Subject: More (or less) of My Beliefs (was Re: Ease Off?) From: David Mayo Date: 1996/05/26 Message-Id: <4ob7l2$b86@light.lightlink.com> Sender: electra@light.lightlink.com Organization: Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway v2.4 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:22 PM 5/26/96 -0700, efischer@wimsey.com wrote: >In article <4o8t27$5r4@light.lightlink.com>, David Mayo > wrote: > >> Persecuted by >> Scientology(tm), unaided by the Freezoners, and virtually accused of being >> clams or another cult here on a.r.s from "ef" at the mildest, to worse by >> the most rabid. > >yes it is true that i do consider you to be, shall we say, cultishly >inclined. but in no way do i consider you to be a clam, which i would I do not think that I am cultishly inclined but I would like to know of any cultish characteristic that you have perceived in me so that I can correct it. I am asking sincerely and would really want to know. As I have stated earlier, I happen to like the book, The True Believer, by Eric ... (could someone help me here?) as it very accurately lists and describes the main characteristics of cults. I studied it while setting up the CNC - AAC and tried to avoid making the errors of my predecessors. I used to say at the time, "We get them out of the cult and we get them out of us." --I really think we did, don't you? >equate with membership in the (so called) church of scientology. obviously >you are no longer so. but also obviously you do not disavow the tech >thereof, and in fact still propagate a version of it. which is *why* i >consider you to be inclined towards a particular mindset. Why could I disavow "the tech"? No-one, including me, can clearly and accurately define what "the tech" is. First, there are multiple "techs" in Scientology(tm) and secondly these are often a mixture of information and methods that existed both prior to and/or outside and parallel to Scientology(tm). Which of these "techs" would you have me "discard" or more precisely which parts of which of these "techs" ought I to discard? Should I not talk to people? Including not posting here? Should I not listen to people? Including not reading and "duplicating" this, your post? Should I never let someone with a problem tell me about it in case in so doing that person gets a clearer view of what that problem is? Are you, along with me, guilty of not disavowing that piece of the tech? Just because Hubbard said something, just because it is included in one of the Scn "techs" does not automatically make it wrong. I am not being specious; the "techs" of Scientology(tm) are multiple and complex. I have spent years sorting and sifting the wheat from the chaff and that job is far from complete. I could already write about a thousand pages on this subject and it would not be complete --though if I were to get around to doing this, I think you might find it interesting. You also said that I still propagate a version of it ("the tech"). Please believe that I am not being facetious here but I do not think that you really have any idea of what I am propagating. I do not think that I am propagating any version of Scientlogy(tm) tech but again, I stand ready to be corrected. Specify, one single process or technique or piece of Scientology(tm) "tech" (or techs) that I am propagating. If you can't do that, at least detail any "tech" that I am propagating. I think this is going to demonstrate the power of "Dead-Agenting" because I suspect that you have unthinkingly absorbed suggestions about what I am or am not doing that have absolutely no basis in fact. > >this is not to say that i do not respect other aspects of your presence >here. in fact your interchanges in this thread and others are invaluable, >seeing as you do have a profound understanding of the methology and >history of scientology and and share your information openly. and you do >indeed have my sympathy for the persecution you and your wife have >undergone. Thank you very much. > >and as far as your assessment of fishman, i agree with you, >wholeheartedly, with this disclaimer: that i do not believe fishman to be >any sort of plant, instead i believe him to be suffering from a I do not believe Fishman to be a plant, especially not an OSA plant, and I have never suggested that he was, even though I cannot entirely rule out that possibility, including the possibility that he could have "turned" in recent times. My theory is that he is working, probably unwittingly, as a "dupe" of a person or persons as yet unknown to me who are sufficiently intellectually dishonest to stoop to using him to further their pet arguments in an "ends justify the means" attack on Scientology(tm) that has backfired loudly and may I irreverently say, flatulently. >psychological condition called mythomania. he takes a small experience and >for purposes of self-aggrandization blows it up into a very large >experience. making up flourishes as he goes. and the more flourishes he >needs to make up to support his allegations, the more he is sinking >beneath the weight of his own lies. which is what is happening now. Perhaps so. I think it a good and more plausible theory than some I've read. > >mythomania is a weird thing, often the people are quite well-meaning, only >they need to play to their audience so much (quite obvious in this case) >that they finally do lose touch with all semblance of reality. too, they >are very believable at first, it takes a little while for the house of >cards they construct to tumble. > >i too havee been skeptical of fishman all along. for me it was a gut >feeling, i have known another mythomane, and the signs were similar. but >it took your very concrete questioning of the information provided by him >to clarify the scenario for most. > >so you see, i do indeed value your presence here. even though i cannot, As I value your presence and well thought out posts --I've read many. >for reasons of my own convictions, value your beliefs. for as much as i >may like and respect you and your wife, i must consider your beliefs to be >dangerous. I have not made my beliefs known. This *is* the essence of my cry. How can you judge my beliefs to be dangerous (or otherwise) when I have not made them known? I do think that a person or persons unknown (to me) have asserted their inaccurate opinions of what my beliefs are. Would you please tell me briefly or at length what my beliefs are? I'd also like to know for each what the source of that information is. > >i hope this clears up any misunderstandings. I think we are getting a lot closer and I do appreciate what you have written. > > Rev. David Mayo "The smallest 'particle' in the universe is not a particle, not a wave, not a string-thingy nor is it anything yet conceived in the religions of physicists or of mystics; it is a pattern." DWM -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMakYYOmCyCdNXuVZAQF0IAP/VfY28iUZLmyFhVX/rqe2whOJXpgMq1LZ YmLdYmdjwEgQsQ1otCpxW691pxjc/Ak/UkSK7/qCS8YtC5TaN//NLB6AkaJxOkhC RzX4tzXNNLFGPh1ViQ+xmj6TG0MpXtLFUYWEYKww8aSrZa3NjFBDQu5gGvJw8wf8 ZYIji1O/W10= =y6Sb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----