Essay on obeying

Kudos Mike. You’ve tackled very well an extremely difficult scenario to explain. ie The truth of how an operating Scientologist’s mind actually works. They are not generally bad people, in fact they are quite the opposite for their intentions are based on good things. However, instead of expanding Scientology as they insist they are doing, they are actually shrinking and destroying it, and all the while the “help” button is in BIG NEON LIGHTS flashing away in their minds. They are so out of communication with life it stings!
Maybe the simplicity of why a Scientologist lies has to be lived and then rejected as lies before it can be understood. Like a lot of things in life one has to experience it first hand in an operating environment to grasp it. Intellectual understanding is not all that successful in the real world and favors ivory tower behavior. What strikes me as the insanity of a Scientologist, is the evidence. What must a Scientologist reject or suppress with their own sense of right and wrong when they see an empty Org (that they paid for). They lie to themselves just as much as they will lie to anyone else.
The more I see and read of the effect of Hubbard’s Policy letters by the ex-management and HCO departmental SO on this site the more clarity of the insanity and knee jerk reaction that Scientology was founded upon as a group. I happen to like some of the tech and like to see people unburden themselves of personal upsets etc but the operating climate devised for Scientology is extremely bigoted.

Semiotician Roland Barthes characterized the distinction between listening and hearing as "Hearing is a physiological phenomenon; listening is a psychological act." [3] Hearing is always occurring, most of the time subconsciously. In contrast, listening is the interpretative action taken by the listener in order to understand and potentially make meaning out of the sound waves. Listening can be understood on three levels: alerting, deciphering, and an understanding of how the sound is produced and how the sound affects the listener. [4]

As the indemnification vote showed, the Deep State does not consist only of government agencies. What is euphemistically called “private enterprise” is an integral part of its operations. In a special series in The Washington Post called “ Top Secret America ,” Dana Priest and William K. Arkin described the scope of the privatized Deep State and the degree to which it has metastasized after the September 11 attacks. There are now 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances — a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government. While they work throughout the country and the world, their heavy concentration in and around the Washington suburbs is unmistakable: Since 9/11, 33 facilities for top-secret intelligence have been built or are under construction. Combined, they occupy the floor space of almost three Pentagons — about 17 million square feet. Seventy percent of the intelligence community’s budget goes to paying contracts. And the membrane between government and industry is highly permeable: The Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper , is a former executive of Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the government’s largest intelligence contractors. His predecessor as director, Admiral Mike McConnell , is the current vice chairman of the same company; Booz Allen is 99 percent dependent on government business. These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they are increasingly setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly, their doings unrecorded in the Congressional Record or the Federal Register , and are rarely subject to congressional hearings.

Science depends on facts. It also depends on reason. But fact and reason alone cannot explain how science works. The examples chosen all had some compelling support and serious shortcomings. Part of the answer may lie in the sociology of groups. Another part lies in simple faith: faith that future scientists will address a theory's shortcomings. Darwin needed an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion and a mechanism for the preservation of traits (see Mendel and Darwin ) . Wegener needed a mechanism for Continental Drift. Galileo needed an explanation for the lack of stellar parallax and the poor performance of his model (see Galileo's Battle for the Heavens ) . It is not only the community that requires faith. The champions of these new theories require faith in their ideas, even when facts contradict their hypotheses. In each case above, there were facts which when combined with the current assumptions of the time clearly contradicted their hypotheses. None of these scientists let those facts get in the way. Paul Feyerabend, a modern philosopher of science, presents a similar view, where he argues that science is sometimes required to work "against the facts". His key example was how the heliocentric system made less sense than a geocentric system during Galileo's time. One irony missed by discussions of science and religion is how much both depend on faith.

Essay on obeying

essay on obeying

Science depends on facts. It also depends on reason. But fact and reason alone cannot explain how science works. The examples chosen all had some compelling support and serious shortcomings. Part of the answer may lie in the sociology of groups. Another part lies in simple faith: faith that future scientists will address a theory's shortcomings. Darwin needed an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion and a mechanism for the preservation of traits (see Mendel and Darwin ) . Wegener needed a mechanism for Continental Drift. Galileo needed an explanation for the lack of stellar parallax and the poor performance of his model (see Galileo's Battle for the Heavens ) . It is not only the community that requires faith. The champions of these new theories require faith in their ideas, even when facts contradict their hypotheses. In each case above, there were facts which when combined with the current assumptions of the time clearly contradicted their hypotheses. None of these scientists let those facts get in the way. Paul Feyerabend, a modern philosopher of science, presents a similar view, where he argues that science is sometimes required to work "against the facts". His key example was how the heliocentric system made less sense than a geocentric system during Galileo's time. One irony missed by discussions of science and religion is how much both depend on faith.

Media:

essay on obeyingessay on obeyingessay on obeyingessay on obeying