that is your opinion and I find that insulting for it implies my faith has no basis and that I am an imbecil.
My faith has a basis and that basis is MY experience with the tech, CoS and my education in general. History also is on my side. There are much wackier religions in existence and Churches that have been a million time more oppressive than CoS under DM or LRH. Yet they still stand and are official in many nations. CoS is spread all around the globe and making headways, whether they fuck up in the US or EU. It will never disappear. Reform is the only realistic solution.
Interesting. Personally I have no problem with someone leaving the “Church” of Scientology and going off on their own and using what they understand to be “Scientology.” I have no problem with someone cherry-picking what they find to be good and workable out of Scientology and using THAT, and discarding the stuff they find to be unworkable, draconian or just plain nuts.
ReplyDeleteAs long as someone isn’t abusing others, or cheating them, or lying to them, then fine, do whatever you want.
But it’s a stretch to then call your particular cherry-picked mix the “real Scientology” and everything else “not Scientology.” And it’s a bit of hubris to call yourself (and, I guess, those that agree to your particular brand) the “only real Scientologists” and label everyone else practicing the subject, including the entirety of the “Church” as “not real Scientologists.”
Scientology is what it is, the good, the bad and the ugly. Sure, a lot of the basic, entry-level stuff is fine – communication, ARC, whatever. But you also have a highly controlling Ethics “technology,” Hubbard’s cumbersome and unworkable “Admin Tech,” Hubbard’s paranoia, the bizarre science fiction of the “OT Levels,” his authoritarian “Management Structure,” Hubbard’s racism and homophobia and so on – all written by Hubbard, all studied by Scientologists, all a part of the DNA of the subject.
Sure you can reject it. You can reject the authoritarianism, the micromanagement, the paranioia, the abuse, the fundamentalist hyper-control. Sure you can choose what YOU want to apply, what YOU find workable. More power to you.
But don’t pretend you didn’t cherry-pick the subject. Don’t pretend you have the hotline of what, out of all of Hubbard’s writings, is “real Scientology” and what is not. Don’t pretend that you and those who agree with your particular cherry-picked brand are the “real Scientologists” and others are not. They would say the same thing about you. They would claim to be the “real” followers of Hubbard. They would say you had “squirreled” the subject by not accepting and slavishly applying ALL of Hubbard, every cumbersome Policy Letter, every paranoid Guardians Office directive, every RPF issue. So what?
But those things YOU disagree with, those thing YOU have discarded? Guess what? They’re “Scientology” too.
@Pascal,
ReplyDelete**sigh**
You keep saying things as if they were true. So I feel the need to correct you.
You say "History also is on my side. There are much wackier religions in existence and Churches that have been a million time more oppressive than CoS under DM or LRH. Yet they still stand and are official in many nations."
No.
While many currently existing religions might have been wacky or oppressive and are "still in existence", most religions, especially the wacky and oppressive ones, have died out! History is very, very much against Scientology's continuing. Most religions have died out. The silly, lying, fraudulent ones, like Scientology, do it faster.
You say, "CoS is spread all around the globe and making headway".
No.
First, it is not "spread all around the globe". Technically, it doesn't even exist in well over 99% of the world.
Second, it is collapsing, not "making headway."
Again, you believe what you're told, not what is really there. You must get all your information from Scientology events. You really don't have a clue what's really going on in the world, do you?
Of course your faith has no basis, that's part of the definition of "faith". There is evidence, which you completely ignore, or explain away, or rationalize, or reject, and there is faith which only requires that you believe. And you do believe.
I sincerely doubt you are an imbecile, just very, very gullible.
Now, please, if you are just going to repeat the same message again and again, don't bother. I've debunked everything you've said. Reality has debunked everything you've said. Unless you have actual, real, verifiable facts to present, don't bother repeating your beliefs. I know what they are, you don't need to repeat yourself.
Bill
Pascal: He tries hard...but he's very trying - a bit like the bloke at the bar who buys you a pint because he's got no mates and wants someone to talk to.
ReplyDelete@Danny Boy,
ReplyDeleteIf I had to guess, I'd guess Pascal was OSA. Except for the delightful, but rather vague condemnation of Miscavige, Pascal sticks pretty strictly to the standard OSA troll script:
Assertion of Scientology BS as if it were fact.
Refusal to provide any evidence for anything claimed.
The appearance that his only source of news is Scientology events.
The absolute and unchanging attitude that Scientology is perfect and "works" and the constant pressure to forward that idea.
The baseless but unyielding belief in the "expansion of Scientology".
And so on.
Sure smells like OSA to me.
@Pascal,
ReplyDeleteMy, how defensive you are! I just said you sound like OSA. I said you forward much of the OSA agenda. You would never admit that you were OSA -- you would deny it either way, so it can't be proven. But you act much like an OSA troll and that's what I said.
But, you know all that, don't you?
As long as you continue to forward much of the OSA agenda, I will continue to think it's very likely that's who you are.
And, oh by the way, I do notice that every time you comment, it is as a divergence and distraction from the subject of my post. (And now with more insults!) Gee, how 'bout that?
@Bill: Infering I am OSA is very insulting. I would love to be in charge of OSA and would run things quite differently indeed!
ReplyDeleteAbout your post, you state many things I have observed and am critical about. Nice point on the chaplain never being there. I'm sure 80% of ethics problems stem from a sit being a chaplain issue and not ethics. Justice is out in CoS, Qual is out, tech is out, ethics is out. CoS is running on circuits, that's why it's so weak. No thetan!
Pascal: "Further investigation shows that his elected officials are perverting the constitution or unable to uphold it. Does he leave his nation and throw his culture in the trash? LOL, of course not."
ReplyDeleteSo, why did you leave the Church of Scientology instead of fixing it? Shouldn't Scientology allow you to be "at cause" over the "riff-raff and low-IQ" (your words) running the Church of Scientology?
And if Scientology is so great, how come the Church of Scientology is being run by "riff-raff and low-IQ" as you say?
Who would want Scientology if it allows such an outcome?
I never left officially. I posted my intention to impeach DM and was visited by OSA. I never received a goldenrod though OSA implied I'd get declared. I guess they deadfiled me as a nutjob. As for being at cause OSA spent thousands of $ flying to see me and paid for dinner in a 4 star restaurant. Not the usual treatment. I'll deal with DM when I'm back on my OT feet.
ReplyDeleteWhy is CoS full of riff-raff? This is Earth, this is MEST and this is end of track. There are my opinions.
About this post. A friend on mine recently disconnected from me. The funny thing is that he is a declared CoS SP and has been for over 10 years!
ReplyDeleteAfter I told him about my views on CoS and DM he decided I was an enemy of the Church, etc... I told him I wanted to reform the Church but his stable data had been shaken and he couldn't take that so he stopped comm. He told me to write KRs and that this would "magically" handle the situation. Very much like you say on this post. Funny since I was his only Scientology friend since he got declared, I never cut comm with him as his declare was full of lies and I only considered him a Stupid Person, not a Suppressive one. :D
Pascal says "I guess they deadfiled me as a nutjob."
ReplyDeleteIt must be a hell for Scientologists to make such fine distinctions amongst themselves.
As the actual troll in question, I'd like to point out that you only proved my point for me. You said,
ReplyDelete"If the Scientologist is still 'following all the rules', they cannot apply the formula. "
If the Scientologist truly applies the Doubt formula, brushing aside all bias and rumor -- clean slate, no prejucides -- and actually looks at the real information from all sides -- good, bad, true, false, and ugly -- he cannot but realize that Scientology sucks.
If he's ASSUMING that Scientology is all good, then he's not following the formula, is he? BRUSH ASIDE ALL BIAS AND RUMOR. That's part of the formula, too.
INSIST that the Scientologist who might be doubting Scientology APPLY DOUBT. REALLY APPLY IT. NO ASSUMPTIONS.
It actually works when properly applied. The trick is getting it applied *properly*.
And, by the way -- trying to lump "apply the Doubt formula" with all the other so-called Scientology Solutions -- as if my suggestion had anything to do with them -- is so intellectually dishonest that you should be ashamed of yourself.
ReplyDelete@John Cullison
ReplyDeleteOh, so now you're saying that nothing in Scientology works except the DOUBT FORMULA? Or did I miss something.
We're just not making progress here. Perhaps I need to expand a bit.
Now, don't get your knickers all in a twist because I start out talking about Scientology tech in general, I'll get back to the all-holy DOUBT FORMULA in a few.
In general, Hubbard wanted to reduce everything down to a formula, a process, a series of numbered steps. He didn't recognize any complexity and wouldn't allow anyone to dream up exceptions to his carefully numbered lists. But there is complexity and Hubbard's simple little formulas don't work because of that. Sure, one can find situations that exactly fit Hubbard's assumptions -- and then the formula might just work. But you have to be careful in picking the exact right situation.
Now back to the all-holy DOUBT FORMULA. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The single individual Scientologist has doubts about Scientology. What formula should he/she apply? Obviously, the DOUBT FORMULA.
But it doesn't fit the situation!
First: The doubtful Scientologist is not trying to decide between two groups!
You can do like all Scientologists do, you can warp the real situation into something that fits the formula by inventing some bogus "group" which is not real! There was no group until the Scientologist started the formula. By actual fact, this means you have to misapply the formula. It's the wrong formula because it really does not fit the actual situation.
Second: By creating a bogus group, the Scientologist has no real facts to use in the formula. What are the statistics of a bogus group? What are the goals? Because the Scientologist has never found a "doubters of Scientology" group, the Scientologist has no reality. The formula cannot be honestly applied.
Third: If the Scientologist is doubting the efficacy of Scientology technology, why should they have to put any trust in a piece of Scientology technology! Using a piece of Scientology tech to decide if Scientology tech actually works is ludicrous!
And finally, that whole Scientology mumbo-jumbo about "if it failed, it wasn't applied properly". This is purist bull!
This is one of the hooks that Hubbard used to excuse all his technology's failures. Sorry, that is demonstrably false.
Since Scientology is, obviously, a 100% failure in producing Clears, 100% failure in producing OTs, 100% failure in Grade 0 releases having the promised abilities, etc. -- one can, from the above excuse, deduce that Scientology has never, ever been applied correctly.
So the belief that "Scientology works if applied properly" is based on absolutely nothing because that situation has never occurred!
But that's the problem with excuses. If you just confront reality, it's much simpler: Scientology fails because Scientology tech doesn't work.
But you, undoubtedly, will continue to believe there is some magical land where Scientology is "properly applied".
How many hours of auditing have you delivered in your life Bill?
ReplyDelete@Pascal Dorion
ReplyDeleteAnd how does that question relate to there are no Clears? How would any possible answer relate to there are no OTs?
If you are trying to make the point that people have experienced some temporary happiness from Scientology auditing, I'll happily concede the point. That can happen. But that does not result in anyone ever attaining any of the levels or abilities or powers explicitly promised on the Scientology Grade Chart.
We know that some Scientologists have had hundreds of hours of "I feel good" auditing -- and none of them have reached Clear, OT or even any one of the Grade Releases. But heck, smoking pot has a similar track record: Lots of "I feel good" moments but nothing notable ever actually attained.
One could say the only significant difference is that pot doesn't promise you'll eventually become cause over matter, energy, space and time.
When Scientology has not, cannot and will not produce the specific results it promises, it doesn't matter how "happy" the failures are, it is still a failure.
You cannot prove a negative, so it's a pointless item of contention or argument. I have met Clears and OTs and they had OT powers of one sort or the other. They were not stellar thetans but then again who is on this planet or universe?
ReplyDeleteMy question was to see what is your practical experience with the subject. And you have not answered it for some reason. Maybe I need to rephrase it in simpler form?
Have you Bill ever audited anyone? If so, how many hours and using what process or technique?
@Pascal Dorion
ReplyDeleteYou've met a Clear!? Wow. You are the very first person in the whole world to actually meet a person who is entirely free of any psychosomatic illnesses, has a vastly increased intelligence, a near perfect memory, has complete control over his bodily functions, has perfect eyesight, and will never catch a cold or become ill in any way.
I'm very sure you met "Clears", but not real Clears, because Clears as defined by Hubbard have never been produced.
And I'm sure you've met "OTs", but no Scientology-produced cause over matter, energy, space, time, life, form, thought real OTs. You see, if Scientology produced people with "OT Abilities" there would be a lot of very successful Scientologists visible in the world. But, sadly, Scientologists are not particularly successful. In actual fact, they seem to be having a lot more problems than society at large (check out the home foreclosure information in Clearwater).
You say you've met "OTs" but they weren't "particularly stellar". That means Scientology failed, because that's what it claims it can produce: Homo novis! Someone who is, for the first time, truly stellar, virtually a god!
You know Scientology has not and cannot produce the incredible states promised, but you excuse it in one way or another.
You try to run away from the discussion by using that old saw "you can't prove a negative". But, you see, I'm not asking you to "prove a negative".
You Scientologists can prove your contention that "Scientology works" very, very easily. One real Release, one real Clear, one real OT would prove everything. But you can't produce that and you know why.
I didn't answer your question because it's irrelevant. You're trying to shift the discussion. I was in Scientology for over 20 years, but so what? If I said I'd audited 1,000 hours, would real Clears start raining from the sky? If I said I'd audited 4,000 hours, would real OTs start sprouting up like mushrooms? I'd say something and real Releases would magically show up? No, I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you.
There is no question you could ask, and there is no answer I could give that would change the fact that there are no real Releases, there are no real Clears and there are no real OTs.
If you want to prove "Scientology works", your job is extremely simple: Produce one real Release who actually has the promised abilities, produce one Clear who has the promised abilities, produce one OT who has the promised abilities.
If Scientology actually delivered what it promised, such stellar abilities would already be visible in the world.
And don't go into that "it was never properly applied" BS, because even LRH never produced a real Clear or a real OT. He died sick and in hiding.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone would be guaranteed to "properly apply" Scientology it would be Hubbard, but even Hubbard himself wasn't Clear and wasn't OT, even Hubbard himself failed to produce what he promised.
Hey, Bill.
ReplyDeleteThese people get you riled, and I don't blame you.
Hey you people: In order to jump the gap in knowledge, you have learn something new. As long as you associate a "good feeling" with proof that everything must be true related to that experience, you will refuse to learn anything that might move you beyond it. You are lucky that someone didn't yell in your ear, "believe in Rodge Rabbit," when you had your first orgasm. A new religion would have been formed.
I never met a Scientologist who really knew much about the human mind or philosophy. Really try to do false data stripping on SCN and you will quickly see what it really is and how it seems to work and why people believe in it. It can't help but make you a better person.
And, being able to find a parking space does not mean you are OT (all those wins in past mags seemed to be about parking spaces).
Humans seem to have a genetic trait for wrongly identifying causation. Hubbard's first tenet that "life is basically a static," is a belief that has no provability. His so called research of harrassing bacteria with steam and smoke is laughable and is hocus pocus science at best. He basically is saying he has proven Darwin wrong, even though there are no specifics of the experiment so that it can be reproduced and from what is said, the experiment makes no sense. It doesn't necessarily prove anything in the realm of life being a something. Hubbard's "science" is just occultism simplified and spun with some psuedoscience/engineering language. People want to believe they are eternal and can fly around the sky, so they suspend their judgement. Research has shown that "exteriorization" phenomenon is just certain parts of the brain doing something and it is then rationalized into whatever "spiritual pattern" the person is hung up on. And philosophically, there is more evidence that there is no absolute self outside the body. Buddhism stresses the concept of no self. Self is designated just as a wheel is designated by intended use. When the parts all fall off, there is no "wheelness" hanging around to inhabit another "wheel".
See "The Problem of the Soul" Owen Flanagan, and "The Feeling of What Happens" Antonio Dimasio (how the sense of self is created in the body). Both are excellent books.
Are Scientologists allowed to report on "upstats"?
ReplyDeleteWell, yes. If someone is doing something the Scientologist thinks is wrong, per policy they can report that to the "Ethics Officer" of Scientology - even if the subject of the report is "upstat" (their statistics are up). They are supposed to send a copy to the person they are reporting on - but never do.
However, per Hubbard's policy, if the target of the report is "upstat", the Ethics Officer is required to file the report and ignore it.
And, for the most part, "upstat", in Scientology, means "they give Scientology a lot of money".