JustSheila
Crusader
I'll see what I can do. Enough learning tek for one day.
phenomanon said:
Don't look at me, I'm not falling for that one again!
Yeh, sorry. I am ex-SO so had a different experience. Still, comaraderie were a big part of the public scene at the time I was in, too.One small point that irritates me slightly is the lumping together of all scientologists as if they are all the same.
I was in scientology for over 15 years and I didn't want to save the planet and I certainly didn't experience cameraderie.
I was there to get myself up the Bridge and become OT. Everything else was a distraction especially the repeated interviews to join staff or the Sea Org. Even going in to the org where there were other scientologists was a distraction I could have done without. If I could have gone up the Bridge by staying at home and studying and processing myself then that's what I would have done.
In my OP I broke Scientology down into several distinct tribes, however, they are part of the larger tribe called Scientologists. I separated these various tribes within the general label / faction / tribe of Scientologists, because they have distinctly different goals, agreements, morals, and some at odds with the goals, agreement and morals etc. of the others.One small point that irritates me slightly is the lumping together of all scientologists as if they are all the same.
I was in scientology for over 15 years and I didn't want to save the planet and I certainly didn't experience cameraderie.
I was there to get myself up the Bridge and become OT. Everything else was a distraction especially the repeated interviews to join staff or the Sea Org. Even going in to the org where there were other scientologists was a distraction I could have done without. If I could have gone up the Bridge by staying at home and studying and processing myself then that's what I would have done.
I remember at my org there was a female member of public who lived near me and we used to see each other often outside of the org. She was a member of a hard-core famous scientology family in the UK. She once said to me: "You don't like the sea org do you?". This put me on edge because I assumed this was going to lead to a KR. I asked how she knew that and she said she could see it in my face whenever a sea org person was around.Yeh, sorry. I am ex-SO so had a different experience. Still, comaraderie were a big part of the public scene at the time I was in, too.
You're right it was a huge distraction. It was meant to be, to keep the group thing going.
Another concept that occurred to me - if we in fact lived thousands of years a nomadic tribes, hunting and gathering, our possessions were limited to what we could carry, pack on a horse, or drag in a travois, and our societies were egalitarian, and the weapons were knives, spears, bows and arrows, there was parity amongst the peoples ( unlike our guns) and so things were decided on agreement between the individuals of the tribe, then communism, socialism capitalism, and the other -isms are aberrations - false institutions foisted upon the individuals.
I think you have an overly idyllic view of tribal life. In any group, there will be people with more power than others, whether that power comes from being stronger, being better at getting resources for the group (eg, reges in Scn), or being better enough at political manipulation that he accumulates a group of bullies who assist him in keeping the rest in line (Davey at Int).For instance, some of the IAS reges. recruiters, book store officers etc. have no compunction against ripping off peoples accounts, breaking up families to get a recruit, and signing up people for services, such as OT9-10 that the orgs will never deliver, push people into debt by falsely obtaining credit cards and getting the parishioners to use them, when they don't have the means to pay them off, all under the umbrella - it's for the greatest good.
Thus, my point in the OP - some of the tribes are at war with each other, instead of forwarding the goal to "raise man to greater heights bla bla."
Mimsey.
Enthetan, I am bringing up the points in the first chapter of the book, which deal with tribes in the 1700s when America was first being colonized, as well as some the tribe that were intact in Africa during the 1970's. The point I read the next day after posting, was the overarching duty to the survival of the group, and the bigger crimes were hording, shirking helping with hunting, fishing etc. Typically, the older men cast out those that weren't onboard with tribe survival, if they didn't kill them outright.I think you have an overly idyllic view of tribal life. In any group, there will be people with more power than others, whether that power comes from being stronger, being better at getting resources for the group (eg, reges in Scn), or being better enough at political manipulation that he accumulates a group of bullies who assist him in keeping the rest in line (Davey at Int).
As far as things having been more egalitarian when we used spears and blades instead of guns, it was the gun which allowed a 90 pound woman to be on an equal basis with a 250 pound guy. In the days of the sword, a man who had enough time to develop his skills (like a nobleman who had lots of leisure time to practice) could defeat a group of unskilled men, even if they also had swords.
The gun was the great equalizer. A peasant woman...like you said...could, with a pull of a trigger, blast a knight wrapped in steel right out of the saddle and all those years of training and dedication were so much powder and smoke.I think you have an overly idyllic view of tribal life. In any group, there will be people with more power than others, whether that power comes from being stronger, being better at getting resources for the group (eg, reges in Scn), or being better enough at political manipulation that he accumulates a group of bullies who assist him in keeping the rest in line (Davey at Int).
As far as things having been more egalitarian when we used spears and blades instead of guns, it was the gun which allowed a 90 pound woman to be on an equal basis with a 250 pound guy. In the days of the sword, a man who had enough time to develop his skills (like a nobleman who had lots of leisure time to practice) could defeat a group of unskilled men, even if they also had swords.
As I pointed out earlier, this group of anthropologists that originally pushed this usage of "Tribe" were deliberately trying to integrate Marxist ideology into the field of Anthropology. As far as they were concerned the word "Tribe" was a tool of Colonialism to subjugate victims of Capitalism. Marxism relies upon breaking down societies into groups that compete for rights and resources that are granted and redistributed by a power elite according to the elite's concept of need. By Scientologizing the word "Tribe" Marxists redefine groups with arbitrary classifications to further this segregation much like LRH does in Science of Survival. As far as I'm concerned this is Mimsey's "Progressive Thread" but because he didn't want to put it under "Off Topic Discussion" where viewing is limited, he is using the "'Evaluating and Criticizing Scientology" category to further his Marxist agenda.The word "tribe" in referring to groups of humans is similar to "flock" for birds or "herd" for deer.
For modern humans this term is no longer applicable except for a very few isolated groups of humans in the remote regions of, say, South America or Africa.
For example, if I enroll in a college I am not joining a "tribe".
For example, if I go to Brazil and join the Awá people then I AM joining a tribe.