Alright I don't get it

Moderator: doubleVee

<<

Phenomanon

Non-E

Posts: 4

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 7:46 am

Post Wed May 14, 2008 8:53 am

Alright I don't get it

Ok so an SP is described as those "who possess characteristics and mental attitudes that cause them to violently oppose any betterment activity or group,"
Question 1: The word meaning any that one might come across (indescriminately)? or just any one at all?
Question 2: If so then couldn't a Scientologist be considered an SP.
My reasoning being: The group (well not so much a group personally I see it more as a label than anything as a group implies some kind of structure) anonymous are all pretty much SP's for speaking out against Scientology. The ESK's, Tory Magoo, WBM, all SP's for the same reason. But in all actuality, all they're speaking out against something that they don't believe in that they have personal experience with. CoS has a long history of misguided practices, maliciousness, abuse (mental and physical) etc. However Scientology sees itself as a self betterment group.
However, Scientology persecutes Psychiatry as an "industry of death." Now I've seen a psychiatrist in my past and I can tell you that I don't agree with psychiatry myself. I didn't need it and I didn't use it but that's not to say that it hasn't helped others. Maybe there are others that really need it and some who have really benefited from it. Some (not all) psychiatrists are money grubbing people who will flip ritelan like it's candy just so they can charge you 800 dollars a second for you to tell them how you feel, but there are others who genuinley believe that what they are doing is really helping people.
I realise after reading the SP Order (where Hubbard states that a Scientologist can do whatever he wants to an SP without fear of reprocussion) that some (not gonna broadly generalize here) Scientologists can act outside the laws that man has put there for man's own betterment and safety with no fear or reprocussion (in other words above the law) but I mean c'mon srsly? How can someone really justify that kind of double standard with the checkered past that Scientology has? I dunno I just don't get it :?
<<

James McGuigan

User avatar

Ghost in the Machine

Posts: 396

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:42 am

Location: Between Reality Tunnels

Post Wed May 14, 2008 5:13 pm

The double standard is justified because Scientology is the "one and only" betterment activity that really matters. Scientology is good and SPs are anti-Scientology. Therefore SPs are anti-good, ie bad.


There are various noble-lies and institutionalized contradictions within the current system and these noble-lies are required for the system to continue in its current form.

From the CoS's point of view, SPs tend to be infectious. SPs have seen through this and are no longer true-believers and have some disagreement with the current system. SPs will often try to communicate these disagreements to their friends and other Scientologists, and talk about some of the hidden contradictions and inconvenient truths within the current system.


To give the medical analogy:

Communication is the infection vector for the viral meme known as "questioning the Church of Scientology". The ethics office acts as an anti-viral, attempting to cure those infected before they become infection themselves. The SP declare and ex-communication is both a deterrent and a form of quarantine (it’s a two-way communication barrier), to prevent further infection and starve the SP of communication terminals.

The most infectious SPs, especially those who seek to infect large numbers of the public, are sometimes fair-gamed, a form of culling, to safeguard the wider population.


Of course, the real problem is not that allowing "Questioning the Church" would be fatal to Scientology (in the long run it would probably make it stronger), but that the Church in its current form, was not exposed to enough questions during its childhood, and thus has developed an allergy to them. Every time an inconvenient question is asked, they develop a large rash, as their immune system over-reacts to something that would otherwise be harmless.


To openly acknowledge these points, would require significantly changing the dynamics and power structures of the current system. This is the system they know, and up till now, is the system that has worked for them, they know no other way. For the CoS, there is too much at stake, both personally and big-picture wise, to abandon their current system and replace it with a far more open model that is un-tested, doesn't allow for their centralised control and would require accepting responsibility for past mistakes. At the very least it would cause a temporary stat crash, while the old system is dismantled and the new system is slowly rebuilt.
Freedom is a choice. Choose to be yourself, choose to speak your truth and do so with compassion. And above all else, choose to be not afraid. If I can't dance, its not my revolution.
<<

ImOut

OTIII

Posts: 187

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:50 am

Location: USA

Post Wed May 14, 2008 9:10 pm

Phenonmanon,

You bring up a very good question and your reasoning makes complete sense.

Basically it's the kettle calling the pan black. Some of what the CofS does, I'd definitely classify as Suppressive. And yes, some of the things that Psychiatry does is Suppressive.

But the problem is, as I see it, is that Scn thinks it does NO WRONG, EVER. And that just isn't true. Disconnection, fair game, RPF, etc. Those are NOT nice things to do. But the CofS justifies it's actions. It's for the betterment of the group. Well, I say BS.

Yes, the CofS considers all of us posting here and saying "bad" things about the CofS are SPs. Well, I'm glad to be one, if that is all they are going by. Because, it's not what the characteristics of an SP are.
Isn't it grand to be out!
<<

Phenomanon

Non-E

Posts: 4

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 7:46 am

Post Wed May 21, 2008 9:04 pm

So basically the defenition should be changed from "any betterment group" to just "Scientology" cause any other betterment group means pretty much squat?
<<

James McGuigan

User avatar

Ghost in the Machine

Posts: 396

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:42 am

Location: Between Reality Tunnels

Post Wed May 21, 2008 11:08 pm

Per policy, an SP is simply somebody who has been found guilty, by a committee of evidence, of one or more high crimes, as defined in:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/crime-syndicate-ethics.htm and has not yet done their A-E steps to get back in good standing with the Church.

This is how the official label is applied or mis-applied. Which is different from philosophical definition of an SP, which describes general personality traits. In theory they should align, in practice it has become another tool of social control.
Freedom is a choice. Choose to be yourself, choose to speak your truth and do so with compassion. And above all else, choose to be not afraid. If I can't dance, its not my revolution.
<<

TheWiseOne

User avatar

Clear

Posts: 126

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:41 am

Post Wed May 21, 2008 11:14 pm

Violently oppose? I don't see a lot of declared SPs falling in this category. Damn those stupid Ethics officers who only saw the words OPPOSE and not VIOLENTLy! You alienated a lot of good people!
<<

bosshog

Clear

Posts: 92

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:27 pm

Post Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:50 am

Re: Alright I don't get it

Phenomanon wrote:Ok so an SP is described as those "who possess characteristics and mental attitudes that cause them to violently oppose any betterment activity or group,"
Question 1: The word meaning any that one might come across (indescriminately)? or just any one at all?
Question 2: If so then couldn't a Scientologist be considered an SP.
My reasoning being: The group (well not so much a group personally I see it more as a label than anything as a group implies some kind of structure) anonymous are all pretty much SP's for speaking out against Scientology. The ESK's, Tory Magoo, WBM, all SP's for the same reason. But in all actuality, all they're speaking out against something that they don't believe in that they have personal experience with. CoS has a long history of misguided practices, maliciousness, abuse (mental and physical) etc. However Scientology sees itself as a self betterment group.
However, Scientology persecutes Psychiatry as an "industry of death." Now I've seen a psychiatrist in my past and I can tell you that I don't agree with psychiatry myself. I didn't need it and I didn't use it but that's not to say that it hasn't helped others. Maybe there are others that really need it and some who have really benefited from it. Some (not all) psychiatrists are money grubbing people who will flip ritelan like it's candy just so they can charge you 800 dollars a second for you to tell them how you feel, but there are others who genuinley believe that what they are doing is really helping people.
I realise after reading the SP Order (where Hubbard states that a Scientologist can do whatever he wants to an SP without fear of reprocussion) that some (not gonna broadly generalize here) Scientologists can act outside the laws that man has put there for man's own betterment and safety with no fear or reprocussion (in other words above the law) but I mean c'mon srsly? How can someone really justify that kind of double standard with the checkered past that Scientology has? I dunno I just don't get it :?


The irony here is that SP's use 'over generalizations such as everyone, they'... yet here it describes an SP as 'anyone'.
<<

bosshog

Clear

Posts: 92

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:27 pm

Post Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:50 am

Re: Alright I don't get it

Phenomanon wrote:Ok so an SP is described as those "who possess characteristics and mental attitudes that cause them to violently oppose any betterment activity or group,"
Question 1: The word meaning any that one might come across (indescriminately)? or just any one at all?
Question 2: If so then couldn't a Scientologist be considered an SP.
My reasoning being: The group (well not so much a group personally I see it more as a label than anything as a group implies some kind of structure) anonymous are all pretty much SP's for speaking out against Scientology. The ESK's, Tory Magoo, WBM, all SP's for the same reason. But in all actuality, all they're speaking out against something that they don't believe in that they have personal experience with. CoS has a long history of misguided practices, maliciousness, abuse (mental and physical) etc. However Scientology sees itself as a self betterment group.
However, Scientology persecutes Psychiatry as an "industry of death." Now I've seen a psychiatrist in my past and I can tell you that I don't agree with psychiatry myself. I didn't need it and I didn't use it but that's not to say that it hasn't helped others. Maybe there are others that really need it and some who have really benefited from it. Some (not all) psychiatrists are money grubbing people who will flip ritelan like it's candy just so they can charge you 800 dollars a second for you to tell them how you feel, but there are others who genuinley believe that what they are doing is really helping people.
I realise after reading the SP Order (where Hubbard states that a Scientologist can do whatever he wants to an SP without fear of reprocussion) that some (not gonna broadly generalize here) Scientologists can act outside the laws that man has put there for man's own betterment and safety with no fear or reprocussion (in other words above the law) but I mean c'mon srsly? How can someone really justify that kind of double standard with the checkered past that Scientology has? I dunno I just don't get it :?


The irony here is that SP's use 'over generalizations such as everyone, they'... yet here it describes an SP as 'anyone'.

Return to Advice & Answers for Non-Scientologists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software