From: homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith)
Subject: Re: Higher Ideals
Organization: Me
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 10:37:06 GMT



>Of course you can.  But -- as you yourself state -- these things can
>only be known to you, so is there really any point in telling me about
>them?
 
     Only if you exist, have a brain and are an alive conscious being.
I may never be able to know that you exist, are alive and a conscious
being, but on the off chance that your are, and to humor my little
psychological need to believe that you do exist, then by all means
showing you how and what I have found, might possibly help you find and
attain such things yourself.
 
     Just because I can not PROVE to you that I have experienced
something does not mean I can not help you to experience the
same thing in yourself, even if you could never prove to me I was
successful in helping you.

>
>Does it has to have a name?  Okay, just to oblige you, here is a word:
>"grok" (introduced by Robert A. Heinlein in the novel "Stranger in a
>Strange Land"). The way RAH used it seems to me to cover fairly well
>what you seem to be engaged in.

    Good, can we then convince the Scientologists to call their
stuff Grokology and leave the word science alone?

>
>I would appreciate that very much, but haven't much hope.  The words
>"science" and "religion" seems to hold an enormous attraction to RTC
>and the Church of Scientology.  

     The only thing that has attraction to the RTC is MONEY.
 
>It is easy to see what the facination
>is.  Being able to call something a "science" (even an "exact
>science") and "religion" at the same time gives (among other things)
>scientologists the opportunity to play mind games like this:
>
     
     Well I am sure that what the Scientologists mean by science
is not what you mean.  Perhaps they should clear the word in
a dictionary, but what they mean is inner discovery through
observation, induction, theory, deduction, experiment, verification.
 
     Right or wrong, they are clearly trying to stay away from
the idea that all religions are based on faith and stupidity,
and blind viscious ignorance and believing what you are told.
 
     Your protestations to the contrary, most of earth has a very
degraded view of religion, thanks to a few that are around,
and to them religion means faith, belief, suspension of critical
faculty, getting the answers first and formulating the questions
and data to fit the answers etc.
 
     One should also be able to separate the ideals put forth
by a Church from the actual behavior of their Adherents even
of the founding father, who may not be perfect or
completely sane.
 
     Thus, rightly, they are trying to let others know that
Scientology (they claim) is not this form of debased religion, and
so they use the word science as the closest thing
there is to what they mean that the average person in the street
will understand.
 
     I understand it, I have no problem with their use of the
word, I just change my definition of it when reading what they post,
and change it back again when talking to you.
 
     They claim that their journey of experiment and discovery has
taken them to a higher state of consciousness, whereby they
can remember their past lives and their fall, and begin
to take responsibility for their future lives, and that we 
are all immortal beings degraded into bodies from overt acts 
and withholds etc.  Am I getting this right, Dave?

     I would have to agree that IF THIS IS TRUE, then their
experimentation has indeed taken them from the world of
the body and mind to the world of the Divine Soul, 
in that it provides a way back to a less fallen state, and so
perhaps it should also be called a religion.
 
     I personally do not have religion and science opposed
to each other.  I believe that if God exists, you should be
able to make contact with that God and prove it to others,
if only by helping them make that contact too.
 
     But I am reminded of the Christian saying that only the
pure in Heart shall see God.
 
     So I would hope that the Scientologists 'science' of the
soul would help men purify themselves to a point where
they were able and WILLING to see God.

     However I don't think that making FAIR GAME OF THE LAW
is what God had in mind.

     You could even write these methods and results up and 
publish it in the Journal of American Psychiatry, but most of 
them would probably laugh at you, as in my opinion most of 
them are Godless jerks.  

     Sorry. I grew up with one, my temper is flaring.

     The strange idea is that a way to realize higher
states of consciousness needs to be found in the first place,
I mean how DID we lose it, really!, and that a process of
questioning and theorizing and experimentation on mental
processing or techniques could over a long period of time
lead to a greater understanding of the MECHANISM of the fall
from such a higher state, and therefore lead to a new
and workale means by which we could help ourselves and others 
dependably regain it.
 
     I guess Hubbard claims to have done this work for himself,
and apparently others seem to think it works, although they
are being secretive as hell about it.  The ECK people are
also secretive as have been endless generations of Free Masons,
Alchemists, and Rosicrucians, not to mention endless numbers
of Spiritual groups I don't even know about because they
were so secret!

     So rather than attack the Scientologists on this subject of whether
its a science or not, or trying to get them to prove things
about super human powers to a world that would certainly crucify them
in a moment if they did, why don't we instead
concentrate on getting their dirty laundry out in the open.

     Point out to them that free speach and
freedom of RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY are much more important in the
scheme of things than being a Scientologist, and that giving
lip service to these things through their creed does not make
up for the fascist internal control they exercise over their
own members and the terrorist acitivites they initiate towards 
those who choose to leave to find a better life
or to build a better Bridge.
 
     Perhaps if you point out to them that there are higher ideals
in the world than Scientology, and that if Scientology were
to chose to live under the umbrella of those ideals, even in war, 
then possibly they might win their war of breaking down the ridge that seems
to constitute social conduct on this planet at this time.
 
     But as long as their primary statistic is money, and their
modus operandi is ignoring the law, hiding behind the law, or using the law
as their instrument of illegality, then their sole product will
be enturbulation, entheta and failure.
 
     They will not, can not, and must not win as long as they
violate their own Creed.

     The same goes for the American Government, the FBI, the CIA, the
IRS, and the FDA.
 
     It's like between the Church and the Goverment you got two
bloody damn well spoiled brats fighting each other laying waste to the
principles and foundations that this country was built on.
 
     Its like every one on both sides of this conflict should go
get a real good dictionary and clear the hell out of the word
 
     JUSTIFICATION.

     Homer





Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology