Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

The Heart of Scientology

Posted 35 months ago|34 comments|845 views
VIDEOS
Written by
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
If Scientology is said to have a heart, the essay “Keeping Scientology Working”(KSW) must be very close to it.

“Keeping Scientology Working” is the throbbing muscle that drives Scientology members to work ever harder. In order to achieve their stated goals of world domination. It’s vitally important to Scientology. Each time a student takes a course he or she must sign and attest that they understand and agree with the precepts of this document.

But what exactly is KSW?

KSW is little more than Hubbard proclaiming that his Scientology materials are to become the center of one’s life. If Scientology is a religion, the precepts detailed in KSW are its sacraments. Following KSW makes one a Scientologist. It is their creed. Without it, Scientology is just a harmless - funny sect. Like thousands of others, their beliefs are singularly unimportant. With it, Scientology becomes a threat to every man; woman and child who is not a member and more than a threat, a clear and present danger to those who dare speak out against it. KSW is something else, its part of the engine that threatens Scientology itself. They don't understand this, they can't.

How it is followed defines one as a Scientologist. Taken at face value to a non-Scientologist, KSW seems like a mass of paranoid, narcissistic mutterings. To a Scientologist, this is supreme truth coming from “Source.” Source is the very words of their guru L. Ron Hubbard.

Hubbard issued this directive several times; here is one of the addendums

[THE FOLLOWING POLICY LETTER MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.
IT WAS TRUE IN 1965 WHEN I WROTE IT. IT WAS TRUE IN 1970 WHEN I HAD IT REISSUED. I AM REISSUING IT NOW, IN 1980, TO AVOID AGAIN SLIPPING BACK INTO A PERIOD OF OMITTED AND QUICKIED FUNDAMENTAL GRADE CHART ACTIONS ON CASES, THEREBY DENYING GAINS AND THREATENING THE VIABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY AND OF ORGS. SCIENTOLOGY WILL KEEP WORKING ONLY AS LONG AS YOU DO YOUR PART TO KEEP IT WORKING BY APPLYING THIS POLICY LETTER.
WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WlLL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT.
NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU. ]

Hubbard’s words are absolute and suggestive that the points detailed in KSW are to be taken as they are applied, ruthlessly and completely. There can be no twisting, no spin here. Acording to Hubbard, KSW is FACT and MUST be followed to the letter.

If one has any doubts that this is the policy of the Scientology organization, the addendum should dispel that notion. Changes in society, attitude, customs technology are notwithstanding. KSW is to be a universal solvent for, not only ensuring the survival of Scientology. it is to be utilized to but getting it into every organization, every religion, every government and every household on Earth. KSW is used to justify any act, ethical or unethical.
Your life, my life, everyone’s life is threatened by this directive should Scientology be allowed to thrive - so long as Scientology adheres to it.

The essay begins this way;

["ALL LEVELS
KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING
HCO Sec or Communicator hat check
on all personnel and all new personnel
as taken on."]

[" Getting the correct technology applied consists of:
One: Having the correct technology.
Two: Knowing the technology.
Three: Knowing it is correct.
Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.
Five: Applying the technology.
Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.
Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.
Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application."]

“Having the technology means having Hubbard’s scripture. Knowing the “technology” is followed by (in so many words) “knowing and believing in the scripture.”Once you believe in the scripture you can go out and teach others to believe in the scripture. You may also apply the scripture in your own life. You are directed to ensure others are applying the scripture correctly. You should actively discourage competing scripture and the applications thereof (like other religions or philosophies.) You must close the door on other belief systems and close your mind to other ways of thinking.

Hubbard continues in KSW;

["On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable "technology." By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as "unpopular," "egotistical" and "undemocratic." It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I don't see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the Southeast Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax."]

Here Hubbard declares that Scientology should become a political movement and that it is superior to any other philosophy or government that has come before including the ones he grew up in. Hubbard admits that his movement is undemocratic but states that this is OK because (he feels) that it is the only philosophy that will survive. Despite the fact that not a single Scientologist has made a notable contribution to society (please correct me if I’m wrong,) Hubbard is proclaiming here that Scientology should not only supplant all other religions, but all forms of government as well.

Hubbard continues;

["Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable -- only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications"]

Here Hubbard reiterates, “this is MY tech and MY tech alone!”

["The contributions that were worthwhile in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defense, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture. We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact -- the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatizations of the bank called "new ideas" would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve -- psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc., ad infinitum."]

Hubbard slams home his idea that only he has ever formed a workable opinion on how the human mind operates. In Scientology, it is not allowed to research or learn anything about the history of the mental health fields other than Hubbard’s concept of it being destructive and sadistic.

According to Scientology, All mental health facilities are full of evil-mad Doctors jabbing ice picks into people’s heads and shocking them with electricity. Failing this, victims (especially children) are willfully drugged into insanity in accordance with some fiendish plot by "the Psychs to take over the world. A world that which would consist (according to Scientology) of insane, drugged out lobotomized people and their fiendish masters, the Psychologists.

What is ironic is Scientology does not offer any solutions about what to do with truly mentally ill people, other than one final solution. Scientology only works (apparently) with well adjusted people who have some money.

This is a bit like someone developing a new band-aid that only works if a person is not bleeding.

Hubbard continues in his KSW essay about Scientology dedication.

["The finest organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive -- and even they have a hard time. We'll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly, he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and that lets everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. Humor her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is "You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens, We'd rather have you dead than incapable.""]

We would rather have you dead than incapable, read this as “Scientology or death.” Is this an organization that anyone other than the most deranged would want to join? And they really mean this too! This is why people should think very carefully before taking any Scientology course. Expect to be hounded by a fervent believer who would rather see you dead than quit.

["This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past.

L. RON HUBBARD®
FOUNDER
Adopted as official
Church policy by
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL "]

In my opinion, the sacraments of Scientology should be read and exposed for what they are. It is nothing short of a call to arms by the Scientology management against the rest of the world. It’s a declaration that a true believer in Scientology

That may sound melodramatic and I suppose it is. However if Scientology continues to use this document as its basic creed, it presents a danger to all non-Scientologists. The religion argument no longer apples – if it ever did. If I were to write a creed which says “my religion is to walk up to every 10th person and punch them in the nose,” I would be locked up. Punching people in the nose is an unacceptable behavior in polite society.

What if my followers believe they will go to heaven? How about I create a religion where anyone who punches people gets twenty doe-eyed virgins in heaven? What if I get people to believe that.

You can see where I’m going with this. There can be no excuse for criminal activity. There needs to be a clear line of demarcation between belief and acceptable behavior. Not everything is allowable by virtue of it being a “religions activity.” If Scientology is to survive, it as an institution must begin purging itself of this kind of destructive rhetoric. The precept of KSW and other similar writings of Hubbard must be purged from the rest of Scientology. This is why people protest them. They must begin to understand that free and democratic societies cannot tolerate this kind of rhetoric.

It is likely that this will never happen. A greater part of Scientology takes its identity from such writings. So it is unfortunate that Scientology will very likely go down because of “scripture” like KSW. The people who so fervently believe in Scientology would do well to begin a long overdue house cleaning.

Before it is too late, before someone does it for them.

More information on KSW can be found here
http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/ksw1.html





EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: I get to make the first comment. It may be that the reason others haven't commented earlier is that we have had so many long, contentious discussions of Scientology on this site that some people are getting tired of the topic. In any event,I congratulate you on a comprehensive and well-reasoned analysis of this central policy of the cult.

I will add a few points. First, although LRH tells us that valid ideas can only come from him, and ideas from any other source will prove to be harmful, it remains true that one of the most important parts of Scientology, the e-meter, was invented by Volney Matheson, not LRH (although LRH naturally re-named it the Hubbard Electrometer).

Secondly, this policy shows most clearly why Scientology is funadamentally anti-scientific (although it often claims to be a science). If you are using the scientific method, you do experiments and you draw conclusions based upon the results of those experiments, no matter what those results are; they may either confirm or disprove any particular theory. KSW tells us that the theories of LRH are necessarily right. If your own experiences or observations suggest otherwise, then YOU are wrong. All experiments must give the results that LRH predicts, otherwise it is the experiment that is wrong, not LRH who can never be wrong. Very convenient for him, but not so convenient for anyone who is interested in truth.
Posted 5 Hours Ago
skeptic
Canada

Posted 5 Hours Ago
skeptic
Canada
35 months ago: How can anyone so misunderstand the written word?

Mecca Anon says: "KSW is little more than Hubbard proclaiming that his Scientology materials are to become the center of one’s life."

Whereas the Policy Letter actually lays out methods to look for, if you want to find the Church not doing its job. These are practitioner (and member, and staff member) methods that spell out how the Church might fail and what you should do about it, as a member, if you see failure happening. The Policy Letter puts it into everyone's lap, do you see? And there is a communication line, an established method, for any member to notify the quality control section of the Church.

It amazes me how people can so misunderstand the written word.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
35 months ago: I think you have made an excellent analysis. Thanks for putting in the thought and work.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Terryeo;

"It amazes me how people can so misunderstand the written word."

Thanks for commenting, I'm amazed when people systematically ignore the obvious. I'm amazed when people avoid the inconvenient truths. I'm amazed when people lie to themselves.

I suppose we can agree that we are both amazed.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: BTW skeptic and Frederick. Thank you for the comments and all of the kind words.
35 months ago: "By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000"- 100,000%, Hubbardian math is made of fail

Terry, your choice of words is astounding. The entirety of the Church of Scientology is to blame then for the beatings that have been occuring in staff for years. These beatings, whether performed by Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun, or David Miscavige, are quite clearly not KSW, yet no one was able to report on it. Your comm lines were broke, your policies meaningless, every one of your Ethics Officers entirely complicit in their silence.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Well said. That kind of behavior permeates Scientology and must be eliminated. The beatings were not KSW, the cover-up is. All of this falls under the HMJ which I will go into later.
35 months ago: "How can anyone so misunderstand the written word?"

Becuase it was written by a drugged up science fiction writer who was writing about frozen alien ghosts.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Well that's one way to look at it! ;)
35 months ago: The heart of Scientology, the measurement used to create Scientology was; "Is the guy better". And not temporarily, surge of joy, better. But stably, long term, more able, more intelligent, better able to succeed and prosper in society.

"Keeping Scientology Working" is a guide, written by Ron Hubbard, used within the organization, meant to keep his philosophy and the organization, whole and working.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
34 months ago: "Is this guy better?" What was wrong with him in the first place?

People are by and large poor judges of their own problems and shortcomings. Who can blame them! Most are taught to ignore problems and never take responsibility for things. Scientology is attractive to some because it removes responsibility for just about anything occurring in one's life and places it somewhere else.

I can certainly see why people become infatuated with Scientology(infatuated? Addicted is more like it.) But KSW is much more than just a directive to keep the cult operating. It's a different way of thinking. People give up their families because of this document. They drop out of school, leave their jobs and their lives by the wayside in order to "Keep Scientology Working."

Tell me terryeo, tell me truth, get it off of your chest!

What have you sacrificed for KSW? What have you given up for Scientology?
34 months ago: whats scientology about anyway? i heard its something to do with aliens
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
34 months ago: See that fellow at the top of this page? Does he LOOK human?
34 months ago: You may as well talk to a wall as trying to debate this topic with Terryeo. The brainwashing is so obvious, you are wasting your time. The person is a scilon zombie.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
34 months ago: Catholic Love-- I am going to try to sum it up. For a deeper view go to xenu.net or scientology.org.

In 1950 science-fiction writer L.Ron Hubbard wrote an essay called "Dianetics" for the science-fiction magazine Astounding. It explained his newly invented science of the mind. It was based on the psychiatric regression therapies of the day filtered through the science fiction writer's fertile imagination. The essay was so popular that he expanded it into a book. The problem was that "Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health" contained many promises and many lies. Yet, it became a best seller and a fad. When Hubbard started being ridiculed for his bizarre theories and out-and-out lies, he claimed that through Dianetics people's memories were being coaxed not only into the fetal period but into past lives. Thus was born a quasi-religion with a shot at tax free status and the ability to equate critics with bigots.

Again, check the websites. If you are interested, there are many books on the subject, some on-line. I recommend "The Barefaced Messiah" by Russell Miller.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
34 months ago: Piece of Blue Sky is also good.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/contents.htm
34 months ago: "Piece of Blue Sky" was written by a man who didn't understand that by examining a memory and understanding that past moment fully, you are actually understanding what you already know. Thence, Jon didn't get it that Scientology is the generalization of that concept. Particularly, by understanding what you already know, you gain, no matter if it is a past memory or a past decision, a past concept you have solidified into a "rule of thumb", or other known idea.

Alas.

Jon simply refuses to recognize that an individual might be a spirit, motivating and creating effects in the physical universe. And, in refusing to recognize the generality that Dianetic results are based on, and in refusing to recognize the possibility that man might have a spiritual nature, he became opposed to Scientology.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
34 months ago:
Um... that's not what the book was about. "Blue Sky" is a time-line of sorts. It details important events regarding the organization from it's inception until around 1990.

Have your read it?

Of course you haven't Terryeo! You should. Perhaps you would refrain from nattering on a subject you know little about if you actually investigated it.
34 months ago: I read enough of Jon's confusion, enough of his Blue Sky, to understand his view about what I stated.

The salient points about Dianetics were that Ron Hubbard found method that resulted in people becoming better. This was an astounding data and made doubly astounding as people's memory improved and they begin to remember birth. And triply astounding when people's memory improved and improved, all the while they became brighter and more cheerful. And people begin to remember events they had not been a part of in their current lifetimes.

The next salient point happened when those memories were examined with Dianetic procedure, as current lifetime memories were, and people again, improved, becoming brighter and more cheerful. So there was something to it, you see? Something that science could not explain.

And Jon doesn't recognize that common thread through his book; that thread being - people became brighter and more cheerful with a common procedure. By better understanding memory that was already known, people become brighter and more cheerful.

Jon went off into endless detail, ignoring the obvious and convoluting the simple.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
34 months ago: I didn't read Blue Sky.

I am not a scientist but I know something about scientific method. You can't ignore results that don't fit with theory.

34 months ago: Terryeo: "The salient points about Dianetics were that Ron Hubbard found method that resulted in people becoming better."

Who? Who specifically got "better?" Better how, precisely? Please give details regarding clinical trials, scientific control groups, etc. You see, that's the sort of thing that can be measured, Terryeo.
34 months ago: Terry, I know of at least 270 people who would disagree with you. Ex-Scientologists all, they've been brave enough to share their stories with the world and speak up against the Church of Scientology and its abuses.

http://tinyurl.com/scientologyex

Maybe you should give it a read, look over the names. Perhaps some of them were your friends, people who you knew.
34 months ago: Noni, as examples on the internet, Youtube has people's Dianetic success stories. In 1952, in the first Science of Survival, some results were published. Lots of people have said lots of positive things. But more to the point, people would not continue unless they experienced positive results.

Anonymous Voice 270 disagree. I say those people have misunderstood words. But even if I don't say so, 10 million against 270 stack the odds. I'll go with some more study, thanks for suggesting quitting like your friends did. But you'll say, "10 million is too much". And I'll reply, is 55,000 too much? Today there are mroe than 5000 Churches and Missions. 270 quitters (I say they have misunderstood words) spreads them out to less 1/25th of a person per location. Not bad, not bad.
34 months ago: Terry, clearly you haven't even looked at the list. 270 vocal ex-Scientologists. How many more are out there that are still afraid to speak up because of Fair Game, is totally unknown and is estimated in the thousands.

But I'm curious. Did Aida Thomas, a Class VIII auditor and Scientologist of 20 years have a misunderstood word?
Did the multiple OT VIIIs on the list have a misunderstood word?
Did Birgitta Dagnell Harrington, former head of OSA Europe, have a misunderstood word?
Chuck Beatty? 27 years?
Dan Garvin? 25 years in SeaOrg? 10 years in OSA?
Jennifer Gorman? RAPED by a senior Scientologist and a cover-up ensued?
Dodie Geary? Held against her will? Where's HER misunderstood word?
Jenna Miscavige?? DAVID MISCAVIGE'S NIECE!
Hana Eltringham Whitfield-left after 20 years-Ship's Captain, Deputy Captain, Commodore's Staff Aide, Deputy Commodore of Hubbard's Three Ships, and part of GO
Ron (Hubbard) DeWolfe-Hubbard's own son. Got his training straight from Source. Declared that 90 percent of what his father said was all lies. Where was his misunderstood word?

Yes, quitters, all of them. Giving up, very often after 10, 15, 20 years. What a short commitment. Many of them barely knowledgeable, having only worked directly with Hubbard, having achieved the upper OTs, being high level auditors, or holding high ranking positions within the Church's administrative structure.

Go ahead, play games at numbers. You can't dismiss them as low-level rejects who couldn't hack it, because they aren't. All have the same stories, most never even met each other. The data is there, but you're too weak willed to even attempt to confront it. You won't because deep down you know what it really means: they aren't afraid to tell the truth about the Church of Scientology and its crimes, not any more.

A true Clear could read the list, because they'd be in control of their emotions and they wouldn't need to be afraid.

http://tinyurl.com/scientologyex
34 months ago: Dear me, I made a tiny little error. It seems that the number should be 312, not 270 :) In just a few days time yet more people added their names (and stories) to the list.

Really Terry, I'm sure even YOU have friends in Scientology you've not heard from in some time. Perhaps you're curious...are they on the list?
34 months ago: "Noni, as examples on the internet, Youtube has people's Dianetic success stories. In 1952, in the first Science of Survival, some results were published. Lots of people have said lots of positive things."

Which is entirely anecdotal evidence, and not what I asked for. Anecdotal evidence is useless and nonscientific. Your response is a nonsequitor. It's like saying "I like opera music" when someone asks you how to get to the highway.

"But more to the point, people would not continue unless they experienced positive results."

No, that is not the point. The point is, I asked for data (no, not your Scientology redefinition of data, but real statistics and analysis), and you couldn't give me any. You need to stop claiming scientifically measurable improvements derived from your belief system if you can't then back it up with those measurements.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
34 months ago: Some of the people who are in experience few positive results. They stay because they are waiting for the big positive result which is right around the corner. After a while all of their friends are Scientologists, their old friends have gained skills and established themselves in real jobs, they have alienated their families and they are often stone broke. They really have no alternative but to stay in. They hear stories that those who leave become criminals. They waste their lives, or years of it, having painted themselves into a corner.

A dear friend who spent 23 years in there, many as an executive, and reached the distinguished state of 0T7 said that their best course is the communications course, the very first one. When he left the cult he had little more than the shirt on his back and no more skills that could be used to earn him a living than the ones he had when he went in. Hubbard Tech works best within the cult.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
34 months ago: Terryeo;

"And triply astounding when people's memory improved and improved, all the while they became brighter and more cheerful. And people begin to remember events they had not been a part of in their current lifetimes. "

You know, I think Scientology must be the exact antithesis of Mensa (not that I have any respect for them..but still!)

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "Scientology is good because people get better memories, how do we know? Because they remember things in past lifetimes!" Terryeo! Have you ever heard of circular logic? What you said is complete and utter fundi-nonsense. It's right up there with "God said it, I believe it and that settles it." If only one person ONE person could be verified scientifically to have remembered actual past lives then I'd happily shut up.

Hell, I'd probably join you!
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
34 months ago: You have also demonstrated to me Terryeo that you have not read A Piece of Blue Sky. You should, even if you don't agree with it. I've read Dianetics and lots of Hubbard's other books. It's not possible to do any fair and balanced analysis of something without looking at both sides.
34 months ago: Okay. let's make a nice, straight line representing time. You got today, yesterday and your birth. But of course, everyone says time goes back before you were born. Dianetics helped people remember better and of course, this actually means back to very early childhood. And for some, even birth. But, how do you explain memories before birth?

Not just one or two, but quite a few people were running Dianetic processing on memories, recalled just like any memory is recalled, the events happened before birth. Well, what did Hubbard do? That step is why Hubbard generalized what works from Dianetics.

The guy re-examines a memory. He finds it is not as scary as he thought it was. He understands what he already knows -- what happened in that instant of past time. Re-evaluates the memory, feels great, does better in life. Hubbard took that idea and called it Scientology because, after all, the guy already KNEW what happened, but he didn't understand fully what happened. A study of knowledge, to understand what you know, better.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
34 months ago: Terryeo;

Okay. let's make a nice, straight line representing time. You got today, yesterday and your birth. But of course, everyone says time goes back before you were born. Dianetics helped people remember better and of course, this actually means back to very early childhood. And for some, even birth. But, how do you explain memories before birth?

I call them delusions.

You can't prove a memory. If you knew anything about human nature (like you claim to) you would understand how malleable memories are. Three people will describe the same event three different ways. Human memory is very subjective. Sure you can KNOW something but you are probably wrong about it and you can be influenced by all kinds of other stuff.

While I can buy pre-birth memories after a fashion I cannot relate to "engrams" being inserted without language or any other high level social code. I remember very little of my life before the age of about 3-4 which coincidentally was about the same time I learned how to speak coherently. I can imagine what it must have been like but it's just imaginings.

All I see happening in Scientology is a systematic breakdown between the imaginary world and the real world. It's not something that I find valuable and I certainly would not pay money for it.

BTW, to know something without understanding it is simply belief in action.
34 months ago: "Okay. let's make a nice, straight line representing time. You got today, yesterday and your birth. But of course, everyone says time goes back before you were born."

And your life is just a line SEGMENT. As in there is a point where it starts and where it stops. So there was time before I was born, but I wasn't there in any way...because I wasn't born.

"But, how do you explain memories before birth? "
Occum's Razor. They're NOT REAL, YOU MADE THEM UP. Simplest explanation is often the right one. How else can you explain that Scientologists are prevented from discussing their auditing sessions with anyone else? It's so that you don't have 5 people arguing over which one of them was Napolean's thetan in a previous life. This is something John Duignan (20 years Scientologist, SeaOrg) discovered when he talked to ex-Scn's. That all their "pre-birth" memories were the exact same.

I'm still waiting on an explanation, Terry. I asked a very serious question about how you can be so ignorant as to the true nature of the majority of outspoken ex-Scientologists. Do you need me to repeat it for you, slowly, in simple words?
34 months ago: Let's see. I presented an idea. Anonymous voice says, "that is NOT REAL".

Yeah, that's what you think. Yep, yep, yep.

And you are awaiting an explanation for your serious question? Your question being:

"how you can be so ignorant as to the true nature of the majority of outspoken ex-Scientologists. Do you need me to repeat it for you, slowly, in simple words?"

Errr - apparently you don't understand. You choose to refuse knowledge in an area. I choose to remain uninformed in an area. And there can be no one on the planet who knows everything about everyone. But hey, you have said; "MY interest about outspoken ex-Scientologists is SO IMPORTANT that YOU MUST inform yourself, likewise.

Oh, I see.
34 months ago: No, Terry. I didn't refuse knowledge in an area. I chose to DISPUTE your CLAIMS. You have no scientific evidence, ergo, you have no basis of proof. They are just claims.

You however have refused knowledge. By definition of those words, that's what you did. I presented to you a list of ex-Scientologists, a vast majority of them 10-20 year members of the Church of Scientology, many of them SeaOrg members for most of that time, numerous former high ranking staff individuals, OT V-VIII individuals commonplace on the list, Class VII+ trained auditors also common, and yet you sit there with thumbs in your ears going "Nyah nyah nyah nyah!"

This discussion is about ex-Scientologists, and data has been presented on them. You've chosen to ignore it. That is refusing knowledge. You're being extremely negative, and this negativity is affecting the discussion and yourself in ways you can't imagine. Stop being so negative, Terry, stop being so suppressive of the information, start trying to apply your freedom to think for yourself.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.