Quote
upsidedownnewspaper
I was attempting the socratic method of enquiry in this thread: trying to ellicit information from a Scientologist in order to be able to reject it. Turns out I did only half of the job: senior members and moderators can't be beat when it comes to rejecting the ramblings of a cult member.

Well getting information from me isn't hard if you at least appear interested. :)

Anyway I can see you lot are intelligent guys and I am interested in your experiences - what brought you to this forum/line of work in the first place?

Well, Ok.... it isn't my project here the "make you wrong" or deny your humanity... I do, OTOH, like to get to the bottom of things...

Having said that, I have had a lifelong interest in religion, philosophy, science, and the ways these disciplines intersect.... in the process of getting to the bottom of things I have also found that many systems of thought are not exactly what they appear to be, to put it in metaphor, they have false bottoms built in...

As well, some reading of history has taught me to be exceedingly careful of buying into philosophies wholesale without understanding their potential unintended consequences... such as Adolph Hitler's fascination with Schopenhauer... the eternal question hangs in the air... would there have been a Hitler without a Schopenhauer ?

Perhaps, perhaps not, or perhaps a different Hitler...

These are non-trivial questions when you think about the degree to which a background philosophy may shape foreground day to day events, while that original philosophy may linger in the shadows, barely noticed...

So I'm curious about the deep philosophic wellsprings of Scientology and how these philosophic currents shape human beings.

On one level, Scientology has a powerfully useful suggestion, that the mind need not be reactive, or perhaps not nearly as reactive as it is in the average person... Yes, I would agree, too many humans are trembling masses of reactivity that are pushed around by relatively trivial day to day experience. I also agree that reactivity has sources in lived experience. We're eye to eye on this one.

Where I then greatly diverge from the Dianetic/Scientology belief system, and I believe that it is fundamentally flawed, is that Scientology believes that reactivity ( body thetans notwithstanding ) is primarily caused by engram encoding during periods of unconsciousness caused by trauma, one assumes that head trauma would be the most likely candidate, where one "records" engramatic material directly to the reactive mind.

That half of the equation is just pure baloney. Absolute crap.

It totally disregards family dynamics, cultural systems, organizational dynamics, all these slow percolating infiltartions of beliefs, values, self image, attitudes that [i:290d2765a6] don't [/i:290d2765a6] enter the personality, or the memory through a single traumatic event... quite the opposite, they are absorbed with the greatest subtlety over time, slowly and powerfully shaping the identity of the subject...

But Scientololgy has no place for that understanding, no discussion of the slow processes, [b:290d2765a6] only the instantaneous implantation of the engram. [/b:290d2765a6]

Doesn't this idea seem questionable on the face of it ? it just doesn't comport with lived human experience or psychological research or scentific study... so why, why, why does Scientology [i:290d2765a6] insist [/i:290d2765a6] that the [b:290d2765a6] engram model [/b:290d2765a6] is conclusively true and that all other models are conclusively false ?

Wow. Nutrino and RR, thanks for the answers I was looking for (already had but couldn't enunciate so eloquently)!

Durham, thanks for the answers as you see them.

This thread for me is over. Ta ta.

With all due respect to Durham.... [b:b66bf05237] has has not answered anything ! [/b:b66bf05237]

BTW... Scientology will assign certain "projects" like your first project will be to sell one copy of the book Dianetics to a stranger on the street... that's from the level 1 assignment sheet, the one that also comes with your first loyalty oath. They are very, very big on loyalty oaths... changes are excellent that this discourse was assigned to Durham in order to pass one of his levels. This explains his total lack of personal slant. He doesn't even know why he is here... they told him to go "handle" it....

He has made a couple of general assetions.... but not a single specific response to any of the points raised here.

Because when Scientology doesn't have the right answer at their fingertips, they:

A: Change the subject. To either:

A1 ... where [b:b66bf05237] you [/b:b66bf05237] are on the tone scale

A2 ... "your just talking about yourself"

A3 ... how great Scientology is in general and one shouldn't become over concernered with nattering specifics. The great message is what counts !

B. [b:b66bf05237] pretend they didn't hear you [/b:b66bf05237]

C. Lie through their teeth. I was repeated lied to about what people had said, what certain course material meant, what was expected of me. Make no mistake. These people [b:b66bf05237] pass themselves off as highly ethical [/b:b66bf05237]... this is a cornerstone of their self construct.... how they are more ethical than the Wog World ... yet they [b:b66bf05237] lie [/b:b66bf05237] with practiced ease and with a sociopath's lack of remorse. [b:b66bf05237] Then they lie about their lying [/b:b66bf05237] ...

D. and ocassionally, [b:b66bf05237] fly into tirades, rages, or wildly insinuating threats [/b:b66bf05237] ... of some historical value, about 5 years before the Werner Erhard daughter rape scandal I asked a Scientologist what they thought about Werner... he got very militant and said in his best Agent Smith snarl...[b:b66bf05237] Werner Erhard Will Be Dealt With Terminatedly ! [/b:b66bf05237] ... ah so, the Fair Game Policy lives on ... as does the Bad Grammar Policy... never say anything clearly and eloquently that you can screw into contorted Neo-Speak... you must admit, Scientology has turned Bad English into something of a minor art form... like clog dancing on roller skates... snapppy stuff... whan I asked them back at the Scientology center about this policy, they burst into gales of tinny, brittle, screechy-fake laughter.... ooh hahaha whatever ARE you talking about, you silly boy ?

Whatever WERE we talking about ?

Quote
nutrino
With all due respect to Durham.... [b:866be64835] has has not answered anything ! [/b:866be64835]

Yes, you are SO right. And SO eloquent. I can really see how unwittingly I've fallen into the Scientology recruitment trap: with no answers to rebut, a victim must go looking for answers; in looking for answers, the victim is made to feel he has questions. Questions become self-doubt, self-doubt can be solved; Scientology has the answers...

The socratic method I've adopted to discover information about the group is exactly what they require. They beg, "You find the answers, YOU find the answers..." Then they'll claim them as their own.

But Nutrino, you are right! Scientology has never shown me any proof of being able to provide any answers! NEVER! And even in this thread, durham fails to be able to provide any evidence of answers. Except that he no longer gets depressed if he loses his wallet. Man, if that's the outcome of all that outlay of cash and time, I'll pass. And what sort of zombie weirdo DOESN'T lament the lost of his wallet! It's a pain in the ass. Durham! YOU ARE LOSING WALLETS! WAKE UP!

Damned if I suspend my disbelief and allow myself to be subjected to a roomful of self-deluded freaks who believe they have the answers without being able to provide them. Why should a tech so supposedly almighty and powerful as that taught by Scientology be such a guarded secret! Why should anyone assume that L Ron Hubbard alone was the lone messiah able to see through the racket/game? If he can, I can. We all can.

Self-doubt is a virtue. Certainty at best is questionable, Scientologists!

What sort of worthwhile faith asks its followers to blindly concede that, "He [that man over there] has the answers [according to some others], [but not his son]?" None. Cults do that. And followers of cult movements are pathetic and pitiable.

Durham, if you want to break free, I suggest to read over this thread.

Always, always , always remember that Scientology has a major, unspoken [b:acbe788898] distinction [/b:acbe788898] ..... until you are on board at the management level you are a [b:acbe788898] flunky [/b:acbe788898] ... Durham's flunkitude is painfully obvious... Scientology [b:acbe788898] thinks in terms of flunkies [/b:acbe788898] .... you are fundamentally flawed and undeserving until they feel otherwise, you and your despicable [b:acbe788898] reactive mind [/b:acbe788898].


Now go to your room and say one hundered times, and I want you to really mean it ! :

[b:acbe788898] Ron Is Xenu [/b:acbe788898]
[b:acbe788898] Ron Is Xenu [/b:acbe788898]
[b:acbe788898] Ron Is Xenu [/b:acbe788898]

Quote
upsidedownnewspaper

Durham, if you want to break free, I suggest to read over this thread.

And Durham, seriously, pack a dictionary. If you get to the end and you're still a Scientologist, you have passed a word you didn't understand.

Quote
nutrino
Where I then greatly diverge from the Dianetic/Scientology belief system, and I believe that it is fundamentally flawed, is that Scientology believes that reactivity ( body thetans notwithstanding ) is primarily caused by engram encoding during periods of unconsciousness caused by trauma, one assumes that head trauma would be the most likely candidate, where one "records" engramatic material directly to the reactive mind.

That half of the equation is just pure baloney. Absolute crap.

It totally disregards family dynamics, cultural systems, organizational dynamics, all these slow percolating infiltartions of beliefs, values, self image, attitudes that [i:16356bb218] don't [/i:16356bb218] enter the personality, or the memory through a single traumatic event... quite the opposite, they are absorbed with the greatest subtlety over time, slowly and powerfully shaping the identity of the subject...

But Scientololgy has no place for that understanding, no discussion of the slow processes, [b:16356bb218] only the instantaneous implantation of the engram. [/b:16356bb218]

Actually that isn't true about Scientology - there are a lot of things that affect a person apart from engrams.

Quote
nutrino
Scientology will assign certain "projects" like your first project will be to sell one copy of the book Dianetics to a stranger on the street... that's from the level 1 assignment sheet, the one that also comes with your first loyalty oath.

Well I've never taken a loyalty oath or seen a level 1 assignment sheet.

[b:e4b5471822]durham wrote:
[/quote]
Actually that isn't true about Scientology - there are a lot of things that affect a person apart from engrams.[/quote][/b:e4b5471822]

what, then? What, then? WHAT THEN?

I can see exactly what rr and nutrino are saying, durham. You refute without substance. You never say anything.

"That's not true about Scientology..."
"Understanding Scientology is difficult because of what is involved..."
"It helps people in a lot of different ways..."
"I have benefitted enormously and variously from Scientology..."

Then for goodness sakes start telling us the facts. Yes I am genuinely interested. But everything you have said so far boils down to, "You have to join the church to understand Scientology." Which is ridiculous.

I told you I'd read Dianetics and didn't get it. You said I should start practicing it, then! And if I started practicing it and found myself dissatisfied, I suspect you'd say I need to then come down to the headquarters for an ethics meeting. And if that dissatisfied me, I suppose you might suggest a fast, 24-hours in a sauna, and, "Here, drink this."

Is there a point when a Scientologist concedes, "Well, perhaps Scientology isn't for you. And I respect that."??