What's wrong with ARC?

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
I'mglib
Posts: 5753
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

What's wrong with ARC?

Post by I'mglib » Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:01 pm

Maybe I'm not the person who can discuss this well, but I'm going to try anyway.

Over on ESMB, Mick Wenlock said something about ARC being bogus. I don't know that much about it, but I do know that it means Affinity-Reality-Communication, and it was something invented by LRH. I'm not sure if it was supposed to lead to happiness or not though (More ARC means more happiness?) Or if it just defines a process.

I guess Scientologists use it to mean a good feeling you have about a person, especially if they say or do somethig that you strongly agree with.

I asked what was bogus about the idea of ARC, and I got this excellent reply from Gadfly. I'm going to quote the whole thing, because it's all good.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=5 ... stcount=57
I typed up a little essay about "ARC" awhile ago. I post it whenever somebody asks about it.

The formula in Scientology is this:

ARC = Understanding

where

A = Affinity
R = Realty
C = Communication

Affinity = Willingness or desire to be in he same space as something else, often called "degree of liking"
Reality = agreement; what you "consider to be real", as opposed to what might ACTUALLY be there
Communication = any form of sending something from an originator (source point) to some receiver (receipt point)

The first BIG misunderstanding that many people make, is falsely ASSUMING that this "understanding" is some BIG understanding. Actually there are as many "understandings" as there are people to be able to understand, and this even changes moment by moment as one gains more data to base any "understanding" upon. For example, someone could have an "understanding" that "the grass on my lawn grows better with good watering and fertilizer". It is just an "understanding". There are umpteen quad-zillions of them, just like viewpoints and opinions.

I can easily see that "bringing up one side of the triangle also can bring up another side". Many examples are possible. If you can get the person who is biased about blacks to experience more blacks who are fine people, by bringing him into contact with more blacks, this is a case of "closing the distance", which acts to "increase willingness to be in the same space as", and probably will result in the person's willingness to be in the same space as blacks. Thus "affinity" or friendliness, or likingness can increase. Also, as this happens, he may change his or her ideas about blacks, and shift agreements about "what is or isn't true about blacks". Thus, the person's reality changes.

Do I need to give more examples? This sort of thing goes on 24 hours a day. People communicate, they adjust their willingness to be near or far from certain situations (and also IDEAs and notions), and agreements shift. It is a dynamic, ever-changing process.

In the above example I picked a case where the affinity was worked on as a way to bring up the other two.

But, you can concentrate on any of the three as a way to bring up the other two. For instance, you could have a person read books that are negative about psychiatry. By getting a person to concentrate on a specific (limited view) of a subject, you can then get the person to develop an attitude or "agreement" about the "psychs being bad". Once the agreements are set in place, creating a specific "reality", then the communication increases with others along these same lines (enabling a "group agreement"), and affinity (likingness) goes up for the idea that "psychs are bad", and with the other people who have the same attitude.

To me, there is no doubt that this is all very easy to observe going on all of the time. It is simply a mechanism, and I don't see that anyone can be free of it unless you finally jettison ALL agreements that attach you to ANY notion, situation, person, group, up and down all of the Dynamics, by using a system such as strict Buddhism (consciously examine, become aware of, and let go of all attachments to all physical AND mental things).

The term "ARC" morphed into an idea or attitude involving "I like you", or "I feel so much love for you", or "I REALLY got what you are saying and I am right there with you". It developed its own "slang usage" quite separate from the actual simple mechanical definition. In a sense it does function like a "law", and to me Hubbard was spot-on in describing the phenomena. But, the "concept" was turned into an idea that is loaded with subconscious or unexamined notions about "high affinity". In other words, too many Scios "think with" the term "ARC" as some necessary "high affinity" or "great wondrous understanding". That involves only a very miniscule realm of what actually falls under ALL examples of the formula.

For example, it can and does work the OTHER way, and often. It is quite mechanical. Let's say a person travels to another country. The primary religion is different. On the first night out, the person gets sick from the food, and is robbed on a back street. This person develops a quick and sudden UNWILLINGNESS to be there, affinity crashes, the person's "reality" develops along negative lines, and the person tells friends (communicates) about the horrible experience.

The ARC Triangle can very much be used as a tool to understanding people, but it requires other fairly extensive bits of data, which Hubbard leaves out entirely. For example, he leaves out almost entirely what a "conceptual world" (inside your head) is made of. How it develops, how it changes, how ideas relate to actual situations and events, both "out there" and inside your mind. He discourages, by default, any person from ever questioning the framework and nature of ones own "beliefs", because, if he did that, then the Church members would start to questions the very ideas and notions that contact with the subject of Scientology "laid into" their minds. So, he convenienly left out THAT aspect of understanding any "thinking mind" (General Semantics does a fairly decent job).

So, there is nothing wrong with the formula. But, the problem REALLY comes with HOW it is so often used by the Church of Scientology.

In the PR Series Hubbard explains how to "change beliefs" and "mold opinions". He always neglects and even disregards any concern for "truth", meaning what is ACTUALLY there out in the world or in your mind. What any person can be MADE or TRICKED into agreeing with very often has little to do with what is ACTUALLY there. Advertising excels at this. Various religions and political movements excel at this. And Hubbard and Scientology, using his various "tech" rise to the top of being able to excel at this. Hubbard encourages members to "tell an acceptable truth". Some assume that to me to find something that actually is true, that the person can agree with, also leaving out the parts the person might not agree with. But, really, what it REALLY means, is that you can tell the eprson anything that he or she will ACCEPT as truth (with no concern whether it is actually true or not). Just get the AGREEMENT with whatever perception you want them to go along with.

The biggest flaw with any of it is the idea that "agreement results in reality", and who gives a shit whether this "agreed upon notion" has any association with ANY "actual situation, person or event". Simply, LYING is allowed, and even promoted. If you can get a person to "AGREE with some idea or notion of the world", even if and when it is very much "not true", it matters little. OSA does that all of the time. The Church framework is set up in a way that AGREEMENT with Hubbard, the Church and management is essential. So, the REALITY aspect is heavily controlled and decided. One comes to think and believe a great many things that are not "actually true", yet the Church member, often with little or no personal examination, accepts them as REAL. The Church member develops a certain very well-defined (and controlled) "understanding about very many things", that again, don't necessarily have much to do with the way things really are. And since so many people have been indoctrinated to "believe" so exactly about so many things, of course, the affinity jumps out the roof, and they all talk the same nonsense back and forth between each other. You can observe the same thing in other religions, political parties, and even MLM organizations like Amway or Super Blue Green Algae.

The really disgusting part is how Hubbard set up methods to USE this idea to attract people and keep them running on the hamster wheel. The Div 6 "ruin-finding" is a good example. The Div 6 staff member, usually after some OCA test, sits the person down, and using 2WC gets the person to admit some flaw, failure or problem. This is then spotted by the Div 6 staff member (it is something REAL to the public person), and driven in HARD exactly per Hubbard's drill. The Div 6er is instructed to ooze out ARC, and "understand the poor guy's problem", while continuing to RAM it into the guy's space. The "understanding" is largely a pretense, and it is "mocked-up" to improve the "ARC". The continued talking about the problem, with the Div 6er more and more "understanding it", brings up affinity and communication. So, once the public feels somewhat safe and has poured out his heart, the Div 6er asked, "what would happen if that got worse"? Using excellent TRs and Tone 40, with the aim being solely to cave-in and introvert the guy to this problem (actually to exaggerate it in his mind). Nice "tech", huh? But then it does "work"! But then so did the Nazi gas chambers.

After the poor slob is wallowing in this excursion in imaginative horribleness, the Div 6er hits him, again with the best of feigned affinity and caring, Tone 40 and TRs, "Scientology CAN HANDLE THAT"! Wham! Then one only needs to reel the sucker in.

So ARC is too often used in "nasty controlling ways" by the C of S. It is a very good tool of manipulation.

Another example that well shows how "truth" is meaningless to these people is what the Church of Scientology did to Paulette Cooper. The GO (with Hubbard's full planning and intention) made it APPEAR that she phoned in a bomb threat to the FBI. Their aim was to create a "reality" where various people came to "agree" that she "called in a bomb threat to the FBI". The manipulative aspect really rears its ugly head when you remember that Paulette NEVER ACTUALLY CALLED IN ANY BOMB THREAT, and that the C of S machinery stole some of her stationary and sent it the bomb threat FOR HER!

This is VERY IMPORTANT because without understanding this you will fail to understand how Hubbard had absolutely no compunctions about "creating any (false) reality" as long as it SERVED HIS PURPOSES. This is the "ends justify the means" mentality taken to a very nasty & insane limit. The Church CREATED the entire scenario, staging the whole affair, and then tried to use "those facts" (which they contrived) as a way to manipulate and manage perceptions about Paulette. ARC was very much involved here. If you can create a certain agreement about something, you then can control the perception of that reality. Sadly, it turns into a tool of control, and I have no doubt that Hubbard was entirely comfortable using it that way. He wrotre many policies and drills to make his "staff" excel at these things.

Staging events, that never would have occurred without their direct involvement, is often what the GO did, and what OSA does. The aim is always to manipulate the perception of events so that some REALITY can be set in place. This involves complete intention to manipulate people. Hubbard justifies it by getting others to agree with the notion that "this bundle of mental circuitry has no free-will, or freedom, and the Scientologist is entirely right in 8-Cing (controlling) this person onto services, no matter HOW we get this sorry bundle of walking circuitry onto that service"!

Of course, it is all justified in the minds of the member Church Scientologists because "we are saving the world", "we have the ONLY tech in universe", and "we are the ONLY real good guys at any time or place in the whole history of all-that-is". You say, well that is crazy". Yes, it IS CRAZY!

So, ARC is just a mechanism. It covers any and all agreements, degrees of likingness and communication. There is nothing "good" or "bad" about it. The BAD comes in with how Scientology uses it to manipulate people.

I remember telling a friend about the ARC Triangle some 30 years ago. She looked at me and said, "so what", most people just LIVE THEIR LIVES and don't get into so much analyzing about what makes up the living. I notice in looking back that she had a very good point.

If you fail to understand how these folks understand ARC, and how they USE IT, you will fail to have any clue about how and why they do what they do.

"Truth" is a concept very foreign to the various ideas of Hubbard as expressed in his policies, books and tapes. He almost always talks about "reality" and "agreement". And, the structure of the subject is such that it brings about the notion that "truth" takes a FAR back seat to "reality" - the only concern is with whatever you can get someone to accept and agree with (all "truth" to the contrary).
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/

User avatar
I'mglib
Posts: 5753
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by I'mglib » Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:14 pm

I've always thought the whole "Reality" thing in Scientology was suspicious. Especially, "what's true for you is what's true for you."

I believe this is false.

Here's my thinking:

Say you live in a terrible neighborhood. Gangs of criminals roam the streets, stealing cars, killing, raping, pillaging, etc.

However, you have never suffered from a single criminal act. You leave your house, go to your car, drive to work. Nothing bad happens. You come home, all your stuff is still there, no breakins, nothing disturbed. So what's true for you is that the neighborhood is safe, right?

NO!

The neighborhood isn't safe, you have just been lucky. Eventually you will probably get nailed. Or maybe not, because you could just stay lucky. But it's still a bad neighborhood, even for YOU.

Say you meet another person you have affinity for in the neighborhood, and they have been lucky, too, and now the both of you agree, that HEY, the neighborhood is actually safe. All those other people complaining about the crime, you feel no affinity for them, their reality isn't your reality.

Maybe if you brought up the communication with the people with a different reality, you might find out you're wrong, but does that happen? It's not true for you so it's not true, right?
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/

User avatar
antiscn
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:25 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by antiscn » Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:30 am

I'mglib wrote:I've always thought the whole "Reality" thing in Scientology was suspicious. Especially, "what's true for you is what's true for you."

I believe this is false.
I couldn't agree more with you glib..I don't even think it's up for debate.
This Scientology premise is extremely dangerous and is the foundation for allowing these people to deny what is really happening in the world,and what is happening to them.
'I didn't see david miscavige hit anybody so it didn't happen'
'I didn't see the Church kill Lisa McPherson so it didn't happen'
'I haven't seen the people locke up in the SP hall so that doesn't happen'

Hmm they sound a abit like holocaust deniers.

One typical example;evolution.Lots of fundamentalist Christians are in agreement that evolution is a myth.Does that make them right?No.Maybe that is their subjective interpretation 'reality' for now,but one day,they may very well wake up and smell the coffee that the rest of us call reality.

Once upon a time many people believed that the Earth was flat.Did that make it true?No...the Earth didn't suddenly change from being flat to suddenly being a globe spinning around the sun in our solar system.Yes,humanity's understanding changed but the truth was the truth.It was always there.
The Westboro Baptist Church believe that 'God hates fags' and 'God hates America'.Does that mean that those things are true?Do they mean that God definetely exists and he is a really hateful vicious being?

Some schools of Buddhism teach that enlightenment is the fusion of 'objective reality' (or truth)' with 'subjective wisdom'.If we do not have the subjective wisdom to perceive reality correctly then we are in a state of delusion.That rings a lot more 'true' to me.
One of the many things that is sinister about 'What's true for you is true for you' is that it really allows a person to turn off their compassion and empathy for other people as well as allowing a person to completely shut off from the real world.

RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by RedPill » Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:13 am

AFIK, going back to the axioms, the basic basic stuff of Scientology, the applied religious philosophy as opposed to the Cof$ or the "Scientology Religion" ... if you perceive something it is because you are a party to its creation, hence the reality brought on by mass agreement going way back when known as the physical universe or at least our particular and current iteration of the physical universe. On the other hand, the example regarding the shit4neighborhood with high crime and someone not yet victimized believing it to be other than a shit4neighborhood ... that is not reality as in the mass agreement, that is called "not ising" which in more conventional speak is known as being in denial.

Scientology, the applied religious philosopy as opposed to the Cof$ or the "Scientology Religion" has some interesting and useful concepts, weather originating in the HubTurd's rum-addled brain or being bogarted from philosophers going way back when. One of the useful concepts is, in fact, the ARC triangle. The problem with application tho could be in all 3 areas. Communication ... attempting to yak in clamspeak, including the alphabet soup, at a newbie obviously wouldn't work. Reality ... not much in the way of agreement when a cultie is trying to deal with a real world human being. But the big break I believe is affinity ... because there is no genuine affinity, because it is hard to have genuine affinity for someone while attempting to clean out their bank accounts. It would be like a carny having any sort of genuine respect for the marks that are there to be gamed.

Pete

User avatar
I'mglib
Posts: 5753
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by I'mglib » Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:25 am

Redpill, so you do you agree with this part, from the OP, or not?
The biggest flaw with any of it is the idea that "agreement results in reality", and who gives a shit whether this "agreed upon notion" has any association with ANY "actual situation, person or event". Simply, LYING is allowed, and even promoted. If you can get a person to "AGREE with some idea or notion of the world", even if and when it is very much "not true", it matters little. OSA does that all of the time. The Church framework is set up in a way that AGREEMENT with Hubbard, the Church and management is essential. So, the REALITY aspect is heavily controlled and decided. One comes to think and believe a great many things that are not "actually true", yet the Church member, often with little or no personal examination, accepts them as REAL. The Church member develops a certain very well-defined (and controlled) "understanding about very many things", that again, don't necessarily have much to do with the way things really are. And since so many people have been indoctrinated to "believe" so exactly about so many things, of course, the affinity jumps out the roof, and they all talk the same nonsense back and forth between each other. You can observe the same thing in other religions, political parties, and even MLM organizations like Amway or Super Blue Green Algae.
Can Scientologists be made to agree that something they believe is real, ISN'T REALLY REAL, because they are not-ising.

If their reality is that DM is a nice guy (a particular Scientologist says, for instance, Hey, he never hit me, he's always nice when I have seen him) can that Scientologist be convinced that he is simply "not ising" the truth. Especially when the truth is told by multiple people (Jeff Hawkins, Amy Scobeee, Mark Headly, Marty and Mike, etc). I didn't think that would work, and actually hasn't worked in my experience.
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/

RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by RedPill » Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:16 am

I'mglib wrote:Redpill, so you do you agree with this part, from the OP, or not?
The biggest flaw with any of it is the idea that "agreement results in reality", and who gives a shit whether this "agreed upon notion" has any association with ANY "actual situation, person or event". Simply, LYING is allowed, and even promoted. If you can get a person to "AGREE with some idea or notion of the world", even if and when it is very much "not true", it matters little. OSA does that all of the time. The Church framework is set up in a way that AGREEMENT with Hubbard, the Church and management is essential. So, the REALITY aspect is heavily controlled and decided. One comes to think and believe a great many things that are not "actually true", yet the Church member, often with little or no personal examination, accepts them as REAL. The Church member develops a certain very well-defined (and controlled) "understanding about very many things", that again, don't necessarily have much to do with the way things really are. And since so many people have been indoctrinated to "believe" so exactly about so many things, of course, the affinity jumps out the roof, and they all talk the same nonsense back and forth between each other. You can observe the same thing in other religions, political parties, and even MLM organizations like Amway or Super Blue Green Algae.
Can Scientologists be made to agree that something they believe is real, ISN'T REALLY REAL, because they are not-ising.

If their reality is that DM is a nice guy (a particular Scientologist says, for instance, Hey, he never hit me, he's always nice when I have seen him) can that Scientologist be convinced that he is simply "not ising" the truth. Especially when the truth is told by multiple people (Jeff Hawkins, Amy Scobeee, Mark Headly, Marty and Mike, etc). I didn't think that would work, and actually hasn't worked in my experience.
Agreement with a falsehood results in a false reality which is, by definition, an ARCX otherwise known as an ARC break. So is reality via overwhelm as in high pressure asshole management, pressure redging, horseshitistic ethics conditions, forced writeups of "wins", etc. Here is how I see it ... the ARC triangle is a simple, right to the point, easy to apply valid concept. Anyone with half a brain can use it as a tool to evaluate which way interpersonal and group relationships are going. Cof$'ers have found a way of phugging it up along with every other part of Scientology, the applied religious philosophy, that has any validity.

Picture it this way ... you go to a hardware store around the holidays and you see an attractively packaged huge set of car tools ... 200 pieces in all. It turns out that it's a really shitty set of tools ... mainly they malfunction, break easily, are unwieldy, etc. There are, however, out of the 200 pieces, about 5 tools that work well and two of those are exceptional ... a set of slip joint pliers and a very convenient stubby ratcheting socket handle. If you had known ahead of time that was all that was good about the tool set, you never would have purchased it in the first place, but, since you bought the set, you will often use the slip joint pliers and stubby handle which you keep available on your workbench. Nothing wrong with that. Now to take the analogy a step further ... you run into the salesman who sold you the tool set, he is a member of some local political group you attend meetings at. One day you invite him over to your place and you show him your workshop in your garage. He sees the stubby ratcheting handle and picks it up, and you can instantly tell, by the way he is handling it, trying to force a socket onto it, that even though he is the guy who sold you that tool, he himself has no understanding as to how it works and really has no mechanical ability whatsoever. You might wonder wtf he is doing working in a hardware store, but that doesn't change the fact that out of that overpriced box of shit4tools you at least got a really nifty set of slip joint pliers and a great little stubby ratchet handle.

Pete

User avatar
Tigger
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by Tigger » Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:59 pm

Interesting.....Read the whole thing last night. but too tired and late to post.

ARC......can be a method of manipulation that is used every day in several ways by several people for several reasons.......even on message boards? But Hubbaard did it "better"?

Most conmen/women do.

Tigger
COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS

"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."

User avatar
Simonymous
Posts: 1155
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:48 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by Simonymous » Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:05 pm

A = Affinity
R = Realty
C = Communication
LOL, Freudian slip? Realty, not reality, hahaha! They definitely believe more in realty than reality, that's for sure.
“...the injuries that {Hubbard} handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie.” --Tommy Davis

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10387
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by Wieber » Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:47 am

The problem I have with Hubbard's material on "ARC" is that it, like pretty much everything else in scientology, is part of a bait and switch operation. I'm saying what I think here. It's your right to disagree.

The "ARC triangle" is in the scientology symbol, the one with the big "S" and the two triangles so in scientology it's a big deal. The basic ideas involved with it are taught to people early in their arrival in scientololgy.

In the early days of getting that material it all sounds really good. This is taken as a "tool" whereby interpersonal relationships can be improved. Isn't that wonderful? To LRH! Hip hip . . .

Later on it becomes used as a control mechanism. One's ARC with scientology must be high and must be maintained. One's ARC with scientology's leader must be high and must be maintained. If one does not comply and do as one is told to do then one is often seen to have an "ARC X" with scientology. Read that as "an ARC break." In scientology it is often written as ARC X or ARCX. If you have an ARC X with scientology you must have overts and withholds and you must be brought it for ARC X handling and security checking. You may even have evil intentions or even negative thoughts toward L. Ron Hubbard.

In my opinion, L. Ron Hubbard was a psychopath, a person without a conscience. As such he would need to formulate things like the ARC triangle and the tone scale so that he could interact with people the way that those with a conscience do so without having to formulate those things. But he didn't do that so that he could fit in and get along. He did it so he could do a better job of hiding his true nature while using his followers for his own personal benefit.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
I'mglib
Posts: 5753
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by I'mglib » Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:08 am

I read somewhere that ARC is also a (poor) substitute for love.

When you love someone, it's more about helping them, standing by them, understanding, giving, forgiving, sacrificing, accepting, having warm feelings, etc. It's what a parent feels for a child, or spouses/mates feel for each other.

I wonder if this subsitute (ARC) intentionally leaves out the understanding, forgiving, accepting, etc.

That's all stripped out and what's left is sharing the same reality...or else!
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/

User avatar
Simonymous
Posts: 1155
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:48 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by Simonymous » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:49 am

Yeah, Glib, that's what ol' whats-his-face talked about.... Aaron Saxton. He's one of the first people I ever saw that really beat that "there's no love in Scientology" drum. If I remember right, I'm sure he's talked about ARC replacing love, and how love is shoved out the back door. There's no room for love in Scientology, because love is stronger than a cult.
“...the injuries that {Hubbard} handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie.” --Tommy Davis

User avatar
Dorothy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Kansas
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by Dorothy » Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:06 pm

The problem I have with the "ARC triangle = understanding" (at this point- year 14 in my self-exit counseling), is this. Whether or not it "works" is not so much the issue. I've seen it both work and fail hopelessly. The problem is, you are applying a canned formula and response to the activity of understanding/connecting with a fellow human being. Now if you are severely handicapped in this area, a canned formula might be good to get you started. But it cannot replace you as a person. You have to develop a sense, same as animals communicate with each other using certain senses. A canned formula cannot replace that. Scientologists then come to rely on the formula and so never develop the sense. If they weren't handicapped before, well, they are now. They say "don't use a via" when communicating, but that is exactly what they are doing with this formula. The formula becomes the via that replaces the sense. What if you genuinely don't like the person, you have no reality and you can't communicate with them? Now as a scientologist, you're lost. You've reached a dead end. And as a scientologist you would probably label the problem person SP or DB and have them disposed of quietly and without sorrow. And that is exactly what they do with Anonymous and Critics. If they "can't get into ARC with you", then you must be "SP". What a joke they are. Animals communicate better than scientologists do, imo. Scientologists communicate via formulas, scripts, drills, labels, knowledge reports, interrogatories, 3P invests, ethics officers, qual officers, comm evs, goldenrod, press releases, PI's, lawyers, on and on, all vias. They are ridiculous.

They say they use "two-way communication" (and there's a formula for that too!) but it's a lie. If you look closely, it is all one-way communication.
Last edited by Dorothy on Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt

jax
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:31 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by jax » Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:52 pm

antiscn wrote:
I'mglib wrote:I've always thought the whole "Reality" thing in Scientology was suspicious. Especially, "what's true for you is what's true for you."

I believe this is false.
I couldn't agree more with you glib..I don't even think it's up for debate.
This Scientology premise is extremely dangerous and is the foundation for allowing these people to deny what is really happening in the world,and what is happening to them.
'I didn't see david miscavige hit anybody so it didn't happen'
'I didn't see the Church kill Lisa McPherson so it didn't happen'
'I haven't seen the people locke up in the SP hall so that doesn't happen'
LRH wrote:Personal Integrity

What is true for you is what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you have lost everything.
What is personal integrity?
Personal integrity is knowing what you know–what you know is what you know–and to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.
And that is integrity.

And there is no other integrity.

Of course we can talk about honor, truth, all these things, these esoteric terms.
But I think they’d all be covered very well if what we really observed was what we observed, that we took care to observe what we were observing, that we always observed to observe.
And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude, a critical attitude, or an open mind.
But certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity and sufficient personal belief and confidence in self and courage that we can observe what we observe
and say what we have observed.
Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it
and it is true according to your observation.
That is all.
Scientologists do not talk about Lisa McPherson, David Miscavige or other abuses & hardships because it is not smart to do so—whether you have observed such things or not. Scientologists don’t run around spreading “entheta” or “black PR” because that is considered a “suppressive act” which will either land you in major “ethics handlings” or get you kicked out all together.

Negative communication regarding anything about Scientology is effectively cut by threats of retaliation—be it “ethics”, “disconnection” or “fair game”—so much for the ARC triangle, right?

That is one of the reasons it seems so futile to debate with a Scientologist—they won’t—actually can’t—acknowledge “black PR” publicly (although they might do so privately) due to the fear of repercussions.
Never once in my experience has the “Personal Integrity” policy letter been cited as the reason for not wishing to engage with “merchants of chaos” (SPs).
I don’t think it is fair to say that Scientologists insist on first hand observation before they will believe anything to be true—even if they “not is” the known truth.

LRH recognized that his followers could be deterred by negativity presented by the media & there is all kinds of “ethics tech” about "supressives & black PR" underlying the denials by Scientologists that anything is wrong within the church.
I would venture to say that most of the denials are based upon fear rather than the absence of direct observation.

The emphasis in Scientology is “handling” “SPs”—not playing “patty cake” with them.
While they might put up a brave front, “SPs” make Scientologists very nervous.
They cannot go into agreement with them—which is one reason it is an “attack, never defend” situation. Never mind how much information—if any—a Scientologist might have about any wrong doings on the church’s part.

The “Personal Integrity” policy letter was used more as a prod to get Scientologists to disseminate (or do other things to help the church) than it was as an umbrella to deny unobserved realities.
As you might imagine, disseminating Scientology is tough—especially now—& many Scientologists don’t want the bother. They have their “wins” & their “gains” & leave it up to others to do the job of getting “bodies in the shop”.

The policy letter was aimed at getting those who knew—from personal observation—to get their “ethics in” & go out & sell Scientology to all their friends & family. It was a matter of “personal integrity”—an implied accusation that you were selfishly hogging all the “wins” for yourself while ignoring your inherent duty to sell Scientology to the world. You’ve had wins, haven’t you? You know the “tech” works, don’t you?

It was also a tool to justify your own involvement in the church should a “suppressive person” come along with doubts about whether or not you knew what you were doing. Of course you knew what you were doing—you had observed that the “tech” worked & you had the “confidence in self & the courage” to say so. See?

On the other hand, should you attempt to use the “Personal Integrity” PL (or the “Creed of the Church”) as justification for speaking AGAINST the church…well…um…to say the least you would be in for a very big ARCX.

User avatar
Dorothy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Kansas
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by Dorothy » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:02 pm

On the other hand, should you attempt to use the “Personal Integrity” PL (or the “Creed of the Church”) as justification for speaking AGAINST the church…well…um…to say the least you would be in for a very big ARCX.
Applying "personal integrity" was what got me into the most trouble as a scientologist. Most of the time you have to conform to what's true for someone else (usually someone higher up on the food chain), or you'll be labelled a trouble maker.
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt

jax
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:31 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: What's wrong with ARC?

Post by jax » Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:34 pm

Dorothy wrote:The problem is, you are applying a canned formula and response to the activity of understanding/connecting with a fellow human being. Now if you are severely handicapped in this area, a canned formula might be good to get you started. But it cannot replace you as a person.
That is exactly right.
I remember the stupid “patter drills” & the endless “drilling” of them to get prepared to sell books. After a while selling books in real life was the same as “drilling” to sell books beforehand—the customer was real but the communication was rehearsed & there was an agenda.
There wasn’t any real “ARC”.

I remember one time I was working at the reception desk when a lady came in to pick up her friend who was on course. While she was waiting we struck up a casual conversation. As we were talking the ED paged the phone at the reception desk & said very loudly to “SELL HER A BOOK!”
Of course the building was hardly sound proof & I believe that the lady heard what the ED said or at least she knew something was up.
I mean, if the ED could hear our conversation, what made her think we couldn't hear hers???

Needless to say, that made things awkward & it ruined the communication we were having prior to that.
I didn’t try to sell her anything because I had the feeling that she was on guard and/or suspicious.
Of course—stupid me—for not having the agenda of selling her a book all along, right?
What was I thinking????

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests