By Michael Moore

"We have long said that that which is not admired tends to persist. If no one admires a person for being right, then that person's "brand of being right" (will persist, no matter how mad it sounds)." LRH, You Can Be Right ABILITY MAGAZINE

So much attention is focused on what is considered wrong with scientology, both in the media and social networks, as well as from disillusioned scientologists, anti scientologists and others,  that what is right about scientology is very often overlooked. 

Religion and Philosophy

When any religion or philosophy or even new political ideology arises it tends to upset the existing stability datum for that society.  Usually these are initially resisted and there is a cultural lag before a new stability settles down in the society.  The new philosophy, religious or political will be accepted to the degree it is not too far from the existing reality.  The further away or more radical, perhaps, the longer the cultural lag before it is accepted within that society.

In today’s western society man is cultured into believing that he is basically bad, cannot be changed for the better, and is a body only run by a brain and all efforts are in the direction of reducing man’s level of responsibility through the encouragement of laziness and increased regulation. Through repetition such mores become the accepted norm and efforts to introduce a more causative approach for man, such as Scientology, hit this head on.  Hence it takes time to assimilate a new and radical ‘think’. 

In Scientology the philosophy includes some basic premises that are at variance with the accepted norm.  Some examples include:

Man is basically good.

Man can change for the better.

Man is not a body but a composite of mind, body, spirit.

It is ok to be responsible among others. 

This can cause some confusion in the western culture flying in the face of the accepted norm.  Of course, as time wears on these previously accepted assumptions will become shaky and a certain amount of confusion is liable to blow off.  Then more right premises will be accepted and man will inch forward a little more towards independent freedom.

It can be remarked that in the eastern civilizations, Scientology as a philosophy is likely to be more acceptable since it does not undermine as many of the stable data of those societies.

A philosophy that acknowledges man’s ability to be responsible and more at cause is the first right aspect of Scientology.

Applied Technology

One remarkable feature of Scientology which no prior philosophy has been able to provide is an exact codified route one can follow to freedom as a being.  There are many philosophies  and religions with promises either based upon behavior or practicing certain rituals to assure oneself a place among the gods so to speak.  But not one of these religions or philosophical ideologies or practices, prior to Scientology, attempted to increase the abilities, responsibility and causative levels of an individual using a practical application of the philosophy in the form of a technology, the techniques of auditing and the bridge over which to travel to attain higher states of being in a measured and predicable fashion. On the contrary it was a case of pray hard or meditates hard  and leave everything to the gods.  

A reversal of attitude and change from effect to cause is another right aspect of Scientology.

A different attitude – Auditing

Auditing is the application that is new and novel in this universe. There is no other practice like it.  Some people might cite psychology as a possible contender but that science, if one can call it that, is very much a hit and miss affair with no predictable results on a one for one case when the technology of auditing is exactly applied.

The application of directing an individual’s attention to areas that can resolve his difficulties and make them vanish is new in this universe.  The step by step process of addressing specific areas and individual has, to the point of each area being cleared of any and all issues interfering with the individuals self determinism is new in this universe.  Scientology is about man finding out who he really is and putting him at cause over his life.

This is what marks Scientology as different to any religion, philosophy, or therapy that has gone on before.  Considering that this is likely to be the case throughout the entire universe of beings, this is a remarkable achievement to say the least.

A new applied philosophy that achieves results on a one for one basis in a predictable manner is another right aspect of scientology.

Conclusion

"Truth is built by those who have the breadth and balance to see also where they're wrong."  LRH, You Can Be Right," ABILITY MAGAZINE

The answer to the universe and everything in it (or out of it come to that) is evidently not 42 as the late Doug Adams portrays in his book** and, believe it or not, as some scientists, would have us believe*.  The axioms, the factors, conditions and other basic laws discovered by LRH give a concise rendition of who we are and what the universe actually is and what our relationship is to it. It not only shows us the dreams to which we aspire but it also shows us the route by which we can achieve our aspiration.

And that lies above and beyond any possible negativity about scientology.  Scientology is, indeed right.

*http://www.independent.co.uk/news/yes-the-answer-to-the-universe-really-is-42-1351201.html

**The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Comments   

 

+4 # calvin b. duffield 2013-03-16 11:19

Michael, this is a superb post. Just what the doctor ordered, to counter the invalidations by those who cannot move beyond their critical attitudes. As an Auditor,one is trained to recognize that those who constantly find fault with someone, or something, usually are sitting with hidden deeds, which motivate hostility and criticism.

It's just a fact which an auditor works
with, in order to assist a being to "let go" of the hostility,via a full disclosure of the hidden deed/s and thereby permit the critical party to regain his/her integrity and/or ARC for others. Good old Grade two stuff, no less.


Focusing on what is right in Scientology,
("with Ron") actually keeps Scientology working.

Wonderful summary of all the salient points that needed to be said, Michael.

Thank you so much indeed,

Calvin.

 

 

+3 # Chris Mann 2013-03-16 14:12

I was just thinking along this line.

It's beginning to feel like something is wrong with you if you don't want to criticize Scientology or LRH. Like you are somehow backwards, behind the times, unenlightened, imprisoned by your beliefs. You might even be called a names or labeled.

While I think it is good to have the ability to accept or reject data and to evaluate subjects, It seems one can get stuck making himself right. or perhaps in an effort to assert ones ability to reject data one can develop an illogical bent towards figuring out how they can be right- finding and interpreting data to fit this predisposition.

After that it just seems to get complex and serious and the subject gets buried.

 

 

+6 # Chris Black 2013-03-16 22:37

Michael,
This is an excellent blog article. Thank you for posting it. There is much right about Scientology. In fact, all of Scientology - tech, admin, ethics - is right, if rightly and standardly applied.

A corollary to "that which is not admired tends to persist" is "that which you put your attention on you tend to get."

Putting attention on rightness is well covered in the issue "Granting Beingness" and the HCOB "You Can Be right". It is the only way a pc will get better. Perhaps it will be the only way the "perception" of Scientology will get better, too.

Calvin and Chris bring up valid points. Especially "with". The ability to differentiate is one of the highest abilities there is, and leads to sanity.

For me, I look to Source and keep my own counsel. One's integrity is paramount to discovering who one really is. Only then will one be truly free.

Chris Black
Class VIII C/S

 

 

+3 # calvin b. duffield 2013-03-17 00:01

Thanks, for the ack,Chris B. Something else interesting -- one just can't hide a LACK of ARC! All major perceptions start tringg-ing with alarm bells -- when one encounters falseness or rejection from another!

Just another built-in primordial device we are equipped with, along with some mechanism of deciphering body language,in order to help us in deciding who we feel okay with and who we don't!

Although we sometimes hit a miss, mostly
we get it spot on, thankfully!

Always great to see you sharing your wins, Chris! Be assured, we appreciate what you're doing in Canada, mate!

ML, Calvin.

 

 

+6 # Ingrid Smith 2013-03-16 23:50

Excellent article Michael. Even among Scientologists there are going to be growing pains, as well, as we adjust--"What?? I have to take responsility??!! I thought when I joined up it was all going to be perfect and somebody over "there" would tell me if any boogeymen were here."

 

 

+1 # steve 2013-03-17 04:23

Good article. There are a lot of items in that list. Thanks Michael.

 

 

+2 # Eli 2013-03-17 12:37

From my understanding at the core Dianetics and Scientology is a course of betterment that requires an active participation in the process of betterment of oneself and others. Certainly, and in many aspects of modern society, one is expected to not take responsibility for one's destiny but rather relenquish that responsibility to others. To just have faith, to not look at the man behind the curtain, to assume that those who have power over you have your best interests at heart. For the most part we have been caught in that trap and the world hasn't become a better place for it, at least for the majority of humanity. One of the first things I was made aware of in Scientology was the desire to have people take responsibility, as much as reasonably possible, to be at cause. Certainly that is a concept worthy of being considered right.

Not only does Dianetics and Scientology promote active involvment of the individual towards their own betterment but also offers practicle methods, clearly defined paths, technology if you will that can be applied. That's why there is a Purification Rundown and courses that improve ways to understand and process information like the BSM (Basic Study Manual). And you know, I've seen people get better through the application of LRH tech. I've seen people grow to become more able and more cause over their lives, through LRH tech. So for whatever is wrong about the Church of Scientology today there is much which is right, at the core of Dianetics and Scientology. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

 

# Nickname 2013-03-20 18:32

This ^^^^^ (!!) post by Eli reflects a cogent sense of responsibility and perspective. I hope you realize, Eli, that whatever you post, your sense of responsibility or your viewpoint, or whatever you might prefer to call it, if you choose to name it at all, comes through, and is, imo, valuable to all, whether immediately recognized or not. In my opinion, Scn is not a "way of thought" but a means to achieve thought. It is thought and thoughfulness ("exact consideration", to be excruciatingly correct), not doctrine, that we wish to achieve. Eli, please keep posting your thoughts.

 

 

+5 # Ronnie Bell 2013-03-17 12:57

Michael, the sum total of that article is one very clean and simple communication. It speaks to the fundamental reasons that I personally recognized Scientology as THE answer when I first encountered it. And yes, I did say "the", as in - the truths it contains are universal, and shared by all beings.

I know that's become something of a politically incorrect viewpoint recently, with so many 'enlightened' people vigorously agreeing that all philosophies and practices are valid, equal, valuable, etc.

Well, that's alright. I grant others the right to whatever considerations they like, and I'll just continue to know what I know. If that makes me a knuckle-dragging, red-on-white thumping, fundamentalist throwback, then so be it.

 

 

# Chris Mann 2013-03-19 18:13

I think names and labels are used to control. Just delete these and whatever negative significance attached and do what you think is right

 

 

+2 # Chris Black 2013-03-19 21:59

Man, I so dig you, Ronnie! From one ape to another, you are truly da Man!

 

 

# calvin b. duffieldI 2013-03-19 23:56

Hi five to you on that from another knuckle -dragging chest and red-on-white thumping throwback.

...OOk..ook..ook...Kaa!..Kaa! eek.eek!

Anyone for a banana?

 

 

+8 # Tom M 2013-03-17 13:28

Thanks Michael. Really good article. I love the positiveness. It is true whaty Chriss Mann says, you have to natter about Scn to be in vogue. Bullshit.
ML Tom

 

 

+3 # Ingrid Smith 2013-03-17 16:19

natter=O/Ws and to "cleverly" make natter in vogue is to divert attention away from one's own O/Ws.

 

 

# calvin b. duffieldI 2013-03-18 23:52

Exactly, Ingrid! Imagine if one could actually get the perp/s in front of an acceptable auditor, in order to get the attention ON one's own O/W's! And then, NOT being able to get away with any more natter, but having those withheld deeds ACTUALLY pulled and FULLY confronted AND
taken FULL responsibility for!

The very least that would happen, IMHO,
is that the natter would dry up!!!!

My goodness, the hostility, suspicions,
diversions, ridges and defensiveness, might even make way for restored ARC!

Now THAT, is something I'd prefer to see
becoming "in vogue."

The world would suddenly become a lot brighter, people would "miraculously"
no longer seem so threatening, and wow, one may suddenly DISCOVER "the love," that was surrounding one, all along.

Just by "re-discovering" that the tech only works,( YES!) when ethics are in!

ML, Calvin.

 

 

+2 # Richard Chasen 2013-03-17 18:53

That is really good. People (public in general) need to see this. I advocate being a member of other groups to share this. Some examples might be church groups or college professors.

 

 

+1 # Jim Logan 2013-03-18 19:35

I'd recommend a tape from the 4th London ACC, The Antiquity of Auditing, 13 October 55.

 

 

+1 # David Cooke 2013-03-18 20:02

Yes, this is a fine article that directs attention back to the important points of Scn - returning from effect back to cause, auditing using a live communication cycle, and perhaps most importantly recognising that an individual is spirit and source.

 

 

+3 # Mark Patterson 2013-03-18 21:23

This post made front page on Marty Rathbun's blog - and since I commented there, I should comment here - it is only fair. To me, at the end of the day, there is truly a lot right with Scientology - a hell of a lot right with it.
However, in my view there are two things:

1. Scientology is not complete.

2. It is a sweeping generality to say "In today’s western society man is cultured into believing that he is basically bad, cannot be changed for the better, and is a body only run by a brain and all efforts are in the direction of reducing man’s level of responsibility through the encouragement of laziness and increased regulation." This is just untrue.

I believe we can forward Scientology - exact Scientology - in a more effective manner if we stay positive and show what it is and can do.

 

 

+1 # Jim Logan 2013-03-18 22:32

Mark,
I agree on point #2. It is a rather broad, sweeping statement and a generalization.

On #1, I don't presume to have completed Scientology study or practice at this point so yours strikes me as a rather broad, sweeping statement and a generalization as well.



I DO agree with you and Michael, there's a hell of a lotta right with Scientology.

 

 

# Chris Mann 2013-03-18 22:55

I think it's just petty semantics (not from you Mark).

So maybe Michael Moore could have added a modifier or two to his statement.

I do agree with the statement- that it is more true than not. There are of course exceptions.

I guess thats the premise of the argument? That there are exceptions and that this excerpt from Michael Moore
if taken as an absolute, is not absolute?

 

 

+1 # Chris Mann 2013-03-18 23:09

Hi Mark.

I thought I was done, but the concept of Scientology not being complete stuck with me. I've heard that idea a couple times, but never really thought about it.

What would a complete Scientology be?

I can't say with much certainty, but I suspect there is truth to that statement. But how do we know? Maybe it is complete and we dont know.

 

 

+1 # steve 2013-03-19 07:22

I've heard this completeness question posed before as a criticism of Scientology philosophy. But if you examine any situation in any field for the components of that situation you will find that it is composed of the basic properties and concepts described in Scientology. Matter, energy, space and time, causative life-source capable of postulates and opinions, order, disorder, ARC, cycles of action, control, etc. It would be an interesting discovery if someone came up with a basic component of life which is not already identified in Scientology. It really is a complete philosophy of life which contains the basic elements of every possible situation you can get into.

I believe the criticism about it not being complete are referring to the technology Ron developed which is built on those fundamentals. They believe it doesn't go to some point they think it should go to. Not sure what point they refer to. Theta Clear? OT 23? Complete dissolution of the Physical Universe?
Perhaps they are right. But one would need to learn Scientology and travel the route to find out for sure.

 

 

+1 # Gerhard Waterkamp 2013-03-18 22:44

Well, somebody needed some oil and honey for his wounds. The point is not what is right or wrong with Scientology. The point is this where do we want to be with the subject? Is Scientology today what we want it to be (including the COS)?
If the answer is a "No", well than lets get productive, spot the outpoints and dig for the whys that got us where we did not want to be.
I am always amazed at the traveler who started on a journey to truth in his shiny car. And than his drive train breaks down, and you find him sitting on the curb admiring the paint, praising the sound of the radio and soft leather seats, not noticing for years he has not moved a single inch on his journey. To get moving he would first need to know, what is wrong with his car and fix it, so he can actually continue the journey.
So yes, the moon-roof is great and there is still plenty of rubber left on the tires, but focusing and admiring those facts will not get you moving again.
But it does feel good.

 

 

+2 # Lana M 2013-03-18 22:55

Gerhard,
You are right, there are many who will blissfully look at what was, or should have been, and not take action to spot the outpoints and dig for whys that got us into this position.

Michael is certainly not in the category, however, and has had his shoulder to the wheel on this count for many years now.

I agree that the key question is where do we want to be with the subject -- and there has been much discussion on this blog in the last few weeks on that very topic.

Add your voice to that ongoing discussion and forward motion, and that would be superb.

 

 

# Espiritu 2013-03-19 01:14

This is a refreshing article.
Rightness and wrongness are gradients. Things are either righter or wronger. Absolute right and absolute wrong do not exist in my view. So, it just depends upon where one decides to put one's attention. The subject of Scientology has been written down, spoken, and codified using words....after all, Ron IS a writer. How people apply those words constitutes the actual applications of the subject. Ron did not say that Scientology was a perfect subject, in fact he said that it is not. He did state that it is a WORKABLE subject. There have been correct applications and incorrect applications of this imperfect but very workable subject. In years personal observation I have observed a large majority of people who have had it applied to themselves have found this statement to be true for themselves, also.
I find Michael's article to be refreshing because it aligns with my own observation that this cup is WAY more than 1/2 full and it is my opinion that any fair discussion of the subject needs to acknowledge that as a fact and give it emphasis in importance.

 

 

# Jim Logan 2013-03-19 16:35

I think about a decade ago, on my aim to study the full record of Scientology, I went to the list of people at the front of my copy of Science of Survival (mine had the dedication to Alexis). One of the books I read was by Korzybski, in which he describes Non-Aristotelian Logic.

A datum of comparable magnitude is Aristotelian Logic, a so-called "two valued" system of thinking where a datum evaluated is either true of false. Three values include "maybe". As you go up in numbers of possible evaluations of a datum, from "true" or "false", you can get to what has been termed "multi-valued" or as LRH used "infintity valued".

The gradations from "true" to less true, a little false, go all the way to "maybe" in the middle and extend the other way to more and more false and less and less true to the other end of "false".

The description of "workable" is evaluated with such a scale of infinity values.

Any honest evaluation of Scientology technology places it waaaaaaaaaay over on the "true" side of the scale.

The same technique of infinity valued logic can be applied to any Policy of Scientology. Is it more or less workable.

The same technique can apply to this Opening Piece by Michael Moore. Is it more or less "true" or "false".

One should observe to observe for oneself, and the handy tool of infinity valued logic will take one to workable answers, which is really all it takes to survive - be more right than wrong more often than not.

Not perfect, just more right in one's estimation of efforts more often than not.

I got the point of the Opening Piece. Scientology works. It sure does.

 

 

# Chris Mann 2013-03-19 17:59

Sure, that's sane and logical and applicable and all that, but how am I supposed to argue and fight without two valued logic? Did you even think of that? You're really causing me a problem here.

 

 

# Jim Logan 2013-03-19 19:36

Chris,
Yes, I think I did think of that. Maybe. Umm, it's true. No, it's false. Uhhh, I dunno, lemme check on what I'm supposed to say here. One sec...

I am not supposed to say. Sorry.

 

 

# sparky 2013-03-19 18:06

Great article.

Mr. Moore wrote:
Quote:

One remarkable feature of Scientology which no prior philosophy has been able to provide is an exact codified route one can follow to freedom as a being.

I agree. There is truth everywhere, and it isn't created, but what IS created is the methodology and that distinguishes Scientology from pother philosophies. Hubbard took great care and time to create a unique and original methodology. He also perceived a lot of the underlying mechanics to illusions that obscure truth.

Quote:

There are many philosophies and religions with promises either based upon behavior or practicing certain rituals to assure oneself a place among the gods so to speak.

Yep. Such as "satori" or attaining "nirvana" or being right next to the throne of heaven, etc.

Quote:

But not one of these religions or philosophical ideologies or practices, prior to Scientology, attempted to increase the abilities, responsibility and causative levels of an individual using a practical application of the philosophy in the form of a technology, the techniques of auditing and the bridge over which to travel to attain higher states of being in a measured and predicable fashion.

Yes. That;s the beautiful simplicity of Scientology. You do this, and this happens. All the other stuff and naysayers and self-made "experts" are the usual fracas that surround anything. This blog and site is great at providing a forum for discussion without an arbitrary agenda.

And a choice do Scientology (or not).

Thanks!

 

 

# Eli 2013-03-21 01:36

Thanks Nickname for the kind words. I suppose the reason I am even at this blog is that I see the right in Dianetics & Scientology. It is a reality I have and I am not one for blind faith. In fact LRH made a strong point that Dianetics has to be workable to be of any value. Just read The Evolution of a Science. I've experienced and witnessed the validity of LRH tech. It requires practical application and a little bravery.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if the critics and naysayers ever read Dianetics or experienced simple Book One Auditing cause man it aint that hard to put the effectivness up to the test. Hell even a basic Locational works. Well anyways...Not to ramble.

 

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

You have no rights to post comments

JComments