Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: asbestos@midway.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: My opinion on Scientology (a serious post)
In-Reply-To: whatis@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu's message of 20 Jul 91 18: 56:29 GMT
Message-ID: <asbestos.22Jul91.03458@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: Acme Flame-Resistant Systems
References: <RBNSTEIN.91Jul19165411@bucsf.bu.edu> <17114@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 00:07:45 GMT

In article <17114@life.ai.mit.edu> whatis@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (....What Is?....) writes:

>In article <RBNSTEIN.91Jul19165411@bucsf.bu.edu> rbnstein@bucsf.bu.edu (Michael Rubinstein) writes:

>EST is considered a "squirrel group." Here is the definition of

By whom? The Scientologists? Yeah, really great authority there.

>"squirrel" straight out of my Tech Dictionary: "Those who engage in >actions altering Scientology, and offbeat practices." There is in >fact an entire "EST Repair Rundown".

Standard practice: if one group of kooks wants to discredit another, all they have to do is claim that their enemies copied from them.

Of course, there is the possibility that the imitators improved the garbage they stole. (For one thing, from what I've heard about est, Werner never charged anybody $3600 for an ohmmeter.)

>Thatnkfully that's particular to EST. I have never felt indoctrinated.

The better the indoctrination, the less likely you are to notice.

>And I worked for the San Diego org for five months! The data is in >the books. If you use it and it works, then it's true to you. If you >read something that you don't want to believe, you don't have to. It

Sounds like you're not supposed to accept anything not in the books.

>sources, and started filling in correlations. Psychology has discovered >that getting peole to talk about their pain helps. This sounds like >they're b6owing engrams without knowing what they're doing. (In fact, >gestalt psychology sound to me more like Dianetics than any other >branch of psychology.)

More likely, the auditors are doing a bit of valid therapy without knowing why. Can you say "witch doctors," boys and girls?

>How so? If you mean that Scientology doesn't seem to tolerate deviance >from the core of the technology, I will quote from Ron:

>of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a >handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and NONE >were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions >and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to 'eat >crow.' On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of >suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have >resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the >sanity of [preclears]. So I know what a group of peole wil do and how

And how did he know that only those twenty were worthwhile?

And where does he get off claiming that the "preclears" would be damaged by this stuff?

>> I am also sickened by >>the near-deification of L. Ron Hubbard (particularly typified in a huge

>This put me off too, when I first noticed it. But after you realize >the scope of what he's accomplished, you won't think it's so strange.

What's he done?

>>I think that Dianetics works for a lot of people for the same reason >>that faith-healing works for so many: the placebo effect. The mind has

>This shows your misunderstanding of what Dianetics is. For someone who >has never read the book, this viewpoint is not surprising. I would in >fact expect it. I recommend you read Dianetics. It's only about $5 >paperback, and it took me about a week to read.

Slow reader.

Are you going to give any support for your viewpoint?

>I covered this earlier. As far as giving psychiatry any credit, in the >July 14 edition of the San Diego Union, there was an article about how >psychiatrists want to increase the use of shock therapy, and how the >Church of Scientology was opposed to that. I wouldn't even get near a >psychiatrist!

Maybe they're right. How would you know?

-- asbestos@midway.uchicago.edu

Not that I see anything wrong with these views! No, sir! I don't even *have* a sock drawer! --Dave Barry

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank