It's hard to deny it—the camera loves Tom Cruise! After Oprah spent a day with Tom at his Telluride, Colorado, home, she invited him back to Chicago to celebrate his 25-year career of making audiences laugh, cry and cheer as a leading man in film. (Visit this link to see more. He really is an extraordinary actor.)
Tom's performances have earned him three Best Actor Oscar® nominations for the films Born on the Fourth of July, Jerry Maguire and Magnolia.
I missed the actual Fox News Broadcast on Sunday, December 6, 2007 at 9 pm, but I was able to pick up the segment on YouTube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=9S-7aNPf33A. There is too much evidence that psychiatric drugs -- poorly researched and loosed on the market by the misinformed -- are causing psychotic breaks and violence. We need to "follow the money". Who wins and who loses? And, ultimately, who loses? We all do. The quality of life is declining. Time to wake up.
So how do you handle depression and the multitude of mental problems that we see being diagnosed? Not with drugs. Correct nutrition would probably help. Ultimately, one needs to know oneself, what life is about, one's place in the scheme of things. In 1967, I stumbled into Scientology, and I have never regretted it. Check it out: http://scientology.org/
The basic books and accompanying lectures of Scientology have been thoroughly researched and are now available as Ron originally wrote them and with full glossaries to enhance understanding. There are also courses and extension courses so that you can study them in a course room or in your home, sending lessons in to an extension course director.
The books and tapes are available at Bridge Publications or from a local Church of Scientology.
Recently, I posted my thoughts on evaluation on my pam-phlets blog. Here's some more thoughts.
I was reading the new edition of Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health yesterday and in the forword on How to Read this Book, (p 2 of hardcover) Mr. Hubbard talks about the "underevaluation" of facts because we "knew it all along." He points out that a fact is never important without proper evaluation of it and its precise relationship to other facts.
So I began to think, not only about should we evaluate, but when should we evaluate and the correct evaluation of importance.
Of course, we evaluate all the time. We decide something is important or unimportant. We even decide that something is important but that we can't or won't do something about it, or that, despite its importance, we will do something else.
Sometimes we are actually making decisions that fit our best interests. But often, we are reacting to hidden influences.
Evaluating for yourself (making decisions about what is important or unimportant to you) is one thing, but what about evaluating for others? Well, parents evaluate for their kids. "You should go to school. You should go to bed at 9." In so doing, they establish a structure for the child. Guidance on what is good, important and proper.
But from 1945, a phase started when parents were kind of encouraged NOT to evaluate for their kids. (This was attributed to psychologist Dr. Spock's book and labeled "permissive child-rearing." I'm not sure how many people actually read his book and how many simply formed their ideas based on little data and a lot of evaluation.) A generation grew up under this "permissive" philosophy.
I should say that I'm blogging in an area that I admittedly don't know that much about, having not had children. But I did grow up in this era of permissive child-rearing, so I have some thoughts about it. So what happened? Well, as I see it, it didn't work. Children need guidance, direction -- a moral code.
A child (or adult) without proper guidance, education and a moral code is unpredictable and disruptive. Psychology (talk therapy) failed, and Into this disrupted child-rearing scene stepped the psychiatrists. The psychiatrists are highly suseptible to hidden influences. There is no scientific body of knowledge behind the psychiatrist. Did you know that? They are people trained as doctors, then psychology, and then let loose on the world. They have a manual called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which contains a list of "mental illnesses" they have "voted in." Yes, VOTED in.
Wikipedia notes that there is controversy about the DSM because roughly 50% of the authors who previously defined psychiatric disorders have had or have financial relationships with pharmaceutical industries and drug companies. (Also see "Experts Debunk DSM.") In today's psychiatry, if you get diagnosed as mentally ill, you're sure to end up on some psychiatric drug! You may not know that many of the men and women incarcerated in our prisons are on some sort of psychiatric mediation. They get their "daily meds". They may get out of jail, but not free. They are now addicted to some very powerful drugs.
But I digress. On the topic of evaluation, this is an area which is under-evaluated. You may think, well, there is a Science of Mental Health, and the psychiatrists have it all taken care of and we now have these brand new psychiatric drugs which handle these poor mentally ill people.
Take a good look for yourself, my friend. These drugs are often lethal. These "experts" don't know what they're doing, and the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Who benefits from the current psychiatric and drug scene? Well, the psychiatrist. He now has a "solution" that doesn't take any time at all — write a prescription. And the drug manufacturer, who now has an expanding clientele.
Inform yourself at the Citizens Commission on Human Rights website. Your correct evaluation of this scene is the first step towards a saner world.
In an article titled "Anatomy of an Epidemic: Psychiatric Drugs and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America" by Robert Whittaker (Cambridge MA), published in "Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry", Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 2005, Mr. Whittaker begins:
"Over the past 50 years, there has been an astonishing increase in severe mental illness in the United States. The percentage of Americans disabled by mental illness has increased fivefold since 1955, when Thorazine — remembered today as psychiatry's first "wonder" drug — was introduced into the market. The number of Americans disabled by mental illness has nearly doubled since 1987, when Prozac — the first in a second generation of wonder drugs for mental illness — was introduced . There are now nearly 6 million Americans disabled by mental illness, and this number increases by more than 400 people each day. A review of the scientific literature reveals that it is our drug-based paradigm of care that is fueling this epidemic. (emphasis mine - ed.) The drugs increase the likelihood that a person will become chronically ill, and induce new and more severe psychiatric symptoms in a significant percentage of patients."
(See the whole article as PDF file.)
In cases like this, where clearly the public benefit is not served, I employ the old axiom "follow the money." Who stands to benefit from the increasing diagnosis of mental illness? It is obvi0us: The psychiatrists and the drug companies.
NOTE:
Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry (EHPP) is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research reports, reviews, essays, book reviews, commentaries, and case reports examining all the ramifications of the idea that emotional distress is due to an underlying organic disease that is best treated with pharmacological therapy. This oversimplified view of human nature permeates virtually every area of our society including medicine, business, law, education, politics, and the media. Thus, we welcome submissions from a broad range of specialties. EHPP is the official publication of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP).
In 1967, I stumbled across a new religious philosophy, based on axioms and containing ideas that made sense to me.
I've pulled the following brief descrption from the Religious Technology Center. It's a good introduction. I urge you, if you're looking for the answers, to visit the site and read more.
"Scientology comprises a body of knowledge which extends from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these truths:
- Man is an immortal spiritual being.
- His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.
- His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.
Scientology further holds man to be basically good, and that his spiritual salvation depends upon himself and his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe. In that regard, Scientology is a religious philosophy in the most profound sense of the word, for it is concerned with no less than the full rehabilitation of man's innate spiritual self — his capabilities, his awareness and his certainty of his own immortality. (more...)"
A friend sent me the following link, featuring a short video on the web which is thoroughly enjoyable, especially since it ends well!
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/free-hugs-p1.php
I invite you to share in the humor, joy and love!
David St. Lawrence, in his blog: Ripples has a wonderful post on "Yesterday's Experts."
Who are they?
"Yesterday's experts" are those who have risen to the top of their profession by hard work and then, satisfied by the approval of their peers, stopped learning about new things. Yet they continued making judgements about things they obviously didn't understand.
You do not want to become "yesterday's expert", because you can go down in history as a dunderhead of record when you make predictions about upcoming events. (more in Ripples)
Yesterday's experts, of course, got us into the state we are now in, including the atom bomb, the continual state of war, worldwide poverty and lack of human rights, soaring worldwide incarceration in prisons, where (by the way) criminals are not reformed, but are drugged and turned into confirmed criminals if they weren't before, schools that drug children out of any deviation from the sullen norm.
Yesterday's experts include, unfortunately, our scientists, psychiatrists, psychologists, educators, Government officials and think tank "experts", and intellectuals, all of whom seem to place more credence on what other "experts" think than on the evidence before their own eyes.
L. Ron Hubbard, writing a little booklet for broad distribution called "The Way to Happiness" states in Chapter 17:
"See what you see, not what someone tells you that you see.
"What you observe is what you observe. Look at things and life and others directly, not through any cloud of prejudice, curtain of fear or the interpretation of another."
Well, that would be a start, wouldn't it. Look. Then imagine what an IDEAL world would be like. Compare the existing with the ideal. Not too nice, is it? Imagine if we could achive the ideal world. Well, we can. But it starts with each individual having the ability to think for himself.
In Scientology, we call it a "Thetan."
A brief description:
I've been accused, what with the "DaVinci Code" and current interest in mystical secret societies, of belonging to a "secret society." I beg to differ. Anyone can join Scientology, can study as much as they please, and can experience for themselves that they are an immortal being. Scientology is an heuristic religion, by which I mean experiential. You don't have to "believe" anything. In fact, you shouldn't. You discover what is true for you.
L. Ron Hubbard has said
"Many want you to believe things just to suit their own ends.
What is true is what is true for you." (From The Way to Happiness)
You can discover your own truth, your own true nature, and I guarantee that you will be pleased by what you find.
M. Darrol Bryant, Ph.D., in his essay on Is Scientology a Religion? says: “The modern academic study of religion that emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries must be distinguished from the classical disciplines of theology. While the task of theology was the exposition of the faith of a particular community (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) -- this most commonly meant the Christian faith in the west -- the academic study of religion was concerned to offer a scientific description and analysis of all religious phenomena. Thus one of the first tasks of the modern discipline of the study of religion was to free the definition of religion from its typical identification with Christianity. Standard dictionary definitions of religion still reflect this tendency to identify religion in general with the characteristics of especially Christianity and other monotheistic faiths. Those definitions often indicate that the sole or central characteristic of religion is "belief in a Supreme Being." But scholars of religion knew of great and ancient religions that had no such "belief in a Supreme Being." The principal examples were Buddhism, especially in its Theravadin forms where such a belief was explicitly rejected, and Jainism, which also explicitly rejected this belief. Yet these religions were more than 2,000 years old.”
Samuel S. Hill, Ph.D., in Scientology - A New Religion, concludes that Scientology “…is a bona fide religion, with its own beliefs and practices. Basically, Scientology is a theory of knowledge or a way of understanding by which parishioners know what the Supreme Being is and how to participate in it for the improvement of personal and social health. Through this kind of knowing or understanding or worship, the person realizes himself or herself, achieves self-awareness, and is in healing relationship with God. In this process of arriving at true spiritual freedom, one’s life is cleared of barriers and obstacles to that freedom, and made whole and happy as intended. In this respect it is quite like Hinduism and Buddhism.”
He adds, however, that in Scientology “ ‘God’ is less a personal ‘Supreme Being’ here than an ‘Ultimate Reality’, the way things ultimately and most purely are, hence the route to the fullness of life intended for and available to all people. Through the employment of revelation, which often takes the form of techniques, people may achieve relatedness to and participation in the Supreme Being. In these respects, Scientology is more Eastern than Western, and more Buddhism than Hinduism. It aims for enlightenment through relatedness to the ways things really, ultimately are.”
Although the above discussion seems rather dry, it does seem to me (IMHO) an adequate description of the Eighth Dynamic (God Dynamic) as apprehended in Scientology. Of course, apprehension of this is an individual thing, each one coming to his own appreciation.
Pam Blehert
![](http://wbloggar.com" target="_blank" title="The best interface between you and your blog"><img src="http://wbloggar.com/images/wbloggar-button1.gif" border="0" width="88" height="31){kind=link}
Recent Comments