The hills ringing hear the words in time, listen to the holler
Listen to my walls within my tongue
Can’t you see you made my ears go tin
The air quicken tension building inference suddenly
Life and how to live it
Raise the walls to hide these flaws, the carpenter should rest
So that when you tire of one side the other serves you best
Read about the wisdom wall, the knock-knock-knock
A secret knock, one hammer’s locked, the other wisdom’s lost
– R.E.M., Life and how to live it
A seemingly common theme among the Indie scientology crowd is that while the organization of Co$ may be corrupt or harmful, the “original tech” of LRH is just fine as designed, very beneficial, and should be preserved. The conflict I see in that, is their application of “cafeteria” intellect. There seems to be a belief within this movement that one can “pick and choose” which policies and beliefs to adopt.
This is akin to taking any of the ten commandments and tossing them away, if one wishes. For example, you could adopt “Thou shalt not steal”, but dismiss “Thou shalt not kill” – does anyone else see the problem with this logic? While I hold that individual beliefs are variable, I also believe that you cannot claim affiliation to a specific dogma without believing in it wholly. If this is a “collected” belief system from a singular source, are you not deconstructing and devaluing the original intent of the source?
I find it very jaded to argue on one hand that the hierarchical structure of Co$ is bad and needs to be “reformed”, and on the other to claim the “tech” is great , but only as long as you can only adopt those policies and beliefs that you choose. There is just a hint of narcissism in the belief that you, as an individual, have the knowledge and authority to deconstruct and apply this “workable” system as you see fit. You are then arguing that LRH did not have everything correct, and, as such, everything should be under scrutiny.
To argue that either the “church” should, or could be, reformed, or that one can simply adopt only the “scripture” that one determines to be worthy, implies that the original source of this dogma is flawed, incomplete, or unable to support global adoption. All of these undercut what I believe to be LRH’s original intent to create a universal belief system. As such, it should be subject to the highest criticism and inspection possible.
Let me know what you think – Stand Up, Speak Out, and Be Heard!