From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 18 - August 1994
See Home Page at http://www.ivymag.org/
A reply to Britta Burtles, or Was the Discussion Unseemly?(1)
by Ray Harman, Australia
I am indebted to Britta Burtles for indicating the outpoints in my
article 'Seemly Discussion' (IVy 15, P. 39). I indeed
failed to be specific. Beyond saying that I was referring to the
Dianasis debate, I fear I cannot be more specific, as I was
merely echoing the general impression of my 'potential IVy reader'.
Perhaps my use of the phrase 'printed slanging match'
was too strong a wording. Truly, many entertaining propositions
appeared
in the Dianasis debate articles. Still, we must not overlook the
recent
reader survey, which applauded scholarly discussion of the tech,
but damned dramatic mudslinging between authors, and it is this latter
to which I refer. Our editor (IVy 15 p. 15) refers to the early
antagonism and name calling, and Britta's own article (IVy
15, pp. 13-15), which I thought excellent, did include what could
be construed as sarcasm and insult(2).
Axiom 0
Let me rephrase my 'now this is wrong and I say it has to stop',
and say instead, 'Now this is less than optimum and I say that
the focus of future articles may at times be better aimed'.
And who am I to lay down the law? Theta is the law, and that is all
the law there is!
KSW(3)
Again I have leaped into print with inaccuracy. LRH's dramatisation
was actually the opposite of what he said in 'KSW', if the
various stories and biographies of LRH are at all accurate. His
unspoken
attitude was, 'Don't do as I do, do as I say.' Consider Otto
Roos's tale of how LRH stopped the FESing(4)
on the pc. of the LRH folders -refusing
his own tech - the one thing that might have saved him! The CofS
is where it is today due to the manner in which it seeks to follow
KSW: 'Unquestioningly follow all instructions from 'up the
lines', even if conflicting with what LRH said.' If the tech of
the CofS actually produced all the stated absolute EP's, we may well
be there with them still, following KSW and clearing the planet. But
that is not the actuality of the situation. By abandoning the CofS
and its KSW driven prohibition on Research, some of us are producing
other, hopefully better (and cheaper!) bridges. This is not to
say that many of the LRH basics are not perfectly valid.
The real point
In taking me to task, I wonder if Britta missed the real point
of my article, which was, 'Let's build a better bridge, not sling
mud at each other!'
(1)Unseemly: not looking or behaving
according to good taste, improper, indecorous. Also item 10 of the
original Code of a Scientologist (Creation of Human Ability,
page 7): 'To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed
on the subject of my profession'.
(2)Specifics, if you want them:
Para: 'anyone can churn out such 'axioms' by the dozen...'
while amusing when standing alone, in context it could be construed
as a sarcastic comment about Axiom 0. Sentence '...a little
pompous and meaningless sentence...is in my view pathetic.'
could be construed as insulting to the late Irene Mumford and her
followers.
(3)'Keeping Scientology Working', HCOPL 7 Feb. 1965.
(4)Compilation of a Folder
Error Summary - a searching through folders to find out-tech actions
done
by auditors (etc.) on the pc.