On accepting unreality.
|
|
|
|
(make this part of OSA US DR on RVY)
There are disturbing parallels between "1984" and Scientology. Substitute
"Sea Org/Dept 20" for "Party".
On accepting unreality
From George Orwell's "1984" published in 1949: "In a way, the world-view
of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of
understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant
violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of
what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public
events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they
remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed
did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of
corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird."
Commentary: This degree of naivete will be found in other movements and
groups, not merely in Scientology. A difference is that in Scientology,
they enforce the lack of interest in public events and they continue to
increase the amount of unreality that one is to accept. It is dosed out,
which is one of the reasons the "upper levels" were kept confidential. The
matter of "swallowing everything" can be found in Hubbard's study methods,
where there is no possibility of critical thought or disagreement.
Disagreement means you have a "misunderstood word" or some other flaw in
you. You look up words until you "duplicate" it, which means the grain of
corn slides on through. The difference is that there _is_ harm in that
lack of use of the faculty of analytical criticism lessens the persons
ability to exercise it. This can be shown by finding a long-term SO/Dept
20 member and asking them questions about issues that have been front page
on the New York Times or on the evening news. They don't know because
they don't read the papers, especially the NYTimes. They don't care
because they have withdrawn and are living off the prescribed diet. They
feel that L. Ron Hubbard has told them how to find truth, wo what else do
they need? Hence the same gullibility as in "1984."
Robert Vaughn Young
writer@eskimo.com