From braintree!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.micron.net!news Fri Nov 3 10:11:51 1995
Subject: Have you seen their eyes? (reply)
Date: 2 Nov 1995 20:11:41 GMT
Organization: Micron Internet Services
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Rather than spend an hour replying to all the Q's on my post about
the value of CofS tech, I'll respond in summary.
Evolution of methods:
The basis for my statement inplying that humans haven't evolved beyond
the methods I find useful in CofS is this: Using communication skills as
an example, if one assumes that there is a discernable pattern to
effective communication (and I do), and if a technique is designed to
enhance this mechanic, then , IMO, humans would have to evolve to a
higher or different level of communication for the technique to be
The building up of muscles is a good analogy. Despite the many different
machines, regimes and schools that promise good physiques, they all have
to boil down to what the body requires must happen in order to build up
Diane mentions psychology and advancements in behaviour mod. I haven't
read any recent advances (maybe I should), but I'm skeptical that any
new methods have abandoned the basic premise: bringing about desired
behaviour through manipulative re-enforcement. Humans have been using
behaviour mod since long before psychotherapy was invented and humans have
been communicating since long before TR drills were invented. I don't
see how a new book, or a new view changes the basic facts.
My view that Scn offers many good tools for people is no more an
endorsement of LRH or CofS than Diane's approval of Psychology could be
automatically considered an endorsement of Freud's personal life or
abuses by therapists over the last century.
The thread about subjective results would be fairly easy to resolve
using popular demographic tools. If one were so inclined, had the
funding and was able to get CofS to co-operate . Lacking
that, I think I'm accurate in stating that psychology, psychology
and it's implementation in our schools, workplaces and prisons has been
an abysmal failure. Society's descent into irresponsibilty, drugs,
rampant crime and violence is being documented daily and I can't
see that psychology has stemmed the tide one bit.
Does this make the *tech* a cure? Nope. But those particular aspects
of Scn tech which are useful can go a long way towards giving individuals
the needed tools to deal with problems and survival issues in their
own lives. That Psychological methods have also been proven effective
(where they have) doesn't invalidate scn tech.
Attacking the tech of scn is pointless. Too many current and ex users
will defend it. It's the type of attack that Hubbard himself used to
invite (he did state that bad pr is better than no pr). The tech isn't
a weak point. Not even Xemu, the boo-hoos or implants. I have read the
bible, the book of morman and many other religious texts. They all
contain outrageous stories and require a suspension of disbelief if the
reader intends to get at the underlying principles of the movement.
While many ars posters chortle and hoot about scn and it's sci-fi stories,
fully 70% of the American public believe in UFO's and the majority of
the inhabitants of our planet believe in re-incarnation. This tells me
that for every news story that mentions OT3 data or past lives, you're
likely to excite the interest of about as many people as you'll dissuade.
If you don't like CofS and it's mngmnt practices, then I fail to see
how the tech of scn is the issue. Instead, I'd suggest a reading of the
basics and gaining and understanding about what does and doesn't work.
From that one could see why it's defended so enthusiastically by it's
Unless, of course, one is afraid that by reading about it, or maybe doing
a comm course, one might become a member against their will ;-)
The threat isn't the tech, it's the advancement of the RTC and it's
subsidiaries and their abuse of tax law and of their staff. A secondary
issue is their pricing and false promises under the guise of religion.