Down with Dominance
I would say as very important parts of Scientology are two things.
a) granting beingness
b) waiting patiently while the preclear looks into his bank, and listening (without evaluation or invalidation) while he tells you. Letting her/him "clear" her/his self.
I have witnessed (heard or seen in writing) attempts to specify the point in time when "Scientology went wrong". Scientology has a long and varied history, and I do not believe there is one single point. But I would agree that it did go a bit "off track", so to speak. Any serious Scientologist would be well advised to make a serious study of Scientologies history, from sources that are not "not-issing" the negative and naming only the positive (and equally, not in a state apparently of ARC break with the subject, passing on only the negative, real or imagined).
For me a point "Scientology went wrong" was late in 1964, when I worked at Saint Hill England, and read a long policy letter, just issued. What hit me in the head was a part that says (paraphrasing the concept I remember, I don't have the exact reference) "We have found out that the public wants total freedom and we will therefore sell total freedom". Of course this would "read" on the "victims" in this world; those who have too many barriers and not enough freedom.
It seemed to me in contradiction to the basic principles of games theory. It still seems to me a bad, almost imoral, decision.
Total freedom, is perhaps difficult to imagine, but the attempt towards it on the part of an individual, could well cause him or her to move in the direction of dominating others (a contrary state to granting beingness). It seems to me to lead people striving after dominating conditions, those that lie above clear on the Scientology bridge, those called OT levels, where there is talk of "cause over" (or domination over).
One should remember that one of (in my consideration) the basics of Scientology, the study of communication, states that the optimum communication is in the direction of equal cause and effect. You could say equal amounts of dominating and being dominated. I fear that the way Scientology has gone, has been in the direction of producing, or turning people into, arrogant individuals who are unhappy if they are not dominant (dominating).
This writing supports Geir's view* recently stated on this list, but is meant to illuminate it from another angle. It could possibly be illuminated from many other angles, for we and Scientology are dealing with life, which is a very large and complex thing.
* see http://isene.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/on-the-value-of-life/ [sorry -years later I find that link does not work :-( ]
