Why "We're not a turn the other cheek kind of religion"
Mike O'Connor
Squirrel <squi...@echelon.alias.net> wrote:
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
Now, if you want to hit somebody in the nose sometime and observe him -
just walk down here on the street, walk up to a guy and, slam, hit him in
the nose. Now, if this fellow is fairly low on the Tone Scale, he'll stand
and think about it. And then he'll talk about it. The fellow who is high
on the Tone Scale will simply slam you in the nose. He'll just return the
motion, right now - pam! Simplicity. Very, very simple.
Now, this business about "If he's low scale, how did he get low scale?"
Well, he's been slammed in the nose often enough and then told that he
mustn't return the action. All right, how is he told? Well, it's by being
slammed in the nose the second he started to return the first slam in the
nose. And then when he tried to return the second slam in the nose, he got
the third slam in the nose. And when he tried to return the first, second
and third slam in the nose, somebody hit him with a sledgehammer. And
after that he thinks!
Parents are always standing around saying to little Willy, "Now, you must
think before you act. You should think things over. You shouldn't be
compulsive, and so forth." Well, why don't they just take him out and
chain him up to a post like an animal or something? Or just hang him? It
would be kinder! Because the fellow who has to think before he acts, has
to key in for himself a number of impacts, so that he can think.
-- L. Ron Hubbard
QUESTION AND ANSWER, STEP V
7 October 1953
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My question here is: Isn't the scripture telling us the best thing to do
is REACT WITHOUT THINKING? To be purely reactive, not to think about the
response, but simply to react quickly and immediately? That thinking
before you act is wrong?
--
Mike O'Connor - mi...@leptonicsystems.com
<http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>
gerry armstrong
Yes. It was Hubbard's intention to eliminate thinking altogether.
Auditing was drilled like that. The auditor could not think. He was
trained to react without thought. Thinking which went on through time
was figure-figure, which was audited as an aberration.
The problem with Hubbard's theory is that it's all backward; unless
you really do want to enslave your fellows. Thought isn't the problem.
It's what is being thought about. Hubbard tried to eliminate God-given
faculties.
Where this is observable most accutely in $cientology is their almost
total inability to forgive. To forgive requires something different
from a reaction. And forgiveness is what replaces a reaction (although
forgiveness takes no real time and reactions always take time).
Reacting is also a God-given faculty. It's just inappropriate when it
replaces forgiveness in human relations. Used without thought and
taking up the time something different from reaction could just as
well occupy, it observable in pretty well all autogenous human
tragedy.
Reaction, rather than thought, fits into Hubbard's mental and
organizational contruct because he was "creating" and had "created"
the perfect mind, which, being *cleared* (its held-down 7s allowed to
rise) always made the correct, most "pro-survival" decision,
according, of course to "the greatest good for the greatest number of
dynamics."
Remember when Kirstie Alley said, as reported in article earlier this
year, that what she looked for in a 2D was someone with a short comm
lag? Then there's the Hubbard pronouncement about coupling with
someone with the same comm lag. And another pronouncement where he
states that the comm lag; i.e., the time it takes to repond to a
communication, is the gauge of intelligence. This is a completely
false concept, rewarding stupidity. Imagine a marriage in which
forgiveness is impossible, where thought is eschewed.
All this is why $cientology's new slogan "Think for yourself," is such
a tragic hoot. Not only does $cientology not want its members to think
for themselves, $cientology doesn't want them to think at all.
Think about that all you $cientologists.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Stefan Blandow
Why, that I >