In the thread welcoming Tory, Big Bill mentioned his long-time agenda of keeping what he calls the "good things" of Scientology while dumping the crimes, the money-grubbing, the disconnections, and the other unsavory acts of the Org of Scientology. My impression is that Big Bill thinks he is a voice of reason and moderation among a chorus of "Scientology is all bad" hard-core critics. Here is my reply.

1. PRE-JUDGING ALL SCIENTOLOGISTS.
It is simplistic and pre-judging to group naive and harmless public Scientologists with the crimes of the inner circle. I try not to do it, but Scientology makes it hard because its organization is unclear. It gets tedious to say "Scientology the legal entity" versus "Scientology the community of good and bad people, some of whom are racketeers and con men." Generally, when I speak I mean "Scientology the legal entity." Unfortunately, I'm not sure WHAT the exact NAME is for that because of the spaghetti swirl of inter-locking corporations at the top. I also worry that if I name names, saying "Scientology Lawyer X has committed perjury," then I could end up being charged with libel. So I just say "Scientology" most of the time.

2. IS THERE ANY GOOD IN THE TECH THAT CAN'T BE ACHIEVED ANY OTHER WAY?
This gets into personal opinion, like whether one believes UFO stories. People are entitled to sincerely believe that, say, there ARE engrams and there IS a release of charge. Believe what you may.

If you state it on this message board, however, I will disagree. I think:
(1) there is a seed of totalitarian evil in the very root of Scientology - specifically, the world is degraded, only "our group" knows how to save it, critics are pure evil AND WE ARE ABOVE THE LAW.
(2) that "What's True is What's True for You" leads to Maoist Group-Think, shutting off critical thought and deepening mind-control.
(3) that reincarnation, while it is a deep belief of almost a billion people, has nothing to do with fantasies led by a hypnotist/e-meter needle-watcher with a lot of "certificates" on the wall.

3. ISN'T IT MEAN TO CRITICIZE ANOTHER PERSON'S BELIEFS?
I only criticize statements that Ron said were PROVEN to work. Ron had SQUAT for proof, only his own bloated charisma and con-man say-so. They should call this the Org of Ron-knows-ology, and just say after every Ron "sacred text" : "thus sayeth L.Ron." Scientologists, you can't have it both ways. If it's belief, say you believe in Ron and tell that to the new person taking the personality test.

If it's science, let's do some tests. For example, high-level Scientologists are not supposed to dream. Even in dim light, an observer sitting by the side of the bed can see the sleeper's eyeballs moving under the closed eyelids (Rapid eye movements, or REM, is a definitive sign of sleep). If you wanted more proof, you could hook them up to a brain-wave measuring device. You can wake them up during the rapid-eye-movements and ask them what they were dreaming about (maybe even use a lie-detector to see if they are telling the truth!) A less scientific but easy do-it-yourself test for a high-level Scientologists who "never remembers his dreams:" Just drink three glasses of water right before bedtime. As you wake up to go to the bathroom, your dreams will be fresh enough to remember vividly. So test yourself. If you dreamed, then L. Ron was L. Wrong again!

4. IS IT REALLY THE INDIVIDUAL'S FAULT IF SCIENTOLOGY "TECH" DOESN'T WORK? The Org answer to the above "Dream Test" would be that the dreamer had misunderstood words (like he thought sleep meant actually getting some regular restful sleep), or had overts, which are some kind of thoughts that the thought police have to pry out of him and squash. They would ask the poor slob trying to get some deep rest to fork over tens of thousands of dollars to "correct" his problem, But as long as NO Scientologists can demonstrate dreamless sleep in a calm, neutral setting with unbiased observers, then the Tech is wrong, not the person. And as long as a high-level Scientologist fears mentioning his dreams, this issue can never be safely settled.

P.S. If Scientologists COULD prove that they have consistently overcome the need to dream (forgetting their dreams doesn't count), somebody could get a Nobel Prize for medicine out of this. Why don't they give it a try?

So, Ground Squirrel and Big Bill, I see no evidence of any "monopoly on theoretical good" that "pure" Scientology holds. I think any "theoretical good" of Scientology is piddling compared to the "real-life bad" of the fruit it bears. But Big Bill, I respect you as a critic who wants to improve the world. Just don't take it personally when I persistently (and sometimes gleefully) criticize Scientology. One of my goals (besides getting my relative out of the Org) is bringing evidence and logic to you, Big Bill, and hope that you will connect the dots and see that even an idealized and pure Scientology would carry the seeds of its own failure, as just another elite-inner-circle-with-starry-dreams-turned-ugly-when-the-magic-never-works.

Just remember Heaven's Gate, formed by ex-Scientologists, who all killed themselves to leave this cruel world, where their magic never really worked, for an imagined spaceship next to a comet. Three days later their bodies were rotting like old road-kill, and no sign of the spaceship.

It's hard for me to say what the good things are in Scientology and I think I would rather throw out the baby AND the bath water.

Ron the Hubbard always went on and on talking about just how wrong it was to "crave approval" and be "interesting". Some might consider this one of the "good things about Scientology". Reasonable enough because I can't stand people like that myself. That is not an original idea though. Also when you really think about it Hubbard was a hypocrite. Approval and "being interesting" was all that liar ever thought about. Read his books, his false biography, and listen to his tapes; it's all about "ME,ME,ME" and all the wonderful things he has done for mankind.

Scientology should die but our motto should be,"Never forget!"

Thank you Don.

OK Big Bill Treelooney, what's "real" scientology?

Oh and welcome Tory. )

ground squirrel

From my experience with scios and other religions I have a lot of certainty that essentially what hubbard was able to do was take something from everyone else and form his own religion to empower himself. The psychiatrists had to be his enemy because basically scios is squirrel psychiatry with religion thrown in to solidify his following of true believers and make zealots out of them which anyone slightly familiar with the organization would be able to observe. Every game has to have opponents so rud ron had to preach hate of psychiatrists since they were whom he was trying to steal customers from.
So, basically, scios is squirrel psychiatry with religion thrown in.

Sorry, v.busy. Will post reply tomorrow. Bill.

Sorry, v.busy. Will post reply tomorrow. Bill.

Scientology the group is a pyramid scheme. People join on the promise of receiving something valuable. In fact they receive nothing. All their money and energy goes to the top of the pyramid, and nothing of value comes back.

Scientology the "technology" is worthless mumbo jumbo. An individual seeking betterment will receive more value, and less harm, visiting a witch doctor or a palm reader.

How many Scientologists are there walking around today OUTSIDE the "orgs", espousing their cult and effectively using the "tech"? Funny how they don't come forward ever. Org shills don't count.

How many ex Scientologists are there wishing they'd never wasted years and dollars? They don't come forward either, too embarrassed or angry or hurt.

Many things Scientology claims are in fact untrue, lies, unworkable. Anything Scientology can do, is easily done, at lower or no cost, by alternative means. Most things Scientology the group and its front groups offer, are in fact parts of the scheme, designed not to help, but to entrap, and bleed you dry.

I do not say that people have not had "wins" or "gains" and that they may attribute those wins to Scientology, or any other cockamamie scheme, guru, prophet, or secret society. God bless them for getting something of value. The fact is they didn't need Scientology.

Hi there all. First of all, could I apologise to Don Carlo and Ground Squirrel for the delay in replying to questions posed.

Anyway, what is real Scientology?

Perhaps I ought to start this post with a quick straw poll. Who believes that there is a higher spiritual realm, or realms, which can be attained in this life?
Those answering in the affirmative to this question would be very much in the minority, I guess. A great many people on this planet are too poor and are struggling just to feed their families and themselves. Some people are just too mechanistic and don't really believe in spirituality and Love - they think everything can be accounted for in the physical realm. Billions of people belong to the two main religions on this planet, Christianity and Islam, neither of which teach that there is a higher spiritual realm attainable in this life. And then there are those who have simply never given the above question a thought.
Suppose I say that I believe in a higher spiritual realm? Further than this, suppose I say that in Scientology I have possibly glimpsed such a realm? This sounds pretty pretentious, huh? Still, I can say that I definitely got something out of my time in Scientology. I have often likened the present Scientology, on sale in your nearest Org, to walking in bare feet over a field of broken glass, picking up gold coins here and there. This is the present Scientology found in the CoS. But even there, the gold coins are real! There are gains to be had, and other people to be helped. Fully fifty per cent of the wins in Scn come from helping others!

Of what should real Scientology be composed?

(i) It should address the individual as a spiritual being (thetan)
(ii) It should seek to make them better
(iii) It should not invalidate the person
(iv) It should seek to give a person the ability to solve his/her own problems in life
(v) It should make the person responsible for themselves.

What should real Scientology militate against?

(i) Destroying or harming another person or persons, except in pure self-defence
(ii) Drug taking, except for medicines prescribed by a professional medical doctor
(iii) Illegal or unethical behaviour
(iv) Unequal rights
(v) State or political control over the individual's religious, political or philosophical beliefs.

A splendid booklet which demonstrates a good way to live is The Way to Happiness by L.Ron Hubbard. Recommended.
You may say, the above is all very fine, but how do you bring it about? Well, LRH wrote down a great many processes and techniques which can be run on people for their benefit. Sometimes a single Book One auditing session is enough to blow a person's socks off!! Other non-LRH tech is also available, which can be of benefit (I am very open to 'squirrel' processes, and believe some of them are very good).
I do not think that Ron's work is the final answer by any means, but possibly he gave us another couple of pieces of the jigsaw.
Scientology is not remotely bad or evil or wicked in any sense, and has never done anything wrong of any kind whatsoever!! This is a fact. All that Scientology means is "knowing how to know". On its own it's just a word. That's all it is.
Unfortunately the Church of Scientology have hijacked this word, meaning "knowing how to know" and have built upon it a mighty structure, very strange and bizarre, and some members of this organization are guilty of a lot of wickedness. This does not change the meaning of the word Scientology.
I would say to people, raise your sights for just five minutes! Where do you think we are heading as a race, and as a planet? Do you care? Why is it that the human race can build instruments to see galaxies billions of light years away, but is still fighting and killing his own kind? Why, when our scientific knowledge is greater than at any time in history, are we unable to solve the problems of crime and drug addiction and environmental destruction? There must be a reason. Why aren't we looking for it? Why are people so apathetic about these things? Remember that Ron said "The wrong thing to do is nothing."
I definitely think we have to keep striving to make a better world. We are all responsible for where we are as a civilization.
Did any of you ever watch Star Trek? Now, be honest, did you ever hear Captain Kirk say "Well, there's nothing we can do in this situation, we may as well give up"?
Therefore, in the final analysis, real Scientology is anything which gets human beings into a better spiritual condition on the four dynamics, with total hostility to the idea that problems are insoluble. Scientology Star Trek style!
I guess I finally got there!

Average-sized Bill Robinson

Man loses if he conquers man. He wins if he conquers himself and conquers then the stars L.Ron Hubbard

Answering your points one by one:

Treelooney: Christians and Muslims don't teach there is a higher spiritual realm in this life.
Don Carlo (DC): Have you ever heard of the Holy Ghost? Sufi mysticism? Speaking in tongues? Saints in direct contact with God?
Who judges that your religion's spiritual achievements are better than somebody else's religion? Nobody can judge this, least of all somebody who simplistically sticks billions into a box entitled "no higher spiritual realm."

Treelooney: Fully fifty percent of the gains come from helping others!
DC: Can I see the math please? And why are your gains qualitiatively or quantitatively better than other religions' gains? Nobody can judge.

Treelooney: Of what should Scientology be composed? Validated, better, problem-solving, responsible people.
DC: Like the rest of the world wants to make people worse? If you reverse your statement, it becomes absurd, which makes it a platitude, Bill. I refer to an an earlier post, "The Scientology Platitude Game, at
http://www.xenu.net/discus/messages/730/873.html?983901545
I'll repeat the quote from E-Week:
QUOTE: If you want to tell the difference between a principle and a platitude, invert a statement and see if the result sounds absurb. If no one could possibly support the opposing sentiment, the original statement is merely a platitude that adds no value to a discussion. (The editorial goes on to criticize some Microsoft platitudes).
END QUOTE. From Eweek magazine, March 5, 2001, page 44 "The Microsoft Spin on Linux)

Treelooney: What should real Scientology militate against? Unethical behavior, state control over rights, etc.
DC: Platitudes, again. Although there are unethical non-Scientologists, that doesn't mean only Scientologists want good government and human rights.

Treelooney: Some of the tech works.
DC: "What is good is not original. What is original is not good." I don't know the exact quote or the author, The most original thing that L.Ron did was combine the e-meter with hypnosis. That had mixed blessings, causing people to be worshipful of whatever truth happened to fall out of an auditing session, regardless of whether it was true. By encouraging blaming bad early experiences, the person is trained to disassociate from their own parents. I notice all your comments say nothing about families. I hope you have the refuge and strength of a good family, Bill, because the self-absorbed quest for spiritual highs, combined with blaming others, doesn't mix well with the reality of family life.

Big Bill: Scientology is just a word.
DC: Of course Scientology is just a word made up of "knowing" and "how to know." National Socialism is two words, each seemingly innocuous. Put them together in German and you have the one word "Nazi." It's just a word, right? Why don't politicians with Nationalist and Socialist sympathies USE the word "Nazi?" Because it has become contaminated by history, and history really happened. You'd be more convincing if you just made up another name, Bill.

To be continued.

Treelooney: Why is mankind still fighting and killing?
DC: Partly because one group thinks it is better than the other group. Sort of like you.

Treelooney: Why can't we solve problems like drugs?
DC: Science, doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry are working hard on this problem. It may take another 15 years. And in the near term, Narcotics Anonymous and rehab DO work for some people, just like permanent Narconon course-taking DOES work for others.

Treelooney: Why are people apathetic?
DC: More of the "I'm better than you because I care more sincerely than you about this and that."
How do you know thjat your level of caring is greater than the rest of the world? Are you a parent? If not, you're out of touch with a couple of billion parents who really care about the future.

Treelooney: (People are saying) we might as well give up. But Captain Kirk and I would never give up.
DC: I'm a Star Trek fan myself. But remember in "The Undiscovered Country" how Kirk, whose son had been killed by Klingons, had to be a diplomat to peace talks with the Klingons. The Undiscovered Country was Peace. Kirk let go of feeling superior. He didn't "give up" on beating the Klingons, he joined them.
I'm not asking you to "give up" on humanity, or ESP, or whatever consciousness-raising experiences you have had. If you find moments of insight, comfort, and euphoria, fine. But don't imagine that the platitude-heavy, content-weak, smug Hubbard books are promising you more of "the good stuff." That only comes from within you.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to argue with you, Bill. And don't take my words personally.

TO TREELOONEY
You wrote of what should real Scientology be composed? What should real Scientology militate against? And you refer to the pamphlet, the way to happiness as a base, and even as an answer, to your representation?

Peter1: I firmly agree with you here, as a human Engineer, and your proposition is limited formulated to Scientology only, since there is no mention about any other types in it, except Scientology! However, I think human race can agree here, since what is mentioned in the way to happiness, can also be found elsewhere! In common sense, and in various literatures, etc!

TO DON CARLO
I don't understand you proposition about "platitude game" But it is understood by me that: Both symmetrical and asymmetrical relation can be found in our world! Since B is brother to S, and S is not always symmetrical related back to B as brothers, since S can be sister to B, hence an asymmetrical relation!

I am hungry? Is that evidence of you being not hungry?
Or I am hungry, is only valid when you are not?

What do you mean? Can you give me some simple common example from our daily living, in order to makes your issue more clear to me, regarding platitude games?

TO TREELOONEY
You wrote, Scientology should address the individual as a spiritual being (Thetan)!

Peter1: I share the intention to make our world a better place to be in, with the Scientologists, and I firmly believe that, that peculiar intention is a human basic instinct too, and thus is shared by humanity as a whole. With heavy pathological individuals, for obvious reasons are not included! However, that is similarities, but we have differences too! Since I don't share the Scientology technology with you, and nor do I share your point of view regarding Thetan either! Since organisms-as-a-whole-in-its-environments, are more in accord with my own point of view! To take care, of yourself, and your family, and your house, and its environments, and your national and/or international work (your trade), etc, and demanding your fellows, to do the same, is a fair human responsibility!

WHAT IS MAN?
We are neither divine, nor animals, but natural beings in our own class of phylum, as humanity! I shall elaborate the cardinal classes of life here, and its peculiarity, and different relations to dimensions, and I reject both the Theological, and the zoological definition of man, as a consequence!

Plants: Positively are basic energy-binders, or chemistry-binders, since they have the abilities to store basic energies, namely to transform sun energy, and water into organic chemical energy, hence chemistry-binding storage battery! But negative when it comes to moving about in "space", since they grow up only from one spot, even labeled as life dimension 1!

Animals positively can like plants, convert basic energies like sunlight (every organism need lights as far as I know!), water, and eating plants, and storing or binding it. The animals can even moving about in "space", crawl, walking, swimming, flying, etc, in some territory, hence space-binders, but negative when it comes to improvement, for instance, the beaver dams, are made in a similar mode today, as it was 20 thousand years ago, hence life dimension 2!

Humans positively have both dimension1 and 2 abilities (storing energy and moving about in space). But most of all, they have the abilities to improve things through time, for instance, a man made mud hut 20 thousand years ago, compared with a modern skyscraper in New York today, differ a lot. Hence time-binders, since they linking knowledge, from one generation into next, and into next, and so on infinitely with languages as a linking tool, into various documentation records! In short, no language, no time-binding either! Humanity belongs to life dimension 3, and they have no negative marks, since there is no higher life forms, to compare with, as far as we know today!

Unmixed time-binding energy, is an exponential function of time, in an increased accelerated acceleration of improvements, since man is both the marble, and the sculptor! But retarded because of mixing dimension between space-binding, animalistic standard of evaluations, and behaviors, and with various time-binding faculties, and behaviors. Hence most of our improvements is done only with what man is! And not what man believes he is. I mean when humans are united, as time-binders, and thus both what man is, and what man believes he is, is a jointed human engineering phenomenon, time will enter as an exponential function, in all of Humanities endeavors too!

I can GO on, and on, with this, but Professor Keyser do it better than me, because only a scholar of mathematical philosophy, namely the famous professor Cassius J. Keyser, can write such a beautiful poem, in the issue! Of course he was one of the best mathematicians of the 20-century! He was Korzybski's friend, and mentor, and has contributed with an endnote, in Korzybski's Manhood of Humanity! Science and Art of human Engineering! (It was Korzybski who coined the word human engineering)

http://www.general-semantics.org/MoH/MoHhome.shtml

I will be back at Monday and review

Best regards

Man's nature is to improve both spiritual and material wealth, of all kinds!

Peter, here are my examples from the "Scientology Platitude Game" thread. I took two Scientology quotes and reversed them. Since the reverse was an absurd statement that nobody could support, that proves it was a platitude, which added nothing of value to a discussion.
SCIENTOLOGY PLATITUDE #1: QUOTE: But because man is basically good he is capable of spiritual betterment, and it is the goal of Scientology to bring him to a point where he is capable of sorting out the factors in his own life and solving his own problems. END QUOTE
INVERTED PLATITUDE #1: Because man is basically evil he is incapable of spiritual betterment, and it is the goal of the wog world to make him incapable of solving his own problems.

CONCLUSION: The inverse is absurd, therefore #1 is a platitude.

SCIENTOLOGY PLATITUDE #2: QUOTE: Scientology believes that an individual placed in a position where he can increase his abilities, where he can confront life better, where he can identify the factors in his life more easily, is also in a position to solve his own problems and so better his own life.

INVERTED PLATITUDE #2 The wog world believes that an individual who can increase his abilities...is not able to solve his own problems.

CONCLUSION: Absurb, again! # 2 is definitely a platitude.
* * * * * * * * *
OK, now let's test some sayings from some real religions:

"The Lord is my Shepherd."
Inverted: "The Lord is not my shepherd."
This is not absurd. It implies that one chooses the Lord and could equally NOT choose the Lord.

"Turn the other cheek."
Inverted: "Don't turn the other cheek."
The inverted statement is not absurd. Lots of people follow that philosophy. You have to
CHOOSE to follow the non-violent Principle.

"Hear O Israel the Lord our God is One."
Inverted: "God is in Three Persons"
OR: "There are many gods."
Again, many people believe in the Trinity or in multiple deities. None of these statements is
absurd.

"Honor thy father and mother."
Inverted: "Treat your parents like dirt."
Comment: even in Biblical days, there must have been people who mistreated their parents.
Otherwise why have the commandment at all? Unfortunately, today many still ignore this principle (especially Scientologists). Honoring your parents is a choice, a principled act.