Is it OK to be positively curious about Scn?
- Thread starter Veda
- Start date
HelluvaHoax!
Well-known member
.
Sure, I can remember being curious, why not? I just did that without even using the Self-Analysis perceptic wheel! LOL.
Virtually everyone on this website is still curious about Scientology or they would not be here.
Unless you are defining "curious" in the Hubbard manner--to wit, a very high-toned attitude enjoyed by persons at the top of a CDEI scale.
Can't someone be curious about how people got suckered into a world-class hoax? Isn't that "high toned" too?
Veda, I think you should know by now that I greatly respect and enjoy your wondrously detailed and fact-based rebuttal to the "bad parts" of Scientology on this message board. But, I think you (on rare occasions) miss the following detail---
Just because someone on a message board never mentions anything good about Scientology, it is a mistake to assume that they don't have such notions. Perhaps (as in my own personal case) they have made a conscious decision to not worry about "saying nice things" about Hubbard's cruel and avaricious hoax. I know you feel that one "MUST" talk about the "good parts of the tech" in order to free those who are still drinking the KSW Koolaid. I have observed no such requirement or rule that is a prescription to pry a true believer out of their chosen cult.
I'm not against anyone attempting to "get in two way com" by admiring, validating or "flowing power" to some of Ron's technology. I don't think it works, but sure, if you like that approach, go for it. I'm more in favor of putting out a fire by using wide diameter fire hoses---and getting it over with. LOL. Probably, if I was a dentist I would not engage in too much schmoozing before I got down to pulling really hard to extract a hopelessly infected tooth.
Perhaps there are many approaches that work synchronously, like the many varied instrumentalists in a symphonic orchestra. Or like the interrogations conducted by both the "Good Cop" and the "Bad Cop".
I am very comfortable playing either the good cop or bad cop. Not many people can stomach even observing the brutality of real-time debunking and even if they do, they are unwilling to click "like" or "winner". But somebody has to do it. LOL. Debunking is the process by which people escape cult bondage, whether the turmoil happens quite publicly on a discussion board or quite noisily just inside their own mind.
SUMMARY: Scientologists by whatever reasons of naïveté, gullibility or stupidity bought a load of bunk they were fed by the pathologically lying bunco artist L. Ron Hubbard. Sooner or later cult members must go to the dianetic dentist to have the bunk extracted, so I say "Let's get this de-bunking party started!" LOL. And I'm not likely to say anything nice about Hubbard's hoax any more than I would take time to compliment someone's Ferrari after they just crashed it into a tree at 170 mph and are still trapped inside in a coma.
.
.
Sure, I can remember being curious, why not? I just did that without even using the Self-Analysis perceptic wheel! LOL.
Virtually everyone on this website is still curious about Scientology or they would not be here.
Unless you are defining "curious" in the Hubbard manner--to wit, a very high-toned attitude enjoyed by persons at the top of a CDEI scale.
Can't someone be curious about how people got suckered into a world-class hoax? Isn't that "high toned" too?
Veda, I think you should know by now that I greatly respect and enjoy your wondrously detailed and fact-based rebuttal to the "bad parts" of Scientology on this message board. But, I think you (on rare occasions) miss the following detail---
Just because someone on a message board never mentions anything good about Scientology, it is a mistake to assume that they don't have such notions. Perhaps (as in my own personal case) they have made a conscious decision to not worry about "saying nice things" about Hubbard's cruel and avaricious hoax. I know you feel that one "MUST" talk about the "good parts of the tech" in order to free those who are still drinking the KSW Koolaid. I have observed no such requirement or rule that is a prescription to pry a true believer out of their chosen cult.
I'm not against anyone attempting to "get in two way com" by admiring, validating or "flowing power" to some of Ron's technology. I don't think it works, but sure, if you like that approach, go for it. I'm more in favor of putting out a fire by using wide diameter fire hoses---and getting it over with. LOL. Probably, if I was a dentist I would not engage in too much schmoozing before I got down to pulling really hard to extract a hopelessly infected tooth.
Perhaps there are many approaches that work synchronously, like the many varied instrumentalists in a symphonic orchestra. Or like the interrogations conducted by both the "Good Cop" and the "Bad Cop".
I am very comfortable playing either the good cop or bad cop. Not many people can stomach even observing the brutality of real-time debunking and even if they do, they are unwilling to click "like" or "winner". But somebody has to do it. LOL. Debunking is the process by which people escape cult bondage, whether the turmoil happens quite publicly on a discussion board or quite noisily just inside their own mind.
SUMMARY: Scientologists by whatever reasons of naïveté, gullibility or stupidity bought a load of bunk they were fed by the pathologically lying bunco artist L. Ron Hubbard. Sooner or later cult members must go to the dianetic dentist to have the bunk extracted, so I say "Let's get this de-bunking party started!" LOL. And I'm not likely to say anything nice about Hubbard's hoax any more than I would take time to compliment someone's Ferrari after they just crashed it into a tree at 170 mph and are still trapped inside in a coma.
.
Last edited:
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation.
^^^^^^^^^^
That last paragraph needs its own thread ... and the final sentence needs its own message board.
That last paragraph needs its own thread ... and the final sentence needs its own message board.
Bill
Well-known member
You forgot to say "This is the session".
HelluvaHoax!
Well-known member
.
Couldn't agree more!
Reminds me of one of my top 3 favorite quotes--ever!
. . . "When our first encounter with some object takes us by surprise, and we judge it to be new, or very different from what we have previously experienced or from what we expected it to be, this causes us to wonder at it and be astonished. And because this can happen before we have any knowledge of whether the thing is beneficial to us or not, it seems to me that wonderment is the first passion of all. And it has no contrary, because, if the object that presents itself has nothing in itself to surprise us, we are not moved by it in any way and we consider it without any passion." - Descartes (1596–1650)
.
.
Couldn't agree more!
Reminds me of one of my top 3 favorite quotes--ever!
. . . "When our first encounter with some object takes us by surprise, and we judge it to be new, or very different from what we have previously experienced or from what we expected it to be, this causes us to wonder at it and be astonished. And because this can happen before we have any knowledge of whether the thing is beneficial to us or not, it seems to me that wonderment is the first passion of all. And it has no contrary, because, if the object that presents itself has nothing in itself to surprise us, we are not moved by it in any way and we consider it without any passion." - Descartes (1596–1650)
.
Cat's Squirrel
Well-known member
Good question Veda, and my answer is yes. I'm always careful to distinguish between the organisation (the CofS) and the tech it's supposed to be promoting, not least because the CofS itself is very insistent on conflating the two and saying that if you oppose or are critical of one, the same must be true of the other.
I didn't finish the Bridge (or anything like it), so I do remain curious about those who went further than I did on the Bridge and claimed to have had good results from it. It's at least possible that they did something right, and that there is value in finding out what it is; just as when a housemate of mine at university who was a Catholic claimed to have had a big win on going to confession, I believe the priest did something right, notwithstanding any reservations I might have about the Catholic faith.
None of that precludes my pointing out what I believe to be the truth about the official organisation, i.e. that under the guise of helping mankind and saving the world it is completely self-serving. Its dedication to its own self-interest and its lack of consideration or respect for either its parishioners or its staff are so consistent that you can predict what it is going to do based on those facts alone. I've never yet found any exceptions to that.
I didn't finish the Bridge (or anything like it), so I do remain curious about those who went further than I did on the Bridge and claimed to have had good results from it. It's at least possible that they did something right, and that there is value in finding out what it is; just as when a housemate of mine at university who was a Catholic claimed to have had a big win on going to confession, I believe the priest did something right, notwithstanding any reservations I might have about the Catholic faith.
None of that precludes my pointing out what I believe to be the truth about the official organisation, i.e. that under the guise of helping mankind and saving the world it is completely self-serving. Its dedication to its own self-interest and its lack of consideration or respect for either its parishioners or its staff are so consistent that you can predict what it is going to do based on those facts alone. I've never yet found any exceptions to that.
Last edited:
JeansAndRice
Active member
This IS the session, isn't it?
I think curiosity is one of the better ideas Scientology promotes. The interested/interesting dichotomy.
Yes! Of course it's ok to be + curious about Scientology. If someone approached me positively curious about Scientology, I'd start by asking what it is they are looking for. I'd feel the conversation needs to lead away from single, specific approaches, to a holistic idea, while acknowledging what it is about Scientology the person is curious about.
I try to stay curious.
Last night I was describing the sauna room in the org I grew up in. I was really curious to explore the org and every corner of it. The smell of the sauna room is curious itself..
I remember being curious about this message board
Veda
Well-known member
The Self Analysis book (and is its perceptic wheel) is one of the things that hooks people.
What do you tell a person who's been exposed to the Self Analysis book and its perceptic wheel, had a positive experience, and think it's really cool?
Not likely that the CDEI scale was Hubbard's idea. A lot of this was given to Hubbard by the people who thought he was spearheading some sort of layman oriented psychotherapy, followed by consciousness exploration/expansion/elevation of some kind.
This (supposed) "layman oriented movement," during its early years, had, as one of its inspirations, the writings of Alfred Korzybski, who wanted his subject, which he called General Semantics, to be studied and applied by any intelligent person, including the intelligent layman.
Korzybski's main message.
The idea was that the "ordinary" person should be able to think and evaluate clearly, and behave rationally, without being dependent on any bureaucracy or priesthood. This was an appealing message to some people.
Toss in the promise of ubermensch, and it was off the races, so to speak.
_______________
That's part of the puzzle, but not the entire puzzle.
Sounds good.
