The next challenge: Tolerance

The Church of Scientology commands allegiance through enforced agreement. It is often quite subtle with implied hardship to those contemplating stepping out of line. The church does not foster tolerance. In many ways, it fosters intolerance – like the many us/them concepts: Staff/Public, Higher Sea Org Staff/Lower Sea Org Staff, Scientology/The media, Scientologists/Wogs etc. All to many Scientologists I have met are less tolerant than the average person.

Many have left the church due to its counter-intention to free will. In leaving the church they may find a resurgence in free will and in personal integrity. They can finally disagree without the implied or openly enforced consequences. They can object, care less or care more for what they hold close to their heart.

Then they meet others who have left. An idea may form to do something about the current scene with the Church wielding monopolistic power over the freedom to practice one’s religion and hence perhaps a monopoly on freedom itself. With newfound integrity, they dare to voice their opinions, they dare to challenge. But without a resurgence of tolerance, trouble ensues. With the attitude of “It’s my way or the highway” so prevalent in the Church, there is little hope for a combined effort to handle much of anything.

I see this as the next big challenge: To help create a resurgence of tolerance in the independent field so as to make it possible to form real communities that can help others by delivering Scientology.

There is bickering and nagging out here. There is name calling and infights. There is all kinds wasted energy in endless needs to “be right”.

I am not advocating that we all pull together by agreeing to some leader or group. I am advocating a resurgence in tolerance. Large and successful communities like Wikipedia or the Linux communities have peoples of all colors and creeds. They still manage to get some really good products out the door. Not because they agree on everything, but because they have learned to deal with differences in productive ways.

  1. RJ
    2009-10-04 at 23:16

    Well Geir I wouldn’t exactly place Wikipedia as that “shinning city on the hill”. If anyone considers Scientology a “cult” all they have to do is go over to Wikipedia and try and try and correct some of their more egregious errors and you’ll find the “mind hive” on you like an angry swarm of hornets!

    As far as I’m concerned Jimbo Wales’ “Encyclopedia” “that any (moron)one can edit” is just a study in group think!

    It can’t compare to Linux which on the other hand requires people who can actually program which cuts down the low IQ factor enormously.

    Maybe I might be being elitist here but I think the first requirement of being able to actually contribute to something or have a say in its development is to actually know something about it. In other words informed, which is not the case with Wikipedia. I mean some of their articles are laughable in the amount of disinformation, misinformation, inaccuracy, revisionism and bias that they display!

    • 2009-10-04 at 23:21

      I would opt for deleting the word “maybe” in the sentence “Maybe I might be being elitist here but…”.

      Wikipedia is the most extensive knowledge base in human history. It is constantly evolving and improving. Your objections are valid. They are also constantly addressed with new provisions from earlier experience.

      • RJ
        2009-10-05 at 00:32


        Okay elitist then 🙂

        Maybe we can agree to disagree on this point because any opportunity that Jimbo had to make it “the most extensive knowledge base in human history” was squandered when his little board of busy body editors decided to exclude anyone who knew anything about the subject to contribute to or edit it.

        For instance I have a friend who tried to make revisions to his own biography who was completely excluded from Wikipedia!

        I demanding that the person actually know something about the subject before they write or even offer an objective opinion about it then yeah I’m waving my elitist flag on that point 🙂

      • Chris
        2009-10-05 at 04:51

        “Wikipedia is the most extensive knowledge base in human history. It is constantly evolving and improving. Your objections are valid. They are also constantly addressed with new provisions from earlier experience.”

        Fine then Geir.Go to the Scientology Entry on Wikipedia and try to “evolve” some truth there.
        You know I was reading and rereading KSW some time ago and I saw this
        “I once had the idea that a group could
        evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea.”
        I then realized that Ron had gone Future Track and foresaw Wikipedia. 😉

        • 2009-10-05 at 06:09

          Wikipedia has nothing to do with evolving truth. It is an encyclopedia.

          • Chris
            2009-10-06 at 05:44

            An encyclopedia is supposed to record facts and data.Without needing to wordclear I cam assume that means truth 🙂

            • 2009-10-06 at 05:55

              Yes, but it is not supposed to evolve truth. That is why there is not allowed any original research on WP – and that is why you cannot just edit your own page if you are a celeb, even though you have first hand information. Ask Jason about that 😉

        • RJ
          2009-10-05 at 07:22

          Wow Chris I must be in some alternate universe…..”what’s sign post up ahead…you’ve reached the twilight zone!”

          Cris that is a very astute observation about Wikipedia!

          One that I’m in total agreement with 🙂

          • 2009-10-05 at 07:24

            Be open to change your minds on this as WP is an ever evolving concept.

            • Chris
              2009-10-06 at 05:43

              Yup just like Scientology before KSW eh,Geir?

              • 2009-10-06 at 05:53

                Like early Scientology, perhaps…

          • Chris
            2009-10-06 at 05:43

            Thanks for the ack you pragmatic hippie tin foil hat wearing bastard 😉

    • ExKane
      2009-10-05 at 00:52

      I see Wikipedia as an element in the broader theme of what you may call “human communication.” Indeed you may think of the entire planet as this sort of hybrid “mind,” though the planet has many more communication restrictions than Wikipedia. I think its success (and possibly even the success of the planet in finally reaching some equilibrium) depends on several factors: 1. Ease of entry, which the Wikipedia community has certainly helped cultivate, 2. Equality of “sway,” that is, no one person has more influence than any other, and 3. Permanence of fluidity, that is, constant ability to change, delete, revise (and to be fair this includes revision of policy).
      What do these three factors produce? This is where one may argue, but in my opinion they produce ever increasing proximity to truth.

    • Chris
      2009-10-05 at 04:43

      I can’t believe I’m agreeing with RJ once again considering the last 2 or 3 days but Wikipedia is most definitely NOT a good example of Internet Communities.
      Just look at their Scientology and OT3 entries for some “stunning” example of “truth”
      Also the Linux example by you and the ack by RJ is something I’d agree with.
      I remember running Linux before….
      Those were the days!!!

  2. 2009-10-04 at 23:25

    There is a better Tech, in my opinion, on how to get along better with others, than what is found in Scientology especially in the Sea Org where authority and force channel Command Intention. It can be found in the book “How to win friends and influence people”.

    The most pleasant people I worked with in Scn or in wog companies, wittingly or unwittingly, they all applied very theta priciples similar to those found in that book.

  3. overdriver
    2009-10-04 at 23:44

    Very constructive idea. A good starting point. And as well, tolerance and correctness would be desirable on both side. You know what I mean.

    • 2009-10-05 at 06:36

      I know what you mean. Also, incorrectness on one side plays right into the hands of OSA on the other.

  4. 2009-10-05 at 00:27

    Good point, Geir. A common criticism of the Democratic Party in the U.S. is that their idea of a firing squad is to form a circle and start shooting. The Republican Party, which is much smaller in terms of members but larger in terms of money, wins about half the time. The church has a ton more money than any independent movement and so the last thing independents need is circular firing squads. Chill pills are hereby mandatory.

  5. Alex
    2009-10-05 at 02:08

    I like your viewpoints here. If we want to get something done then we have to be tolerant with each other. This may be difficult to the degree that we have different goals and purposes. If any Blog site had a stated purpose and stuck to that purpose then I can see that tolerance would forward that purpose. Those who did not have the stated purpose of that blog could go elsewhere to follow “their dream”.

  6. TH
    2009-10-05 at 02:22

    Geir, I just wanted to say how impressed I have been with your blog. I had basically turned my back on anything related to Scn quite a few years ago but somehow found myself pulled into reading your blog and decided to start posting.

    The vision you present is a very inspiring one, where everyone is free to be who they are and follow their own journey and yet still come together to help each other out and create something worthwhile. If scn had been more like that maybe my history would have been different. But since I left I have also read and learned a lot and am convinced that no one person or philosophy has all the answers and that our knowledge is still evolving. I like the paradigm of the incremental anthill climb to greater wisdom. That viewpoint seems to have some traction in the sciences but not as much in the more subjective psychological/spiritual realm where innovations seem to be more isolated rather than contributions to a larger project. Anyway, I owe you an email.

  7. Maria
    2009-10-05 at 02:50

    I agree. The comments section on this blog has been quite a relief and the free flow of ideas is often insightful. If we want a new civilization, then we have to work on becoming civilized, and civilize means: to raise from barbarism (savagely cruel or harsh) to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state. (the definition is from Somehow, this sounds familiar to me… 😉

  8. Maria
    2009-10-05 at 03:15

    Geir, this is not a comment. Just using this to give you a link. On the off chance that you don’t know this, the WTH foundation has made the WTH booklet available in PDF format online in multiple languages. It’s a free download and you don’t have to register or anything. Might be helpful as it was one of the last written works of L. Ron Hubbard and effectively supersedes most other policies on this sort of thing. I’m giving it to you because I noticed that you linked to the new online VM courses and I like what he says about tolerance in it.

    • 2009-10-05 at 06:41

      It is useful as a comment, so I approve it as such 🙂

  9. D
    2009-10-05 at 05:51

    Geir, I totally agree w/you on this. With my many experiences working w/non-Scientologists on social reform campaigns (literacy, Human Rights, …)I’ve always found that the most successful thing is to focus on points we can agree with & not give too much importance on what we don’t agree on. It’s really basic ARC. We were always more successful this way. I’ve always hated hearing at Events “we’re the only one that can save the world”. It fosters an attitude that what we do is more important than what others do. I’ve worked with several very dedicated non-Scientologists citizens that create on a regular basis very positive effect in their environment. I found that this statement was a huge insult of their efforts and found that Scientology would never really become mainstream with that kind of attitude amongst others.

    • Hubbardianen
      2009-10-05 at 14:29


      I gotta agree with you on the megalomania “WE are the only ones”. There are lots of good people in society and Scientology is one viewpoint of many. I do think Scientology is a very important viewpoint with some unique methods, but some humbleness wouldn’t hurt.

      I think Geir wrote a good post, my only point is that there’s gotta be somebody taking responsibility. Many freezoners report on just being left alone. Money makes everybody work more dedicated. What’s best? Just leave everything for free, or pay? How much pay? I believe in some kind of payment, because the job would be better done I think, but todays rates are a little bit too high.

      • 2009-10-05 at 15:49

        I am all for payment for services. Never said otherwise. I believe the material should be freely available on the Internet.

        • Chris
          2009-10-06 at 05:52

          So you think the PL’s,Bulletins,and ED’s should be made available online but not the actual processes and such?
          Clarification is requested here,Geir.

          • 2009-10-06 at 05:55

            I mean also the processes, the tapes, the advices…

  10. UnDisturbed
    2009-10-05 at 06:24

    The Church could generate a lot of goodwill by actually practicing tolerance, as set forth in its own Creed of the Church of Scientology. You will be attacked by other Scientologists because you dare to ask the Church to live up to those ideals, memorialized in the writing of LRH. That is how far the current Church has strayed from its own traditions. As Bob Dylan once wrote:
    “Yes, n how many times can a man turn his head,
    Pretending he just doesn’t see?
    The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind,
    The answer is blowing in the wind.”

  11. LO
    2009-10-05 at 18:45

    I don’t think we have to reinvent the wheel. If the orgs or soon the indenpent scientologists or whoever just deliver scientology services (STANDARD) they’ll be overflooded with people wanting the services and very willingly to pay for it so the staffs can have a living and let’s LRH himself handle the antagonisms that people have re Scientology by putting all his works onto the Internet so that people can read for themselves what he meant. Good delivered services are the best Pr and will go from mouth to mouth very fast and that’s it. Lets go into session !
    Geir ! I hope I was short !

    • 2009-10-05 at 19:01

      Short indeed 🙂

  12. thatsnotmyname
    2009-10-05 at 19:30

    I believe as long as the Independents – such as the WINS structure already forming thru Marty’s blog – has a rudimentary constitution (a few agreed-upon rules of the game) then tolerance will be a natural un-forced occurrence. It is startling how much mature debate is taking place already and how much broad agreement exists. Equally refreshing is the intelligence with which the problems are being tackled and that is a tribute to the likes of you and Marty. The natural urge of sane beings is towards understanding, and by extrapolation, tolerance. As I said in an earlier comment, I believe this COULD be the greatest rennaissance of actual scientology ever.

  13. Soderqvist1
    2009-10-06 at 06:03

    LO: Good delivered services are the best Pr and will go from mouth to mouth very fast and that’s it.

    Soderqvist1: you are spot on here!
    Some scientologists want to be on staff and some scientologists want to be something else. Not only will scientology go from mouth to mouth, but even the individual’s dynamics, (general acquaintances) can see, and experience relationship improvement with the scientologist, and naturally want scientology too. The payment for service should be reasonable exchange, with intent to help, not to overturn the prospect. You see; staff and public are interdependent!

  14. Maria
    2009-10-09 at 15:13

    May I suggest the adoption and support of the Declaration of Interdependence by Will Durant?

    • Overdriver
      2009-10-09 at 17:58

      Excellent thoughts indeed.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: