I just wanted to acknowledge Alex Car who writes the blog for the Church of Scientology of Kansas City. Alex has been on staff in Kansas for 29 years! Wow. That is an awesome achievement.
The longest I ever worked at one place was twelve years and that was broken into three slots because I twice left to work at startups that didn't.
Alex' blog can be found here: Church of Scientology of Kansas City "Ideal Org" Blog
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Is Scientology a Perfect System?
Luis said: Hi Grahame. I am glad to have found a pro Scientology set of opinions and perspectives. From my viewpoint, personal growth, freedom, sanity, strength and greatness requires being able to examine honestly and objectively all viewpoints available pro and con and being able to recognize and admit to the one that is being perceived as having the most truth in it, even if painful, even if it makes one, or one's viewpoint, or one's group flawed.
While the Mantra "what is true for you..." is frequently used by Scientologists to point out the intention of the Church to encourage freedom to think, it, from my experience, is neither encouraged, nor applied nor nourished, but used to “impossibilitize” the existence of mass production of blinded followers because there exists this precept.
Grahame said: I don't know what your experience is, but that is not mine. I've found Scientologists to be strong individuals who definitely think for themselves. A lot of Scientologists I know own their own businesses, you can't be successful in business if you can't think for yourself and think on your feet.
Luis said: From the moment you read Keeping Scientology working, and from the statements I have seen of Ron Hubbard claiming to have THE only valid viewpoints and technology, THE only person able to be the source of spiritual-growth-producing” data, THE only “bridge to total freedom”; THE only person capable of decoding life….the nourishing of critical thinking and examination of information presented begins to be slowly stultified.
Grahame said: What you say is not accurate. The article "Keeping Scientology Working" says that Scientology is "workable". It is a workable way to achieve spiritual improvement. That is why the article is called "Keeping Scientology Working".
There is a whole set of articles called the "Keeping Scientology Working Series." Number 4 in the series is called "Safeguarding Technology" and in it L. Ron Hubbard says, "Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system."
If a system claims to be workable then a person can figure out pretty quickly for themselves if it is or is not. If the system says do A, B and C and you will get result D, then you can test that out easily. That is what the "what is true for you" quote is all about, seeing for yourself if it works or not.
If you decide it is not a workable system then fine. Go find another religion. But if you do find that it is workable then follow it correctly, so it works.
LRH also says in the same article, "People have following the route mixed up with 'the right to have their own ideas.' Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas ...."
Luis said: If Ron would have presented his viewpoints as HIS viewpoints and not THE viewpoints to be had, he would have been encouraging (by allowing the space) for evaluation of his precepts and, moreover, for development of the capacity for individuals to think for themselves, to be determining for themselves, even while in The Church, what is or is not true, what makes sense and what does not.
Grahame said: I covered this point in my article, Scientology: What is true for you. Briefly, LRH presented the technology as something that works and that should be exactly followed to get the results because that is what he found. He presented his opinions as merely opinions that you can take or leave. But read the whole article and the comments as it covers that and more.
The most common statement I hear from Scientologists is "This is what Ron says..." and not "This is what I think". That is, to me, an indication of the loss of the ability to establish and be faithful to ones own viewpoints.
That is why, in my opinion, the perception exists, in some people, including myself, that in talking to a Scientologist, you are most likely to get canned responses, including "what is true for you....."
Grahame says: If you are referring to talking to Scientologists about Scientology then, sure, you will probably hear "Ron says" a lot, because he's the one who wrote the materials that make up the subject. It's like talking about Christianity and saying "the bible says" or talking about General Relativity and saying "Einstein says". Of course the people taking about it will refer to those sources because they define the subject.
Also, has it never crossed your mind that someone saying "Ron says ..." may be telling you what is true for him personally?
When it comes to other subjects I don't find Scientologists saying "Ron says ...." For Example, when I am solving problems in my job, I often am working with a team to solve them. If I think we should do something I say "I think we should do blah. What do you guys think?" I go out of my way to get collaboration going because that's what I've found works in my profession.
Luis said: In my opinion, once you become a “Keeping Scientology Working Scientologist”, the conduct and intention, in any situation, becomes promoting the illusion that Scientology and Ron are flawless, pure, the greatest ever, and incapable of sinning.
Grahame says: That is your opinion and "in any situation" is a huge generality. It is certainly not my observation. Scientologists will insist that the technology is applied correctly because they have seen for themselves that applying it correctly gets desirable results and they want to help their fellow man. That's where they will be insistent.
Your insistence that we think Scientology and Ron are "flawless ..." etc., is not correct. I can only give you my own personal viewpoint and that of the Scientologists I know personally: L. Ron Hubbard was a great guy who figured out how to help us raise ourselves spiritually to new heights. He never claimed to be perfect, above others or something special. Scientology is a workable system of spiritual improvement. Ron never claimed it was perfect (see my comment earlier).
Luis said: These, of course, are my viewpoints. Regards, Luis
Grahame says: thanks for your comments.
While the Mantra "what is true for you..." is frequently used by Scientologists to point out the intention of the Church to encourage freedom to think, it, from my experience, is neither encouraged, nor applied nor nourished, but used to “impossibilitize” the existence of mass production of blinded followers because there exists this precept.
Grahame said: I don't know what your experience is, but that is not mine. I've found Scientologists to be strong individuals who definitely think for themselves. A lot of Scientologists I know own their own businesses, you can't be successful in business if you can't think for yourself and think on your feet.
Luis said: From the moment you read Keeping Scientology working, and from the statements I have seen of Ron Hubbard claiming to have THE only valid viewpoints and technology, THE only person able to be the source of spiritual-growth-producing” data, THE only “bridge to total freedom”; THE only person capable of decoding life….the nourishing of critical thinking and examination of information presented begins to be slowly stultified.
Grahame said: What you say is not accurate. The article "Keeping Scientology Working" says that Scientology is "workable". It is a workable way to achieve spiritual improvement. That is why the article is called "Keeping Scientology Working".
There is a whole set of articles called the "Keeping Scientology Working Series." Number 4 in the series is called "Safeguarding Technology" and in it L. Ron Hubbard says, "Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system."
If a system claims to be workable then a person can figure out pretty quickly for themselves if it is or is not. If the system says do A, B and C and you will get result D, then you can test that out easily. That is what the "what is true for you" quote is all about, seeing for yourself if it works or not.
If you decide it is not a workable system then fine. Go find another religion. But if you do find that it is workable then follow it correctly, so it works.
LRH also says in the same article, "People have following the route mixed up with 'the right to have their own ideas.' Anyone is certainly entitled to have opinions and ideas ...."
Luis said: If Ron would have presented his viewpoints as HIS viewpoints and not THE viewpoints to be had, he would have been encouraging (by allowing the space) for evaluation of his precepts and, moreover, for development of the capacity for individuals to think for themselves, to be determining for themselves, even while in The Church, what is or is not true, what makes sense and what does not.
Grahame said: I covered this point in my article, Scientology: What is true for you. Briefly, LRH presented the technology as something that works and that should be exactly followed to get the results because that is what he found. He presented his opinions as merely opinions that you can take or leave. But read the whole article and the comments as it covers that and more.
The most common statement I hear from Scientologists is "This is what Ron says..." and not "This is what I think". That is, to me, an indication of the loss of the ability to establish and be faithful to ones own viewpoints.
That is why, in my opinion, the perception exists, in some people, including myself, that in talking to a Scientologist, you are most likely to get canned responses, including "what is true for you....."
Grahame says: If you are referring to talking to Scientologists about Scientology then, sure, you will probably hear "Ron says" a lot, because he's the one who wrote the materials that make up the subject. It's like talking about Christianity and saying "the bible says" or talking about General Relativity and saying "Einstein says". Of course the people taking about it will refer to those sources because they define the subject.
Also, has it never crossed your mind that someone saying "Ron says ..." may be telling you what is true for him personally?
When it comes to other subjects I don't find Scientologists saying "Ron says ...." For Example, when I am solving problems in my job, I often am working with a team to solve them. If I think we should do something I say "I think we should do blah. What do you guys think?" I go out of my way to get collaboration going because that's what I've found works in my profession.
Luis said: In my opinion, once you become a “Keeping Scientology Working Scientologist”, the conduct and intention, in any situation, becomes promoting the illusion that Scientology and Ron are flawless, pure, the greatest ever, and incapable of sinning.
Grahame says: That is your opinion and "in any situation" is a huge generality. It is certainly not my observation. Scientologists will insist that the technology is applied correctly because they have seen for themselves that applying it correctly gets desirable results and they want to help their fellow man. That's where they will be insistent.
Your insistence that we think Scientology and Ron are "flawless ..." etc., is not correct. I can only give you my own personal viewpoint and that of the Scientologists I know personally: L. Ron Hubbard was a great guy who figured out how to help us raise ourselves spiritually to new heights. He never claimed to be perfect, above others or something special. Scientology is a workable system of spiritual improvement. Ron never claimed it was perfect (see my comment earlier).
Luis said: These, of course, are my viewpoints. Regards, Luis
Grahame says: thanks for your comments.
Friday, July 25, 2008
My Hands Just Turned Purple
The gullibility rating of the Internet hit a new high yesterday when a highly reliable (sorry if the sarcasm dripped onto your computer screen) source of entertainment news reported that Katie Holmes' hands had turned purple. Don't laugh. Someone did actually report that and several "news" (that may not be the right word, if you can think of a better one then please tell me in the comments) sites picked it up and began repeating it, in the usual mindless fashion of news sites, as if it were true.
The "source" of this nonsense? A paparazzi pic that, if you zoomed in on it, made her hand look a bit dark. Perhaps a shadow? - No way. Let's take the much more logical explanation: her hands have turned purple.
Freedom of speech is threatened when it is abused like this. What is its value when any jerk can make up some news story because he needs to attract eyeballs?
That people believed such nonsense is also scary. Is the general public so gullible? I hope not. What do you think?
BTW, if you are interested, here are some other shots of her hands taken on the same day: What's wrong with Katie Holmes' Hands?. Gee, I wonder why the reporters never looked at these? I guess they didn't want to spoil a perfectly good story by injecting some pesky truth into it.
The "source" of this nonsense? A paparazzi pic that, if you zoomed in on it, made her hand look a bit dark. Perhaps a shadow? - No way. Let's take the much more logical explanation: her hands have turned purple.
Freedom of speech is threatened when it is abused like this. What is its value when any jerk can make up some news story because he needs to attract eyeballs?
That people believed such nonsense is also scary. Is the general public so gullible? I hope not. What do you think?
BTW, if you are interested, here are some other shots of her hands taken on the same day: What's wrong with Katie Holmes' Hands?. Gee, I wonder why the reporters never looked at these? I guess they didn't want to spoil a perfectly good story by injecting some pesky truth into it.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Clearing the Planet Question
CD said:
I haven't asked any questions in awhile, and I have actually just quietly read your work. I have enjoyed your patient explanations, as well as your humor.
I just had one question this time, rather simple really,
I understand that the Church of Scientology, among other goals, has its main mission to "clear the planet" or rid the world of reactive minds thus bringing about a utopian world where the goals of Scientology are reality.
But to do courses, auditing, training etc. in the Chruch one must pay a great deal of money to advance.
Of course books are rather cheap, and the simpler the course the cheaper the donation, but to ascend in such a manner to become "clear" or "OT" either a great deal of money is required or one can work for the church and recieve a discount.
So, with that prologue,
How does the Church of Scientology expect to clear every person on Earth with such donation prequisites?
Most middle class Americans, with such considerations as rising gas prices, rising food prices, mortgage rates, house forclosures, and economic instability, are unwilling to pay such donation rates, and middle class americans by world standards, are rather wealthy indeed.
So how then, does the Chruch plan on clearing the impoversihed villages of Africa?
Or the war torn Eastern European states?
Or the dictatorships and drug ridden towns in South America?
Or the simple aborigines of Australia?
Or the starving in India, where cannibalism practice rates have risen as high as 2% of the population over the years?
Don't get me wrong, I understand fully that all religious organizations, rely on the support of their parishoners for their well being. Many Chruches require tithing for membership, such as the LDS church.
But given the goal of a "clear planet", how does the Church expect to reach, disseminate to, and clear war torn, impoverished, starving regions of the world?
Or even, just the majority of the world, such as in South America, Africa, and parts of Aisa, where people, matter of factly, live simply, with almost no money?
If many Americans will not pay such donation rates, how does the Church plan on acquiring such extensive donations from such poverty stricken or even just simple populations, which make up the majority of the world?
Best,
C.D
One question? I counted a lot more than that :) If you could ask one at a time, I'd appreciate it. I'm pressed for time right now.
The actual aims of Scientology are given here: Aims of Scientology (the brief version is "A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights").
People use the slang phrase "Clear the planet" but the actual aims are as given on that link.
I can't speak for the long-term planning of the Church, but I'll give you my ideas on how the things you asked about will be handled:
Scientology services currently cost money. This is simply a necessity of survival. In the Western World you need money or you go under. Scientology doesn't have a couple thousand years of history in which to have gathered massive resources so the Church has to request donations for its services that enable it to survive. This could change in the future.
Currently if a person has an income so low that it precludes paying for services then the idea is to help them gradually become more able via free, intro and other low cost services. Then once they are more able and therefore more able to earn income they will be able to donate. This is a win-win scenario.
As Churches grow there will be more people able to deliver free services such as students in training to become ministers (auditors). Therefore, more and more people in difficult situations can be helped. It's all a matter of resources. Also, co-auditing can be done with basics such as Dianetics with little or no outlay of money.
On helping people in third world countries: The Church currently has Volunteer Minister projects running in many third world areas. The idea is to help these people raise their countries to a higher level of prosperity. Right now there are a lot of Scientology and Dianetics groups in African countries where people are co-auditing with basic auditing procedures. There are also several African countries that use Study Technology in their school systems.
I hope that gives you an idea. I am not privy to the long term plans and strategies of Church Management but I'm sure they have much more in mind to achieve the Aims of Scientology and help the people's of Earth.
I haven't asked any questions in awhile, and I have actually just quietly read your work. I have enjoyed your patient explanations, as well as your humor.
I just had one question this time, rather simple really,
I understand that the Church of Scientology, among other goals, has its main mission to "clear the planet" or rid the world of reactive minds thus bringing about a utopian world where the goals of Scientology are reality.
But to do courses, auditing, training etc. in the Chruch one must pay a great deal of money to advance.
Of course books are rather cheap, and the simpler the course the cheaper the donation, but to ascend in such a manner to become "clear" or "OT" either a great deal of money is required or one can work for the church and recieve a discount.
So, with that prologue,
How does the Church of Scientology expect to clear every person on Earth with such donation prequisites?
Most middle class Americans, with such considerations as rising gas prices, rising food prices, mortgage rates, house forclosures, and economic instability, are unwilling to pay such donation rates, and middle class americans by world standards, are rather wealthy indeed.
So how then, does the Chruch plan on clearing the impoversihed villages of Africa?
Or the war torn Eastern European states?
Or the dictatorships and drug ridden towns in South America?
Or the simple aborigines of Australia?
Or the starving in India, where cannibalism practice rates have risen as high as 2% of the population over the years?
Don't get me wrong, I understand fully that all religious organizations, rely on the support of their parishoners for their well being. Many Chruches require tithing for membership, such as the LDS church.
But given the goal of a "clear planet", how does the Church expect to reach, disseminate to, and clear war torn, impoverished, starving regions of the world?
Or even, just the majority of the world, such as in South America, Africa, and parts of Aisa, where people, matter of factly, live simply, with almost no money?
If many Americans will not pay such donation rates, how does the Church plan on acquiring such extensive donations from such poverty stricken or even just simple populations, which make up the majority of the world?
Best,
C.D
One question? I counted a lot more than that :) If you could ask one at a time, I'd appreciate it. I'm pressed for time right now.
The actual aims of Scientology are given here: Aims of Scientology (the brief version is "A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights").
People use the slang phrase "Clear the planet" but the actual aims are as given on that link.
I can't speak for the long-term planning of the Church, but I'll give you my ideas on how the things you asked about will be handled:
Scientology services currently cost money. This is simply a necessity of survival. In the Western World you need money or you go under. Scientology doesn't have a couple thousand years of history in which to have gathered massive resources so the Church has to request donations for its services that enable it to survive. This could change in the future.
Currently if a person has an income so low that it precludes paying for services then the idea is to help them gradually become more able via free, intro and other low cost services. Then once they are more able and therefore more able to earn income they will be able to donate. This is a win-win scenario.
As Churches grow there will be more people able to deliver free services such as students in training to become ministers (auditors). Therefore, more and more people in difficult situations can be helped. It's all a matter of resources. Also, co-auditing can be done with basics such as Dianetics with little or no outlay of money.
On helping people in third world countries: The Church currently has Volunteer Minister projects running in many third world areas. The idea is to help these people raise their countries to a higher level of prosperity. Right now there are a lot of Scientology and Dianetics groups in African countries where people are co-auditing with basic auditing procedures. There are also several African countries that use Study Technology in their school systems.
I hope that gives you an idea. I am not privy to the long term plans and strategies of Church Management but I'm sure they have much more in mind to achieve the Aims of Scientology and help the people's of Earth.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
More evidence that ADHD is a fake
Just published in the British Medical Journal are the results of a study that shows a clear connection between hyperactivity in children and chemical additives in foods.
Removing junk food from a child's diet is a simple treatment that has no side-effects and plenty of positive effects compared with drugs which have horrendous side-effects such as nervousness, insomnia, anorexia; nausea; dizziness; palpitations; headache, cardiac arrhythmia; abdominal pain etc., etc.
A study by the Montreal Children's Hospital found that after five years hyperactive children who received drugs (either Ritalin or Chloropromazine) did not differ significantly from children who had not received them. Although it appeared that hyperactive kids treated with Ritalin were initially more manageable, the degree of improvement and emotional adjustment was essentially identical at the end of five years to that seen in a group of kids who had received no medication at all.
Of course the big difference between the kids who took no drugs and those that took the drugs was that pharmaceutical companies made no profit from the kids who took no drugs. And the non-drug kids didn't get any of the horrible side-effects.
So why are these drugs used at all if the end result is the same as if the kids took nothing? As the legal profession says "cui bono?" (who benefits?)
Removing junk food from a child's diet is a simple treatment that has no side-effects and plenty of positive effects compared with drugs which have horrendous side-effects such as nervousness, insomnia, anorexia; nausea; dizziness; palpitations; headache, cardiac arrhythmia; abdominal pain etc., etc.
A study by the Montreal Children's Hospital found that after five years hyperactive children who received drugs (either Ritalin or Chloropromazine) did not differ significantly from children who had not received them. Although it appeared that hyperactive kids treated with Ritalin were initially more manageable, the degree of improvement and emotional adjustment was essentially identical at the end of five years to that seen in a group of kids who had received no medication at all.
Of course the big difference between the kids who took no drugs and those that took the drugs was that pharmaceutical companies made no profit from the kids who took no drugs. And the non-drug kids didn't get any of the horrible side-effects.
So why are these drugs used at all if the end result is the same as if the kids took nothing? As the legal profession says "cui bono?" (who benefits?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)