Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: Logic vs Scientology  (Read 1225 times)
Jr. Member

Karma: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 32

« on: April 27, 2010, 02:48:37 PM »

tl:dr - Logic doesn't work with scientologists, better to engage with them for the lolz and keep the independents on side for so long as they serve the greater cause. Or is it?

. . .

In my own feeble way, I've been trying to inject some logic into discussion with scientologists who have left the "church". Needless to say, this has been a largely futile exercise. The typical response is to attack my persona and not the logic, but the scientologists also have an arsenal of their own axioms and logics which, when applied, prove to them that up is down, left is right and apples are oranges. The general point they seem to be making is that Logic itself is a trap and, as well as proving nothing, ignores the possibilities they see as being inherent in their belief system. The end result is comments like this:

. . . another way one can look at Tone 40 is to look at “the force” as used in the Star Wars movies/story. If you recall back to whenever a character in the Star Wars saga used “the force” it was never done with FORCE. Instead, as depicted in the movies, using “the force” was done with an extremely light touch. Ironically, “the force” because it IS the state of serenity of beingness is senior to FORCE . But not only senior to FORCE but also senior to the illusion of matter, energy, space and time. Thus when one uses “the force” or a Tone 40 command (same thing), the illusion complies . . .


My motivation in seeking to engage with these people was to point out that the current state of scientology is a natural consequence of the tenets of the belief system. DM is simply repeating the very same actions of LRH as detailed in the book "Messiah or Madman". At last I see that my attempts are in themselves a delusion of my own and verification of the adage: "there are none so blind as those that will not see". How many times has that been said in relation to scientologists, I wonder.

As mentioned on another post here, yes, it is delicious irony watching Rinder writhe about when exposed to the very same practises he indulged in when heading up OSA. That the exes make such a fuss about it and scurry around delivering "theta" and support is not so delicious; its frustrating. They genuinely seem blind to the fact that gang-bang sec checks are pure LRH "tech" and, further, soothe whatever cognitive dissonance is generated when this is pointed out by invoking the illogical concept of Intention.

If only they could see what LRH's Intention really was.

I have now decided to emend my strategy to a longer term campaign of gaining their confidence and supporting them in their anti-Co$ work for so long as our mutual ends remain aligned. And, of course, the lolz are manifold.

But, am I engaging in an equal futile endeavour?

Global Moderator
Hero Member

Karma: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 14442

« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2010, 07:31:56 PM »

We are dealing here with the human mind.
There is great wisdom to be learned.

Hubbard tried to streamline the technology for
controlling the mind into one philosophy fits all.

But there are at least 5 billion minds that are
unique and need to be addressed in their own uniqueness.

The whole of Scientology tech is one great example of
the largest psychiatric case study of one of those minds.

The greatest thing anyone can do for themselves is
to lose their mind.
I`m not kidding.

Global Moderator
Hero Member

Karma: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 14442

« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2010, 01:47:07 PM »

           Scientology lady glowing after doing her first "L".

Scientology: L- Rundowns"I can't tell you anything about it of course"

Here is what got that chick all excited......

Warning !!!  Do not read on if you believe Hubbard`s words can kill you.


The theory of this rundown is that:


a. Man is basically good,


b. That when faced with doing evil that Man restrains himself and limits or lowers his power/cause level,


c. That long ago on the wholetrack, evil persons (originally said to be "psychs") implanted people with evil purposes. Such an implant is referred to in this rundown as an "Implant to Harm", as these implants embedded commands to do something harmful.


d. That when an Implant to Harm gets keyed in, the person has the choice of dramatizing it (i.e., committing the harmful act), or, suppressing the dramatization (and himself). But in any event, because the person has an impulse to do something evil or harmful, he tends to consider himself harmful or evil and thus tends to restrain himself generally.


e. If the person dramatizes the Implant to Harm, he commits overts and becomes more susceptible to the Implant being restimulated and dramatized again in the future.


f. Subsequently, the person will probably form an evil purpose of his own and commit overts as a result. These overts form a chain on that evil purpose. There is usually one such evil purpose and chain of overts on any case, or one major one (most dramatized).


g. Although the person formed that evil purpose himself and is

Here are the "L" Rundowns for free.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to: