What's new

Black and White

Purple Rain

Crusader
At the moment I'm still working on establishing formal methods regarding Scientology.

One thing I am trying to do is separate out Dianetic and non-Dianetic processes and determine the interdependencies and such between them. I'm currently much more interested in the non-Dianetic processes and the types of mental states they induce. For theses processes I'm working on isolating them as much as possible from Scientology itself in order to judge each process on its own merits. Currently I'm only experimenting on myself to try to determine which things are the most interesting to (hopefully) eventually study for real - though that's years out at this point. Developing correct methodology is very important to me so I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to do things in the most correct way possible.

I want to be clear that I'm not looking to validate Scientology as a whole - I really could care less about Scientology being validated. I'm also not at all funded by the church - I'm pretty sure if they knew who I was I would be declared an SP very quickly but at the moment in the interest of research I'm trying to maintain an not-SP status with them without actually giving them any of my money.

Most of my research regarding other religions is very different than that regarding Scientology.

I'm currently working on sort of charting out the various cosmologies presented in the various Gnostic texts and at some point I plan to see how these map to in-built and developed archetypes that we have. I think that some of the more mythology-type stuff in Scientology can also be mapped to similar or the same archetypes so there might be some similarities between Scientology and Gnostic Christianity there but that's just speculation at the moment.

I've spent a fair amount of time researching the work of Dr. John Dee and Edward Kelley in their "communications with angels", especially regarding the language that the angels spoke. They were given translations for parts of it, but the majority of it is untranslated. So I have been using various methods to find possible translations of untranslated words ranging from linguistic methods and writing a computer program to do statistical analysis on the works to inducing a trance and asking the meaning of word (and documenting how any possible translation was derived).

One thing I want to eventually research as well is the role of fundamentalism on the human psyche. Most of the bad things about fundamentalism are obvious, especially at the social level - but I wonder if there are some potential positive effects on the individual human mind and if so what they are.

I'm back in school starting in 2 weeks to work on psychology and religion degrees so the above is kind of hobby research at the moment that I hope to eventually evolve into more serious research.

Well, good luck with it. And I'd love to have the opportunity to discuss the validity of the methodology. That would be wonderful! Thank you! Not that I am any kind of professional, but that has never stopped me from feeling like I might have a contribution to make to something on some level. I think that if your methodology could withstand a critique by exes of the calibre we have here, you would have found a very strong starting point for your research.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Having said all that - I want to see more scientifically valid research in the field of religion in general. The little research in this are is, in my opinion, often way to broad and too biased. There _are_ right ways to do it but tests need to be much more limited in scope, much more controlled, and the conclusions drawn be used as the basis for other research rather than making broad conclusive statements. Too many people want to test some small thing and declare the whole thing valid or invalid - this is insanely common. For instance there are people who want to declare Christ real or fake based on analysis of only the Shroud of Turin but testing only that can in no way tell you anything about Christ - it only tells you about the Shroud of Turin and anything else is jumping to conclusions.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
You keep saying that you regard Scientology as a religion. Before you go back to school, I hope you notice that there are many who do not share that view.

I am aware that not everyone would use the terms religion or church when talking about Scientology but I have an extremely liberal take on those words. To me if anyone inside a group calls their group a religion or a church then as far as I am concerned it is a religion or church. Being a religion or church doesn't mean you have good intentions or that your actions are beneficial or even legal - its merely a word many groups apply to themselves. I do not feel it is my place to tell anyone their group is not a religion or church regardless of what they believe but I also do not support special legal or tax protection for churches or religions. The only arguments about Scientology being or not being a religion that I am interested in are ones which have implications for other religions.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Well, good luck with it. And I'd love to have the opportunity to discuss the validity of the methodology. That would be wonderful! Thank you! Not that I am any kind of professional, but that has never stopped me from feeling like I might have a contribution to make to something on some level. I think that if your methodology could withstand a critique by exes of the calibre we have here, you would have found a very strong starting point for your research.

Thanks. As I work though it I intend to post things here since this is certainly going to be the group most qualified to offer critique.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
I am aware that not everyone would use the terms religion or church when talking about Scientology but I have an extremely liberal take on those words. To me if anyone inside a group calls their group a religion or a church then as far as I am concerned it is a religion or church. Being a religion or church doesn't mean you have good intentions or that your actions are beneficial or even legal - its merely a word many groups apply to themselves. I do not feel it is my place to tell anyone their group is not a religion or church regardless of what they believe but I also do not support special legal or tax protection for churches or religions. The only arguments about Scientology being or not being a religion that I am interested in are ones which have implications for other religions.

Your reluctance to categorize twists the definition of "religion" far out of standard usage. Words have meanings, and one of El Wrong's standard methodologies was to distort or twist those meanings as a method of control.

A "religion" without a deity is generally called a Philosophy in standard English usage. Which is what the non-religious Buddhists call themselves in English most of the time.

By any standard definition, Scientology is at most a Philosophy (I would call it a Pseudo Natural Philosopy, based on it's purported claims of being "scientific") and a deluded one at that.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

The only arguments about Scientology being or not being a religion that I am interested in are ones which have implications for other religions.

Scientology is a manipulative cult, a corrupt business, and a flawed psychological system that tells people it's a religion to have the perks of a religion, and to avoid various laws, monitoring, and inspection, and taxes.

Many of the abuses that are committed by Scientology would not be possible if it were not for its dishonest religious cloaking.

If you ever become interested in those abuses, and stopping those abuses, let us know. :)
 
Not to sound too snarky here, but I see you keep having this idea that I'm only interested in the good parts - doesn't starting a thread pointing out a contradiction in his work go against this idea? I'm just as interested in cataloging the negative parts and inconsistencies as I am finding the good parts. I'm not on some quest to uncover the nuggets of iron pyrite buried in the horse crap - I believe its there but that the only way to uncover it is to manually separate it out and I think it might not even be there but the only way to know is to look. In your analogy you seem to be stating there is 50% good stuff and 50% bad stuff - I think that's being rather generous.

Keep in mind I'm a psychology and religion major - having a more than cursory understanding of this topic is of direct interest to me and Scientology is not the only religion that I evaluate like this - it's just the only one that is a primary topic on this forum.

Calling it a religion puts you right where hubbard would have wanted you.
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
So, Chapter 5 of Scientology 8-80 is filled with praise for Black and White such as



and it basically says Black and White is going to solve all the problems of other processes and have the whole planet clear within a week or something.

but in Scientology 8-8008 it says



Both of these books were published in 1952. Surely I am not the only one who has noticed this and found it rather odd.

It is part of $cientology $elling the My$tery!! This stuff gives Hubbard some altitude you see - because he admits later it is not significant. Try to figure out this Black and White shit - SPIN SPIN SPIN - and that is exactly the effect Hubbard wanted - it puts his victims in Confusion and that is when they make mistakes and are vulnerable to mind control methods!
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Your reluctance to categorize twists the definition of "religion" far out of standard usage. Words have meanings, and one of El Wrong's standard methodologies was to distort or twist those meanings as a method of control.

If you are implying my liberal definition of religion and church are an attempt to control others you are not at all understanding what I am saying. My definition specially allows others to control me by saying they are a church or religion and specifically disallows me controlling others since I only apply those labels to those that apply it to themselves.

A "religion" without a deity is generally called a Philosophy in standard English usage. Which is what the non-religious Buddhists call themselves in English most of the time.

I understand this argument, however its not really the case.

[URL said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism[/URL]]Buddhism is a religion
[URL said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism[/URL]]Jainism, traditionally known as Jaina dharma, is an Indian religion
I would say it is more correct to call a religion without a deity a 'non-theistic religion' in many cases. IMHO it would be reasonable to call Scientology a "religious philosophy" but because it, like Buddhism, contains other indicators of being a religion I personally believe that simply "religion" is a reasonable term to use in casual discussion.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Scientology is a manipulative cult, a corrupt business, and a flawed psychological system that tells people it's a religion to have the perks of a religion, and to avoid various laws, monitoring, and inspection, and taxes.

Many of the abuses that are committed by Scientology would not be possible if it were not for its dishonest religious cloaking.

If you ever become interested in those abuses, and stopping those abuses, let us know. :)

I am well aware of the abuses of the church of scientology but as I stated I do not believe that has anything to do with it being a religion or not. I believe religious legal and tax protection should not exist - to me that is the problem, not what we call a religion.
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh also I wanted to mention that I don't really consider the work I am doing now on this subject to be the 'real' work that I intend to do with it - rather this is more preliminary research needed to gain a better understanding of the topic prior to doing the real work.

I believe you would have to accomplish a "better understanding" using El Ron's policy on "comparable magnitude". I am curious as to what you think...what can you compare objectively with Scientology?

I think the best way to understand Scientology is this path:

One has to be out living life for long enough to know life and how it works. One should try other "religions" and "self help" stuff. Try various spiritual paths to compare it to.

Have some business experience and work for successful people. Have your own business and be successful.

Have a family and have had support from other Churches, Schools and groups.

One gets into Scientology and experiences enough of it to the point where the "love bombing" stops and you are expected to toe the line and give everything to Scientology - money, family, labor, buy everything they sell.

Then step out of Scientology and LOOK.

Then one has a conceptual understanding of L Ron Hubbard and Scientology.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
I am well aware of the abuses of the church of scientology but as I stated I do not believe that has anything to do with it being a religion or not.

-snip-

Without government sanctioned religious cloaking - attained by decades of harassment and possibly blackmail - Scientology would not be able to get away with many of its abuses.

So, you are mistaken.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Without government sanctioned religious cloaking - attained by decades of harassment and possibly blackmail - Scientology would not be able to get away with many of its abuses.

So, you are mistaken.

which is why I said that governments need to stop giving religious groups special freedoms...
both would help the situation but regulating the use of the words religion and church have implications for other religions and churches which are not involved in these sorts of things and allows other religions to continue their own abuses. Removing the special treatment of religious organization on the other hand is a much better solution in my opinion. You seem to have a lot of emotion attached to the words religion and church which I do not have.
 

Veda

Sponsor
which is why I said that governments need to stop giving religious groups special freedoms...
both would help the situation but regulating the use of the words religion and church have implications for other religions and churches which are not involved in these sorts of things and allows other religions to continue their own abuses. Removing the special treatment of religious organization on the other hand is a much better solution in my opinion. You seem to have a lot of emotion attached to the words religion and church which I do not have.

No emotion, just factual information.

The changes you suggest re. "other religions" are not going to occur in the USA in the foreseeable future.

I hope you take the time to read the earlier post and watch its videos and links.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
The current tech was always better and weaker than the tech before it.

I recall listening to lectures where Ron boasted of creating clears in 30 hours with little more than Objective processes.

After the GAT came out I was quoted 25 intensives just to get through the grades. That's a hell of a lot more than 30 hours.

If one really takes the time to listen to the lectures and read the books and undertand them rather than be fascinated by them they would see these glaring inconsistencies throughout the entire track of Dianetics and Scientology.

It took less time to make a clear with Dianetics than NED:duh:
So, Chapter 5 of Scientology 8-80 is filled with praise for Black and White such as



and it basically says Black and White is going to solve all the problems of other processes and have the whole planet clear within a week or something.

but in Scientology 8-8008 it says



Both of these books were published in 1952. Surely I am not the only one who has noticed this and found it rather odd.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
No emotion, just factual information.

The changes you suggest re. "other religions" are not going to occur in the USA in the foreseeable future.

I hope you take the time to read the earlier post and watch its videos and links.

Scientology being declared not a religion is unlikely to happen in the USA in the foreseeable future either unfortunately and I prefer to support what I view to be the correct approach of removing special laws for all religious groups.

Thanks for the information. Aside from some of the posts by other members I have already read the documents you provided links to, one of which ( http://www.bible.ca/scientology-not-religion-kent.htm ) states: "the more appropriate position to take is that the organization is a multi-faceted transnational that has religion as only one of its many components" which is certainly in line with my views on it however saying "the religious portion of Scientology" everytime I would say "Scientology" is overly cumbersome in casual conversation.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
If one really takes the time to listen to the lectures and read the books and undertand them rather than be fascinated by them they would see these glaring inconsistencies throughout the entire track of Dianetics and Scientology.

This is certainly a recurring problem I see.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Not to sound too snarky here, but I see you keep having this idea that I'm only interested in the good parts - doesn't starting a thread pointing out a contradiction in his work go against this idea? I'm just as interested in cataloging the negative parts and inconsistencies as I am finding the good parts. I'm not on some quest to uncover the nuggets of iron pyrite buried in the horse crap - I believe its there but that the only way to uncover it is to manually separate it out and I think it might not even be there but the only way to know is to look. In your analogy you seem to be stating there is 50% good stuff and 50% bad stuff - I think that's being rather generous.

Keep in mind I'm a psychology and religion major - having a more than cursory understanding of this topic is of direct interest to me and Scientology is not the only religion that I evaluate like this - it's just the only one that is a primary topic on this forum.


That's cool with me. Everyone has their own style of how they try to grok Scientology.

Most of what I write is not to try and change the poster's ideas. It is to bring balance to the discussion in favor of lurkers who might still be thinking they are going to attain something worthwhile by "doing what Ron says". LOL.

From my perspective, obviously, the entirety of Scientology is a hoax. Good hoaxes have enough factual bait to set the trap--otherwise nobody would get interested or hooked. Billion dollar con games require an elaborate smorgsesbord of delectable looking foods--some of which are actually edible. For all who wish to snack (or dine at the all-you-can-eat-tech-buffet) it is well advised to bring a food taster to avoid the toxic selections.

PS: On that note where you mention my 50% good/bad ratio--that is related to the BAIT & SWITCH readily visible portions of Scientology. The ratio of good/bad within Scientology's inner sanctum are almost entirely bad. That's why the INT Headquarters and Cult Leaders (Hubbard, Miscavige) are found to be busily imprisoning people in chain lockers, over boards, RFPs and dealing out corporal and psychological torture/terrorism to those who don't obey their "command intention". The rule is, the closer you are to "Source" the worse it gets; that is not a coincidence.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
That's cool with me. Everyone has their own style of how they try to grok Scientology.

Most of what I write is not to try and change the poster's ideas. It is to bring balance to the discussion in favor of lurkers who might still be thinking they are going to attain something worthwhile by "doing what Ron says". LOL.

Groovy, groovy.

From my perspective, obviously, the entirety of Scientology is a hoax. Good hoaxes have enough factual bait to set the trap--otherwise nobody would get interested or hooked. Billion dollar con games require an elaborate smorgsesbord of delectable looking foods--some of which are actually edible. For all who wish to snack (or dine at the all-you-can-eat-tech-buffet) it is well advised to bring a food taster to avoid the toxic selections.

Absolutely. Being able to taste poisonous religious food to figure out which parts are edible is specifically what I'm going to school for.

PS: On that note where you mention my 50% good/bad ratio--that is related to the BAIT & SWITCH readily visible portions of Scientology. The ratio of good/bad within Scientology's inner sanctum are almost entirely bad. That's why the INT Headquarters and Cult Leaders (Hubbard, Miscavige) are found to be busily imprisoning people in chain lockers, over boards, RFPs and dealing out corporal and psychological torture/terrorism to those who don't obey their "command intention". The rule is, the closer you are to "Source" the worse it gets; that is not a coincidence.

Ah that makes more sense to me then - yes I agree with that.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
If you are implying my liberal definition of religion and church are an attempt to control others you are not at all understanding what I am saying. My definition specially allows others to control me by saying they are a church or religion and specifically disallows me controlling others since I only apply those labels to those that apply it to themselves.

No, I am implying that it will allow others to manipulate you, as did Ron with the IRS.

I understand this argument, however its not really the case.

Yes, it is. People mistake Busddhism the philosophical system for a religion because it came out of a religion, but are no longer part of it, just as Astrology is no longer connected to the Pagan soothsaying it came from. As for Jainism, I consider the term "religion" to be accurate, becasue the Ahamindras are deities of a sort.

I like the terms religious philosophy or nontheistic religion. But when you say "religion" as applied to a perosn of faith, that is not the first image conjured up. If you are going to lump it in your studies under a general rubric of "religion", fine, but academically you have to be clear on your terms in order to communicate with anyone else. You can invent new terms or insist on hard divisions in terms that have been heretofore fuzzy (religoin vs. religious philosophy) but don't muddy the water or you will have critics from all sides blasting you when they might actually agree with you.

Most religious philosophies differ significantly from religions in their hold on the psyche and especially in how young believers are introduced to the faith. Scientology seems to straddle the gap there, looking like a fundamentalist religion based on a philosophical, and allegedly scientifically provable, extra-corporeal property of the human being. The one mainstream religion that looks more like a philosophy is Unitarianism. I can't pin down what, exactly they do believe. It might be interesting to caompare and contrast the two as coming to the middle from theism to non-theism from two different directions.
 
Top