Scientology "Tech" and the Nature of Reality

[Eldritch]

Okay. Now that I've finally made it to "the Lounge"—and all the lava lamps in here are really, really cool, by the way—I thought I'd bring up a topic for discussion *HERE* so that, as TKL just said, Jeff's board doesn't get turned into "alt.clearing.technology—Part Two."

Also, if the moderators think this topic belongs somewhere else, please feel free to place it wherever seems best. (No, no!—not THERE... That hurts. )

The topic of Scientology fascinates me for a number of reasons—the "nature of reality" even more so. Although I have had comparatively limited exposure to the former, I have been a lifelong questioner of the latter.

Regarding the former, let me state—up front—that I am not a Scientologist nor, do I imagine, that I ever would or could be. I'm not a religionist of any kind, actually; everywhere I have found "dogma," I've also found a traffic light stuck—interminably—on red, at that same intersection. (And for traffic in every direction! Neat trick, that.)

So what about Scientology "tech" do I find interesting then? And why?

My interest comes, mostly, from having known some ex-Scientologists—two of them quite well—who, over a long period of time, learned to despise the "church," but nonetheless retained much respect for the "tech"—even after having experienced some unforgettable sorts of harassment from the then "Guardian's Office." (If memory serves, CoS has since changed the name of the "home office" for its inquisitors. But I could be wrong about that.) One of these ex-Scientologists, a female, had gone "Clear" and the second one, a male, had become an "Operating Thetan."

While both of these people told me, separately, that they had experienced deep personal transformation from the "tech," both had also become deeply afraid of the "church." After listening to the stories of these and other ex-Scientologists, I had become afraid of both, quite frankly.

Afraid. But also curious.

So one Saturday afternoon when the "Operating Thetan"—now an ex-Scientologist—offered to "audit" me, I consented. Just so long as there were no tape recorder present.

That was really quite a trip. As I held onto two silver cylinders, connected to a device for measuring galvanic skin response called an E-Meter, he asked me a long series of questions—many of them surprisingly personal—and I answered them, every one. And I answered them honestly.

Nevertheless, through the course of the afternoon, he seemed quite surprised by the readings he was getting off of the E-Meter—but no more surprised than I became, when I began to have spontaneous "memories" of a life that I never lived.

At that point in my life, I had never given any credence—or any real thought at all, for that matter—to the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of past life recall. And here I was having one!—while holding onto what I'd assumed to be roughly equivalent to two tin orange juice cans.

Pretty fucking nuts, huh?

And the thing was, he had not been asking me questions even remotely related to the vivid "memories" that spontaneously emerged during this afternoon auditing session.

My first and last, by the way.

But both of us were stunned by the outcome, which had been quite unexpected.

Ever since, I have retained a curiosity about the "tech," even though I have experienced an increasing degree of mistrust for the "church" over the years.

I can think of no more fascinating subject than that TKL.

It would be interesting to have a discussion about "the role of the mind in 'creating reality'" and—specifically—the question you've articulated so well, "How did I get myself into this mess?"

I'm also interested in what "excommunicated Scientologists in the freezone" have to say about these questions.

But maybe there have been many such discussions here, and I'm just a late-comer to the party.

Well, I don't want to turn Jeff's discussion board into "alt.clearing.technology" part two. I have given plenty of links for anyone who wants to follow up on the freezone. My only goal is to bring a realistic view of the role of scientology in contemporary history. As far as I can tell, I'm the first member of this board to bring up clearing practice without bashing it.

I'll tell ya, scientology, even as it's practiced in the freezone, is seriously flawed. There are key flaws in it that will ruin a spiritual seeker. However, to be closed minded to a community of spiritual seekers just because they are associated with a vilified "brand" is beyond the pale of "liberal tolerance." To be so closed-minded is underneath an honest philosopher ("lover of wisdom").

Perhaps, Eldritch, you can bring up a "reality" question or put forth a thesis in the lounge - you and I can hash it out there

I haven't put forth a thesis, but I have presented what, to me, are compelling reasons to—at least—not totally dismiss the "tech," or the deep questions about reality that may be suggested by the experiences some people have had with it.

[theeKultleeder]

Eldritch, I have never had any auditing; my fascination for clearing technology comes by way of an interest in occultism. I spent several years lurking on usenet and gathering all the "intelligence" I could. I came to know two things quite well: Hubbard's cult and the "tech." My conclusion is that they are only one and the same in a couple of places.

I have read accounts like yours, and I have read accounts of successful "exteriorization," or induced out-of-body-experiences. Your story strikes me as unremarkable except for the fact that you are a live person telling it at RigInt! I suspect you were audited on an "L" list - is that so?

Some will say that scientology became dianetics because Hubbard's self-improvement scam needed a tax shelter (religion). Others will say that scientology grew out of the fact dianetic auditing had a nasty habit of not ending at birth or conception - people kept going earlier to past lives! The funny thing is, even if Hubbard was a total scam artist and never meant for anyone to be "released" from anything except for their money, people got something out of the practice, and so it continues in the freezone even after people are kicked out of the church.

It has been said (and I forget by who) that dianetic past-life auditing is based on a Crowley practice called Viae Memoriae, as published in a Thelema "Liber," Liber Thisharb. This little liber is included in the book "Magick in Theory and Practice." Here are some lines from that writing:

Having allowed the mind to return for some hundred times to the hour of birth, it should be encouraged to endeavour to penetrate beyond that period. If it be properly trained to run backwards, there will be little difficulty in doing this, although it is one of the distinct steps in the practice...

So the adept has military genius, or much knowledge of Greek; how do these attainments help his purpose, or the purpose of the Brothers? He was put to death by Calvin, or stoned by Hezekiah; as a snake he was killed by a villager, or as an elephant slain in battle under Hamilcar. How do such memories help him? Until he have thoroughly mastered the reason for every incident in his past, and found a purpose for every item of his present equipment, he cannot truly answer even those Three Question what were first put to him, even the Three Questions of the Ritual of the Pyramid; he is not ready to swear the Oath of the Abyss.

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib913.html

In the context of the "magical memory" then, dianetic auditing becomes a guided meditation. The other processes of scientology can be seen as guided mediations, too. So if the practice of scientology is nothing more mysterious than guided meditation, we can look at what it does and why, and perhaps become a "case supervisor" and compile our own processes for specific purposes, or perhaps a person can do "clearing" alone. The Pilot wrote a book called Self-Clearing in an attempt to do just that. I'd like to add that in the Tibetan tradition, an accomplished yogi will compile his own "sadhana," or method of attainment using various techniques.

I think that there are several practical flaws in "facilitated clearing" or regular auditing. For one, the emeter should be done away with except for experimental actions; any facilitator worth his salt should be able to sense the reactions of a client without a machine telling him - and any client should be open and willing enough to work on what needs to be worked on, what presents itself. Also, many processes can be re-worked to be "content free," where the client doesn't have to verbalize anything to the facilitator. Doing clearing content-free, without the client verbalizing anything serves two purposes: it completely eliminates the dangers of intelligence gathering, blackmail, and interpersonal manipulation, and two: it prepares the client for solo-clearing or "unguided meditation," because these spiritual practices SHOULD lead to a level where the person doesn't need a meter or a facilitator to work on spiritual development.

Those are the practical solutions I see to flaws in clearing practice. I also see metaphysical flaws in the belief system, but those are a little abstract. Perhaps we can take them up later; these are just my opening remarks.

-tKl

[Eldritch]

Eldritch, I have never had any auditing; my fascination for clearing technology comes by way of an interest in occultism. I spent several years lurking on usenet and gathering all the "intelligence" I could. I came to know two things quite well: Hubbard's cult and the "tech." My conclusion is that they are only one and the same in a couple of places.

I have read accounts like yours, and I have read accounts of successful "exteriorization," or induced out-of-body-experiences. Your story strikes me as unremarkable except for the fact that you are a live person telling it at RigInt!

I think you're right. It is "unremarkable"; since having had that experience I have heard many such accounts. Discovering that this is fairly common piqued my interest, even more.

I suspect you were audited on an "L" list - is that so?

I have no idea. Frankly, their jargon is often pretty over the top, as far as I'm concerned. Even if he had told me that I was being audited on an "L list," I doubt I would have understood what he was even talking about.

Some will say that scientology became dianetics because Hubbard's self-improvement scam needed a tax shelter (religion). Others will say that scientology grew out of the fact dianetic auditing had a nasty habit of not ending at birth or conception - people kept going earlier to past lives! The funny thing is, even if Hubbard was a total scam artist and never meant for anyone to be "released" from anything except for their money, people got something out of the practice, and so it continues in the freezone even after people are kicked out of the church.

It has been said (and I forget by who) that dianetic past-life auditing is based on a Crowley practice called Viae Memoriae, as published in a Thelema "Liber," Liber Thisharb. This little liber is included in the book "Magick in Theory and Practice." Here are some lines from that writing:

Having allowed the mind to return for some hundred times to the hour of birth, it should be encouraged to endeavour to penetrate beyond that period. If it be properly trained to run backwards, there will be little difficulty in doing this, although it is one of the distinct steps in the practice...

So the adept has military genius, or much knowledge of Greek; how do these attainments help his purpose, or the purpose of the Brothers? He was put to death by Calvin, or stoned by Hezekiah; as a snake he was killed by a villager, or as an elephant slain in battle under Hamilcar. How do such memories help him? Until he have thoroughly mastered the reason for every incident in his past, and found a purpose for every item of his present equipment, he cannot truly answer even those Three Question what were first put to him, even the Three Questions of the Ritual of the Pyramid; he is not ready to swear the Oath of the Abyss.

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib913.html

Thank you for the quote. And I think your analysis is correct. Hubbard had quite an interest in Crowley's person and work, as we know. He even referred to him as his "friend," in one of his lectures.

Also, given that Hubbard was involved in Naval Intelligence, it would not be surprising for me to discover that his Scientology organization became the "beneficiary" of some experimental techniques in his day, methods for tapping into the mind.

And possibly fairly powerful ones.

In the context of the "magical memory" then, dianetic auditing becomes a guided meditation. The other processes of scientology can be seen as guided mediations, too. So if the practice of scientology is nothing more mysterious than guided meditation, we can look at what it does and why, and perhaps become a "case supervisor" and compile our own processes for specific purposes, or perhaps a person can do "clearing" alone. The Pilot wrote a book called Self-Clearing in an attempt to do just that.

Ideally, a person should be able to do that, I would think. That is, if it really works. That active Scientologists would attest that it works doesn't impress me particularly. That ex-Scientologists—often, persons who now dislike the CoS very, very much—sometimes still attest that it worked for them (at least in the beginning) IS something I find interesting.

Of course, it could be that they just can't bring themselves to admit they wasted all that money —but I tend to think there's probably more to it than that.

I'd like to add that in the Tibetan tradition, an accomplished yogi will compile his own "sadhana," or method of attainment using various techniques.

I think that there are several practical flaws in "facilitated clearing" or regular auditing. For one, the emeter should be done away with except for experimental actions; any facilitator worth his salt should be able to sense the reactions of a client without a machine telling him - and any client should be open and willing enough to work on what needs to be worked on, what presents itself.

True. Of course, especially several decades ago, the E-Meter provided the ambiance of "science" that was very much desired by the fledgling "church." I also suspect that the E-Meter may do some other things too, many of them having to do with subtle but very effective techniques in brainwashing.

It is this latter function that I suspect the Church of Scientology to be utilizing most often, once the adherent is "hooked"; as such, their "tech" is quite dangerous.

Also, many processes can be re-worked to be "content free," where the client doesn't have to verbalize anything to the facilitator. Doing clearing content-free, without the client verbalizing anything serves two purposes: it completely eliminates the dangers of intelligence gathering, blackmail, and interpersonal manipulation…

I guess we know why they do it the other way, then.

…and two: it prepares the client for solo-clearing or "unguided meditation," because these spiritual practices SHOULD lead to a level where the person doesn't need a meter or a facilitator to work on spiritual development.

Yes. If these techniques really work long term—and that is a bit "if"—the goal should then be to make the individual using them autonomous, and able to utilize these methods on his/her own.

Of course, the "church" wouldn't be able to make so much money that way...

Those are the practical solutions I see to flaws in clearing practice. I also see metaphysical flaws in the belief system, but those are a little abstract.

They may be abstract, but I wouldn't be surprised if we agree on some of them.

Personally, I have learned to be rather cynical about the CoS. So much potential seems so well-hidden behind the cult itself. If you wanted to hide, say, a five carat diamond ring in a place nobody would find it, throwing it in a vat of sewage would be a pretty good place to hide that diamond—not just so that nobody would be able to find it, but so that few would even try.

I see potential in much of it being hidden behind Perhaps we can take them up later; these are just my opening remarks. -tKl

So far, I've rather appreciated some of your points of view on this.

[OP ED]

I wish I'd seen this earlier.

I'm only peripherally familiar with Dianetics and Sci's "tech", my information largely a result of places like this.

TKL: I am not certain of the background of this thread, are you able to elaborate further regarding your involvement/understanding with/of this tech?

I'm of a primarily [noncardcarrying] Thelemic bent in my own occult practices. ThisharB is one of my own daily practices [although it is adapted somewhat from the document you quote for those who have already take the abyssmal oath], and I've found it to be remarkably therapeutic, if nothing else. It seems to heighten my mental abilities, in general, and generates a calming sensation, as of just waking from a pleasant nap.

spontaneous OBE is also a common occurrence, and indeed is one of the goals of Crowley's method.

Uncle Al never had anything kind to say of Hubbard, and only referred to him a couple times before he died. I do see some elements of Jack Parsons elaborations [degradations] of the AA [oto] methods/teachings in bits and pieces of what you've said so far.

I am interested in any information that may be useful in increasing the effectiveness of my own practices.

Also, continuing this discussion, as my interest is more than piqued.

[FourthBase]

I wish I'd seen this earlier.

I'm only peripherally familiar with Dianetics and Sci's "tech", my information largely a result of places like this.

TKL: I am not certain of the background of this thread, are you able to elaborate further regarding your involvement/understanding with/of this tech?

I'm of a primarily [noncardcarrying] Thelemic bent in my own occult practices. ThisharB is one of my own daily practices [although it is adapted somewhat from the document you quote for those who have already take the abyssmal oath], and I've found it to be remarkably therapeutic, if nothing else. It seems to heighten my mental abilities, in general, and generates a calming sensation, as of just waking from a pleasant nap.

spontaneous OBE is also a common occurrence, and indeed is one of the goals of Crowley's method.

Uncle Al never had anything kind to say of Hubbard, and only referred to him a couple times before he died. I do see some elements of Jack Parsons elaborations [degradations] of the AA [oto] methods/teachings in bits and pieces of what you've said so far.

I am interested in any information that may be useful in increasing the effectiveness of my own practices.

Also, continuing this discussion, as my interest is more than piqued.

TKL was banned for misbehaving, or something.

You know, I think I can begin to see what gullible people find charming about the Co$ tech, despite the lunacy of it all. Talking out problems and memories with someone you can trust can't be such a bad thing. In fact, I think it's probably a good thing. I don't understand why there has to be a freaking lie detector to monitor you as you talk shit out, though. And I fundamentally abhor any "religious" or psychological process that intends to extirpate memories, experiences. I could even understand if such talking out used an extraterrestrial creation myth or some other absurd cosmological premise (think Bokononism) as a ploy to relax the senses, as makeshift scaffolding for the brain/soul...but no, it is not okay -- in fact it's fucking evil -- to wind up with adherents who dogmatically believe in the myth, to emotionally enslave them within it, to turn them against themselves. Not fucking cool, if not also deserving of eternal hate and opposition. That goes for all cults.

[OP ED]

I wish I'd seen this earlier.

I'm only peripherally familiar with Dianetics and Sci's "tech", my information largely a result of places like this.

TKL: I am not certain of the background of this thread, are you able to elaborate further regarding your involvement/understanding with/of this tech?

I'm of a primarily [noncardcarrying] Thelemic bent in my own occult practices. ThisharB is one of my own daily practices [although it is adapted somewhat from the document you quote for those who have already take the abyssmal oath], and I've found it to be remarkably therapeutic, if nothing else. It seems to heighten my mental abilities, in general, and generates a calming sensation, as of just waking from a pleasant nap.

spontaneous OBE is also a common occurrence, and indeed is one of the goals of Crowley's method.

Uncle Al never had anything kind to say of Hubbard, and only referred to him a couple times before he died. I do see some elements of Jack Parsons elaborations [degradations] of the AA [oto] methods/teachings in bits and pieces of what you've said so far.

I am interested in any information that may be useful in increasing the effectiveness of my own practices.

Also, continuing this discussion, as my interest is more than piqued.

TKL was banned for misbehaving, or something.

You know, I think I can begin to see what gullible people find charming about the Co$ tech, despite the lunacy of it all. Talking out problems and memories with someone you can trust can't be such a bad thing. In fact, I think it's probably a good thing. I don't understand why there has to be a freaking lie detector to monitor you as you talk shit out, though. And I fundamentally abhor any "religious" or psychological process that intends to extirpate memories, experiences. I could even understand if such talking out used an extraterrestrial creation myth or some other absurd cosmological premise (think Bokononism) as a ploy to relax the senses, as makeshift scaffolding for the brain/soul...but no, it is not okay -- in fact it's fucking evil -- to wind up with adherents who dogmatically believe in the myth, to emotionally enslave them within it, to turn them against themselves. Not fucking cool, if not also deserving of eternal hate and opposition. That goes for all cults.

Oh okay, fair enough. I didn't know TKL so I don't know how to feel.

I'm more interested in the purely engineering side of Scientology. I couldn't care for their wetbrained philosophies.

I was wondering for details to their methods, involving how one uses this E device, and how their NLP techniques interact with this mechanism.

I suppose I shall probably just scour the net.

[compared2what?]

I too wish I had seen this earlier.

Eldritch, there are one thousand and one ways for one person to induce a trance-like state in another, even if neither party wittingly intends it. Or to induce one in oneself. Shit. I am going to have to interrupt myself now for a brief public service announcement.

# # #

I know as much about Scientology as any outsider who is not a full-time exclusive specialist in the subject can, and quite a bit about cults in general, as a result of years of serious study in the area. That said, I don't think I need to tell you that you shouldn't accept anyone as an authority, just on his or her word, since you already know it. Plus, I'm not an authority. Just well-informed, to the best of my capacity for information.

# # #

And we're back. Trance-like states, of sufficient depth for the kind of altered consciousness you describe, are achievable through a number of routes, including but not limited to spinning, chanting, rhythmic breathing, call and response, or partial sensory deprivation, by themselves or in combination with minor environmental boosters such as higher or lower temperature or -- in a forum, seminar, or retreat setting -- eating less or less nutrient-rich food than you usually do, getting a little less sleep than you usually do, getting a little more exercise than you usually do, and so forth.

A competent program of behavioral control will probably forge and reinforce a perceived bond between the altered state and the group doctrine (as opposed to the embedded stimulus that actually caused it) by reciprocal use of unique language, gesture, physical contact, or (I'm serious) style of dress. It will also probably initiate a dominance-submission dynamic in some not very conspicuous way, and for an ostensibly constructive reason. Not allowing seminar participants to use the bathroom once the seminar has started because complete benefit requires complete dedication is a classic example. There's also an infinity of variations on the fairly straightforward manipulative techniques that have been in common use to pretty much every con artist, stage magician, and cult for the last several centuries.

In any event. To return to the e-meter thing. Without knowing details, I couldn't say exactly what combination of rapidly repeated stimuli within an uninterrupted and not necessarily very lengthy sustained period of time allowed you to move into the state of consciousness in which the past-life experiences (or whatever they were, I don't pretend to know) were accessible to you. Milton Erickson developed a method that Scientology intake centers are alleged to use that doesn't take more than hand gestures. But I absolutely guarantee that it was not anything unique to Scientology or to any aspect of the tech to which Scientology attributes it.

If you're interested in attaining and exploring that state...that's not an area I'm confident that I'm well informed about, so I'm not really qualified to say. But it doesn't take a lot of looking to find disciplines or sub-disciplines of basically good repute that move in that direction. However, if they promise benefits of any kind, or lead you to believe that it will easy, or that it can be done quickly or without a lot of practice, they are deceiving you and maybe themselves, and you should stay away from them. Because (you know it (a) just ain't easy; and (b) might not, depending on individual factors, even be possible via a less than demanding route. If it were, obviously, we'd all be trippin' in the realms of light right now in an orgy of spiritual bliss, not posting to the RI discussion board. A minor distinction, I know, but nonetheless real for it.

Love,

C2W

[tKl]

HI!!!!!!!

I'M BACK!!!!!!!!!

OP ED: great comments. Keep on the Thisharb practice. Google "R3R" and read Homer Wilson Smith's review of the process, the basic Dianetic process as it was refined over twenty years in Hubbard's cult. Read Stanislav Grof and about his "COEX systems."

Look at the Isle of Lyngvi blog. Download and read the Art of Memetics from greylodge. Dianetics in the magical arts gets a footnote in it, as does Rigorous Intuition!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read my blogs!!!!!!!! Soon, I will be posting a memory practice I call Disentanglement.

Thanks! and Love is Law, under Will!!!!

[OP ED]

told you i'd get around to replying sooner or later tKl...

HI!!!!!!!

I'M BACK!!!!!!!!!

OP ED: great comments. Keep on the Thisharb practice. Google "R3R" and read Homer Wilson Smith's review of the process, the basic Dianetic process as it was refined over twenty years in Hubbard's cult. Read Stanislav Grof and about his "COEX systems."

Look at the Isle of Lyngvi blog. Download and read the Art of Memetics from greylodge. Dianetics in the magical arts gets a footnote in it, as does Rigorous Intuition!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read my blogs!!!!!!!! Soon, I will be posting a memory practice I call Disentanglement.

Thanks! and Love is Law, under Will!!!!

i know greylodge, but hadn't been for a bit. thanks for the pdf. i might've missed it.




While, as I said above, my methods are primarily those of the western hermetic tradition [with some eastern techniques for flavoring] I've been looking about for a bit for alternatives. The ability of the auditors in Scitech to cue to appropriate responses fascinates me. While I find the sort of platforming they do to be distasteful, the cues could just as easily be used for pure therapeute purpoises.

ghack. apologies. channels.

I've seen more emotive approaches linking organic rhythm and weighted imagery for a more right brained approach [though its never so simple]. These seem capable of inducing "initiatic" experience [ ie Contact, see Barbelith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borborites) ] with even occassionally repeated exposures. NLP can also be utilized with glyphs to integrate hemispherical knowledge.

My google searches haven't brought me anything specific, but I'm still looking.

Aynone know any Giordano Bruno in English?

I've been translating it, but it makes it rather tedious, and I'd avoid the headache if someone has already done so. English title would be "On the Shadow(s) of Ideas".

Bugger was writing about Memetics while living in a world where heliocentrism was a dangerous ideas. Poor bastard.

Love is Law,
SHD8CRD :: ::

[tKl]

Hey Op Ed -

I'm pretty Zen in my approach to "contact" with entities and inner chiefs and so on; I mean it might be at best a distraction and at worst a dangerous spiritual hallucination.

"Scitech" is a mixed bag - one first must consider it separately from the cult of Hubbard, and then look at the mechanics of the processes. Some of the techniques I believe are on the right track. Every good lie has truth twisted up in it and powerful truths are contained in powerful lies. I view NLP in much the same way - look at the mechanics.

Bruno is cool, but a curiosity? I doubt his writing has much to reveal. The technique of the Art of Memory is implicit in the Generation Stages of Tibetan Tantra. Much like Hannibal Lecter used a "memory palace" in Hannibal, meditators build an elaborate divine palace in their minds where each architectural feature, being, posture, and piece of clothing have specific meanings pertinent to the teachings.

I may as well say it here, because in it's been on my mind: the "body thetan" levels of scientology are universally maligned and rightly so, but is this another case of a failed process on the right track? After re-reading the various books on Goetia I thought that maybe Hubbard's experience with Parsons had given him trouble with entities - Enochian or Goetic - and that the body-thetan levels and its absurd mythology were an attempt to deal with that trouble.

It is actually quite brilliant - a magician seeks to control such an entity and ends up being influenced by the entity; truly a devil's bargain. In the OT levels of scientology the solo-auditor wants to "wake up" these lower entities and audit them to spiritual health and freedom so that they detach and kind of dissolve into their origins.

Worth looking into I think, and quite a different take on Goetic magic.

[compared2what?]

Hey, tkl:

I defend your right to speak freely about whatever you want. So please consider the following to be nothing more and nothing less than me availing myself of the same right:

As an organization, Scientology is potentially dangerous enough that it's neither an exaggeration nor a statistically trivial assertion to say that you may be risking your life by engaging with it. To invoke its name on a public forum in a positive context without any mention at all of that potential, as you just did, is, by my lights, inexcusably irresponsible and I both object to it and -- in a mild and not-personally-punitive-to-you way -- unequivocally condemn it.

In intellectual terms, I also think that any argument that involves the application of reason to a question of faith in order to reach a conclusion that ostensibly justifies any kind of faith as fundamentally rational is so bogus that it might as well be made in nonsense syllables as in words.

And that's not an argument against faith, btw. On a private basis, I honor faith for what it is, as chance would have it. But my personal status as a believer or unbeliever is totally irrelevant to the process whereby I gauge the stupidity of any line of reasoning on any subject.

Because, obviously, the application of faith to reason is not any less bogus than the application of reason to faith. And personally, I enjoy the genuine exercise of my intellect too much for any bogus intellectual exercise to be anything other than a prospectively tedious and pointless waste of a precious resource.

Thanks in advance for your tolerance of the above two cents.

Love,

c2w

[tKl]

Well, c2w, it needs to be constantly reiterated that it is a dangerous organization, so I don't fault you there.

I don't know how many disclaimers will satisfy. I suppose I could air the ideas without mentioning the background of the ideas, and then those clever or studied enough can draw their own conclusions, but then I leave myself open to accusations of "stealth scientologist" besides being intellectually dishonest. Either way I'm screwed I guess.

I applaud your moral bravery in taking the highly controversial public stance that scientology is dangerous. Now the uneducated people who read rigint, or even this single thread, will know that it is a subject fraught with hazards.

[compared2what?]

Well, c2w, it needs to be constantly reiterated that it is a dangerous organization, so I don't fault you there.

I don't know how many disclaimers will satisfy. I suppose I could air the ideas without mentioning the background of the ideas, and then those clever or studied enough can draw their own conclusions, but then I leave myself open to accusations of "stealth scientologist" besides being intellectually dishonest. Either way I'm screwed I guess.

I applaud your moral bravery in taking the highly controversial public stance that scientology is dangerous. Now the uneducated people who read rigint, or even this single thread, will know that it is a subject fraught with hazards.

Dude, it was not a personal attack on you, or even a personal criticism of you. I've never thought you were intellectually dishonest, or said so. I don't claim moral superiority, and wasn't asking for applause, approbation or agreement. You're not obligated to any standard of ethical responsibility in writing other than your own. Obviously.

Owing to a reality that is not of your making, I don't think it's safe to assume an informed reader. One disclaimer per occasion is plenty, imo, but no one adheres to that standard, and I wouldn't curse you if you didn't. Basically, I wasn't demanding any concession from you, or even asking for anything other than your tolerance of my opinion. Which is and was only personal insofar as it is and was my personal opinion. What it isn't and wasn't was my personal opinion about you.

So please relax and if having my respect is enjoyable to you, enjoy it. Otherwise ignore it. I'm good either way.

[tKl]

Watch your words, wordsmith; it is a responsibility I am still getting used to.

No harm done. You played a good part for the crowd who maybe read this. You speak true, and I thank you.

Be cool.