Marty wrote a post on his blog recently that is a throwback, or maybe even a backslide, to his earlier days.
In this post, he once again tries to create a “reasonable middle ground” which he proposes that he occupies. Everyone he disagrees with, however, seems to exist on the irrational extreme ends of an imaginary “spectrum” of ideas on Scientology and L Ron Hubbard.
The question begging to be asked is: why should anyone ever use a spectrum to think about other peoples’ ideas?
It doesn’t work to understand political ideas, except in a very low-brow, kindergarten-simplistic kind of way. Applying a “spectrum” to think with anything on the Post-Scientology internet is just asking to be blinkered right off the bat.
Here’s why Marty’s wrong on this:
Two rational, well-reasoned and well-supported arguments, whose conclusions directly conflict with each other, can both be valid.
One of those conflicting arguments does not have to come from an insane person who is also an adolescent extremist who does not value reason.
For instance, the pro-Scientology poster “Marildi” often presents very sound reasoning for the conclusions she holds, sometimes with very sound supporting evidence for her reasoning.
And also, the anti-Scientology poster “Crepuscule” continually presents extremely well crafted arguments with iron clad reasoning to support his/her conclusions.
Yet the conclusions that Marildi and Crepuscule present are often in direct conflict with each other.
Does that make one, or both of them “extremists” who do not value reason – especially when they continually display their well-crafted reasoning for other people’s inspection?
Just the fact that their reasoning is available for inspection by others is a pluspoint – and can serve as the objective proof that both of their arguments are valid.
It was the cult that said there was only one way to see things and everyone else was insane.
Human beings are social animals whose greatest strength is their multiple viewpoint system where well meaning, sane, and rational people routinely hold conflicting conclusions. Throughout human history, any system that recognizes and values multiple viewpoints, and does not denigrate or dead-agent them, thrives.
One of the fundamental reasons scientology failed utterly was that L Ron Hubbard shut out every one else’s opinion than his own. And he labeled every other opinion than his own as “bank dominated mob”.
Instead of seeing all these opinions in the “Scientology Sandbox” on a “spectrum” with insanity at each pole, why not test each individual argument for the soundness of its rationale, and see all of them as a constellation?
One path leads to Mao, Hubbard and The Grave.
The other leads to Socrates, Jefferson, and The Sky.