> > My own dispassionate view of the tech is probably what pissed people off > > when I was a member and no doubt causes many here to view me as an > > apologist for the CofS. With that in mind it's pretty simple for me to > > seperate the 'tech' from the actions of individual members. In the case > > of Lisa McPherson I blame the individuals directly involved and see no > > reason to blame the 'tech', whatever I may think about the value or lack > > of value of the Introspection r/d. For the record, I think the > > Introspection r/d is bullshit. But I also thought it was bullshit to eat > > wafers and drink red wine while the minister mumbled about the body of > > Christ.
> > Wolf
> Ah, but if eating wafers and drinking red wine or any other "ritual > cannibalism where being espoused as a way to cure illness (int he case of > the IR, mental illness, or psychosis, which can be no less life > threatening than any physical illness) and if at the same time it were > shown to be the very thing which led to ill health ( a red wine and wafer > diet? Well, I cannot think of an analogy in this case that works as an > example, since in fact it is purely a religion ritual and not intended to > cure or diagnose anything, which the IR does in fact claim) and if the > person was denied real treatment, then it would point out lack of value > in it as a "tech".
Scn departs from common conceptions of religion, that's easy to see. They charge a specific rate for services and they claim their rites are technical. I don't have any more a problem with Scn claiming that blowing mini-thetans will make you better than I do a Christian Scientist (there's that word again -> Science) claiming that going to a doctor is against the will of God. I don't even really have a problem with Scn's fixed donation rates. I have already pointed out that a good Morman of middle-class income will drop a bare minimum $400,000 into LDS coffers within his/her life.
The perception you and many critics have, that Scn makes medical claims or scientific claims as a _major_ part of it's doctrine, is closer to what I think hampers the effectiveness of ARS. Were this a major part of Scn doctrine then it stands to reason that in nearly 50 years it would have surfaced as an issue, at least in the USA. Instead, I view it more like the ritual baby-killings of Satanists. That meme spread throughout the US and the Uk to the point where otherwise reasonable and logical people actually believed that 50,000 babies were being slaughtered every year. While it has been proven, in at least once instance, that some people, purporting to being Stanists, did kill a baby, the facts hardly bear out the accusations and irrational fear of the public.
The illogic of ARS group-think seems to be: *Lisa McPherson dies *She's on the I/R *She should have received proper care *The I/R 'seems' to have instructions that may have been mis-applied and led to her death *Therefore, the I/R killed her *Therefore, because the I/R is part of Scn, Scn policy and tech kills *Therefore, Scientology kills *Therefore, any deaths may be seen to be caused by Scn tech, which kills
Is the above true or false? If you answered true, then you answered exactly like a Christian bigoted against Jews in the middle ages. Or perhaps like an ill-informed illiterate who believes that 50,000 babies per year are being thrown into the maw of Satan. The obvious answer is false and the lack of suspicious deaths alone ought to dissuade one from over-reacting.
That doesn't make McPherson's death any less a crime, if indeed it's proven to be one. It's just not a crime committed by an entire body of people who both accept and apply a technology that they know leads to death. To suggest such is, at the very least, a reprehensible and destructive mindset.
> And this is the thing. Co$ continually claims that it is a technology > when it suits them to sound pseudo-scientific and continually claims that > it is a religion when it wants to hide behind the cloak of religion to > scream bigotry and to take advantage of tax benefits of religious status.
You are correct. And rightfully pissed off by it. Not because it's Scientology, but because it's a twisted use of the foundation of what's good about the free world and democracies. I'll restate what I have stated before: Scn is either a business OR a religion. The thrust of what I consider valid criticism must be to insist they operate within the laws that govern either one, but not both. The simplest, most painless and (for me, the most pleasurable) method of accomplishing this would be to eliminate the SO and the RTC. I see no reason why this cannot be accomplished in a matter of a few years.
> Ritual cannibalism as you speak of it makes no technology claims, it is > *purely* a religious ritual.
I think you're hung up on the word technology. Ritual cannibalism is typically performed for one of two reasons: either to ultimately degrade a vanquished enemy or to ultimately honor the respected dead. For the cultures who practice (or practiced) it, it is their conception of truth and I'd suppose their technology. Astrology was also technology at one point in both western and eastern civ. From that spurious belief came the science of astronomy and the origins of higher math, timekeeping, calendaring, precise navigation and geography.
I believe it was Bernie who recently pointed out that best way to deal with a Scientologist is to gently persuade him of the facts. The facts about the RTC, OSA and the SO in general are enough to persuade some Scn to question their leaders, if not their beliefs. Isn't that the whole point?
>>Bingo! Thanks, Dave--that is exactly what I was getting at.
And Bernie responded:
>Not quite.
Actually, it was quite, but that's another matter. Bernie goes on to say:
>You create your own reality every second. The separation >between the external reality and the internal one is an illusion.
I disagree. I don't create any reality. Rather, I experience reality and am a part of reality. My experience is a subset of my existence.
>It's >an illusion we need to maintain, though, because intellectually we >cannot conceive of the relationship.
It is not an illusion, but a necessity of biological survival. If you want a vivid example of how "what is currently Bernie" is an existing state and not an illusion, try breathing under water.
>The separation actually allows us >to become self-conscious, because awareness learns to distinguish >between "what is me" and "what is not me", but that's just at the >early stage. At a later stage, we need to free ourselves from this >illusion, to realize how everything is really interdependent and how >there is no real separation between, say, you and me.
But, Bernie, there is a separation between you and me. You are wherever you are, I'm wherever I am. Consciousness may simply be a point of reference, or a path of trajectory, or whatever, but they are >different< points of references or paths of trajectory. While the set of things that define me from beginning to end have much in common with the sets of things that define a lamp post from its beginning to end or Steve Guttenberg from his beginning to end, all have--to varying degrees--much in common, they are not in fact the same. There is a distinct set of ME, however tenuous, and, therefore, boundaries that define that set in the same way that banks define rivers or rivers define banks. To say that there is no difference between a river and its bank, or matter and energy, or life and death, to say that "all things are one," is quite lofty and Buddha-like, and quite a calming thing to remember when you have trouble getting your mortgage payment together, but really doesn't have any value beyond that.
LilAlex
It's easy to conceal your identity on the net. It's much more difficult to conceal your true character --Diane Richardson
My havingness and ability to confront has increased tenfold, plus my hair is so shiny and manageable--Mike de Wolf
>It's easy to conceal your identity on the net. It's much more >difficult to conceal your true character --Diane Richardson
Damn it lil alex.. much as I enjoyed your post.. and much as I dislike Diane sometimes.. I have to think it could be better said.. but you quoted Diane saying it. And it's truth. Not waffeling not squirming not evading.. It's truth.
By the way.. I use a nick because I'm an old BBSer, and yes thank you Rod you smear on somebody's labslide.. I am Joe Lynn
I do have respect for people who wish to be anonymous and it bothers me no end that the evil cult of scientology wants to shudder into silence the people who certainly do have their own point of view.
Would you like to hear about my crimes Rod or Enzo or any of a half dozen spokesclams?
Wgert and rod have both asked me for my name.. god alone knows why. My name is Joe Lynn and I'm proud of it. I post as Zinjifar because that is my nick.
That said.. what are your names?
Zinj
(I don't seriously expect evil little sniping cultists to answer)
: The Introspection r/d, which is a part of the tech of Scn, has not been : implicated in the death of Lisa McPherson.
It may not have actually been involved, but it sure has been discussed as an assumed factor in the treatment Lisa received.
The apparent cause of her : death was mistreatment of her and disregard for her well being by at : least three people at FSO.
It was a *far* larger number. There were a dentist and a doctor involved as well as a number of guards and baby watchers, not to mention Lisa's case supervisor and the ones who where in charge of the guards and baby watchers.
The tech of Scn is inert. It's the actions : and failures of these three people that are at fault.
To the extent that people pay any attention to the tech, you have a point. However, *following* the IR tech, doing exactly what Hubbard dictated out of thin air, blindly, and without a lick of sense, was what killed Lisa.
: In the end, if they are tried and found guilty, I have little doubt that : the introspection r/d and the CofS will be harmed by that finding. But : it's not apparent or even suspected that the tech of Scn in any way : leads to the death of some of it's members. To suggest otherwise would : be to suggest that humankind is divided into two distinct groups: those : that are victims and those that are perpetrators. If you believe that : then there is little I can say that will make sense to you.
While I can kind of see the point you are making, Wolf, there are reasons for getting dangerous instructions for medical treatments off the market. How would you feel if the next time you went to a doctor he opened a vein to let the bad humors out?
: In short, it appears that your mindset re: The CofS is that it's methods : are harmful
Agree. and it's practitioners are aware of that and use it anyway.
Nope. Although I can't speak for everyone, I think the vast majority of critics feel that the practitioners are *not* aware of the dangers of what they are doing. If they were, I think very few of them would be doing things that they think are harmful--it just is not in human nature. The fact that the practitioners *don't* understand the dangers of what they are doing the scary part.
: Lack of proof, or even lack of enough similar events doesn't seem to : give you pause to think. You assert, therefore you are.
There are a much larger number of these cases which through luck rather than any other factor were not fatal.
I do appreciate your putting your objections to what you see as the critic mind set down, Wolf. We make serious progress in understanding this way. Keith Henson
>Bingo! Thanks, Dave--that is exactly what I was getting at.
>p&med
>Dave Bird writes:
>>Many religions say the real world is "an apparency", but at the same >>time almost all except a very particular strand do not say it is >>generated by human minds/spirits, or that "agreement" is needed, >>or that the unaided human mind can change it. Most would concur >>that there is only one physical world the same for all of us, and >>you cannot change it by wishing (either there is a tree in the garden >>or there is not: the most you can do it walk through the garden and >>bump painfully into an obstacle you try to pretend is not there).
>>The realist would say "....because this is the physical world and >>it is what it is." The believer would say "...because it is the >>will of god." But all but a very specialised strand say nothing >>about mere human minds wishing it into existence by agreement or >>being able to chnage it by dissenting. Rhus they have merely >>changed the name or pretext for saying how it exists independently >>of our wills. >.
>LilAlex
>It's easy to conceal your identity on the net. It's much more >difficult to conceal your true character --Diane Richardson
>My havingness and ability to confront has increased tenfold, plus my >hair is so shiny and manageable--Mike de Wolf
-- Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
On 01 Jun 1998 00:35:48 GMT, , lilalex...@aol.com (LilAlex742) wrote:
>>You create your own reality every second. The separation >>between the external reality and the internal one is an illusion.
>I disagree. I don't create any reality. Rather, I experience reality and am a >part of reality. My experience is a subset of my existence.
YMMV. You create it every second, but you don't realize it. It's like breathing. It goes on all the time. We are not usually aware of breathing either, unless we put our attention on it. To become aware on how you constantly create your own reality would involve a drastic raise in consciousness.
>>It's >>an illusion we need to maintain, though, because intellectually we >>cannot conceive of the relationship.
> It is not an illusion, but a necessity of biological survival. If you want a >vivid example of how "what is currently Bernie" is an existing state and not an >illusion, try breathing under water.
The illusion is at another level.
>>The separation actually allows us >>to become self-conscious, because awareness learns to distinguish >>between "what is me" and "what is not me", but that's just at the >>early stage. At a later stage, we need to free ourselves from this >>illusion, to realize how everything is really interdependent and how >>there is no real separation between, say, you and me. >But, Bernie, there is a separation between you and me. You are wherever you >are, I'm wherever I am. Consciousness may simply be a point of reference, or >a path of trajectory, or whatever, but they are >different< points of >references or paths of trajectory. While the set of things that define me from >beginning to end have much in common with the sets of things that define a lamp >post from its beginning to end or Steve Guttenberg from his beginning to end, >all have--to varying degrees--much in common, they are not in fact the same.
It all depends of the level from which you view thing. You are right at the level from which you speak, but I refer to something else.
>There is a distinct set of ME, however tenuous, and, therefore, boundaries that >define that set in the same way that banks define rivers or rivers define >banks. To say that there is no difference between a river and its bank, or >matter and energy, or life and death, to say that "all things are one," is >quite lofty and Buddha-like, and quite a calming thing to remember when you >have trouble getting your mortgage payment together, but really doesn't have >any value beyond that.
So you say.
Bernie -- If you really mean to reform Scn and it's mngmnt you won't accomplish it with charges of brainwashing, fools and a dead man's ego (Wolf)
> The perception you and many critics have, that Scn makes medical claims > or scientific claims as a _major_ part of it's doctrine, is closer to > what I think hampers the effectiveness of ARS. Were this a major part of > Scn doctrine then it stands to reason that in nearly 50 years it would > have surfaced as an issue, at least in the USA.
[snip]
> The illogic of ARS group-think seems to be: > *Lisa McPherson dies
Yes.
> *She's on the I/R
Yes.
> *She should have received proper care
Yes.
> *The I/R 'seems' to have instructions that may have been mis-applied and > led to her death
I'm not convinced the instructions were misapplied. Other than that, yes.
> *Therefore, the I/R killed her
No. The application of the I/R led to her death--this is not the same thing as saying "the I/R killed her."
> *Therefore, because the I/R is part of Scn, Scn policy and tech kills
No, the logical chain breaks right here and I think most critics know it.
> *Therefore, Scientology kills > *Therefore, any deaths may be seen to be caused by Scn tech, which kills
> Is the above true or false?
True, up to a certain step in the chain; false thereafter.
> That doesn't make McPherson's death any less a crime, if indeed it's > proven to be one. It's just not a crime committed by an entire body of > people who both accept and apply a technology that they know leads to > death. To suggest such is, at the very least, a reprehensible and > destructive mindset.
Nonetheless, this "entire body of people" does accept and apply a "technology" that many know is potentially harmful to those who undergo it. Both the Introspection Rundown and the Purification Rundown fit this definition. And, in both cases, the potential harm is both unnecessary and avoidable.
This last part, by the way, is what angers me so much. It would take so little to change these two components of the "tech" to make them safe, but the leaders of the Church of Scientology[tm] seem constitutionally unwilling or unable to make the necessary changes.
Yep, I do. No point in refuting your assertions one by one. Just take it that I pretty much disagree with your world view (and the glaring condescension with which you protect it.) You think I'm an unenlightened trog. I think you're a self-deluded fool. Guess we got to leave it there for now.
p&med
LilAlex
I am Dyslexic of Borg! Your ass will be laminated!
lilalex...@aol.com (LilAlex742) wrote: >Yep, I do. No point in refuting your assertions one by one. Just take it that >I pretty much disagree with your world view (and the glaring condescension with >which you protect it.)
It's not "glaring condescension", but there is no point in discussing this. It's entirely subjective.
>You think I'm an unenlightened trog.
I don't, but if that's your idea...
>I think you're a >self-deluded fool. Guess we got to leave it there for now.
Indeed. But can't you people discuss *anything* without getting all wrapped up?
Bernie -- http://uc2.unicall.be/bernie/home.htm If you really mean to reform Scn and it's mngmnt you won't accomplish it with charges of brainwashing, fools and a dead man's ego (Wolf)
