What is an ex scientologist?

[Veda]

I guess I am looking from an eastern viewpoint. The journey started a long time ago. Maybe Vedas were the early milestones. Scientology happens to be just a more recent milestone.

People still licking their wounds after their encounter with Scientology may call themselves ex-Scientologists, but they are not clear out of the shadow of Scientology yet. That shadow is still hovering over their mind. They have not fully turned their back to that experience yet.

In other words, they are still looking back toward Scientology and not forward.

.

Many people have been wounded by Scientology and continue to be wounded by it, but many - also - are not "wounded."

It's not, necessarily, a matter of "licking wounds," it's about understanding.

Grown ups are inclined to understand things - It's something grown ups do. Scientology, since it exists, is going to examined and it is going to be understood - despite the intentions of its Founder that it not be fully examined or fully comprehended by those most influenced by it.

Why should I "turn my back" on anything, when I can look in all directions at once?

 

[Vinaire]

So what?

Your attitude is one of superiority and it is elitist and judgmental.

Very "Scientology".

That's what I see right now in you. Maybe worse...

"I am right and you are wrong." That is what I see coming from you right now.

Calm down.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Many people have been wounded by Scientology and continue to be wounded by it, but many - also - are not "wounded."

It's not, necessarily, a matter of "licking wounds," it's about understanding.

Grown ups are inclined to understand things - It's something grown ups do. Scientology, since it exists, is going to examined and it is going to be understood - despite the intentions of its Founder that it not be fully examined or fully comprehended by those most influenced by it.

Why should I "turn my back" on anything, when I can look in all directions at once?

I don't think I implied "turning one's back." It is fully grokking it, or assimilating it, rising above it, completing cycle on it, ete., etc., so one has no attention stuck back on it.

And moving on. Total TR0.

It is a mental thing. One may still use that bit of Scientology vocabulary that helps express oneself best. But that would not mean that one is being a Scientologist.

Both Scientologist and ex-Scientologists are added identities.

It is better to be oneself.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

I don't think I implied "turning one's back." It is fully grokking it, or assimilating it, rising above it, completing cycle on it, ete., etc., so one has no attention stuck back on it.

And moving on. Total TR0.

It is a mental thing. One may still use that bit of Scientology vocabulary that helps express oneself best. But that would not mean that one is being a Scientologist.

Both Scientologist and ex-Scientologists are added identities.

It is better to be oneself.

.

You seem to be confused. You're confusing an 'attribute' with an exclusive label.

I'm a man; I'm politically independent; I'm Joe Lynn; I'm Zinjifar; I'm in my late 50s; I'm an american; I'm a musician (even when I'm not playing music); I'm an artist; I'm the proud owner of a used motorcycle; I'm a cigar smoker (that may change; it's starting to be a drag); I'm a carnivore by preference, but have been known to eat veggies and on and on and on.

A person who labels *himself* an 'ex-scientologist' is an ex-scientologist and *other things*. It's a recognition of history, and, for some, a rejection of a past belief system. Nothing about being an 'ex-scientologist' implies obsession, although, some may be obsessed.

Zinj

 

[Veda]

I don't think I implied "turning one's back." It is fully grokking it, or assimilating it, rising above it, completing cycle on it, ete., etc., so one has no attention stuck back on it.

And moving on. Total TR0.

It is a mental thing. One may still use that bit of Scientology vocabulary that helps express oneself best. But that would not mean that one is being a Scientologist.

Both Scientologist and ex-Scientologists are added identities.

It is better to be oneself.

.

1) Grokking it (Understanding it)

2) Assimilating it

3) Rising above it

4) Completing cycle on it

5) No attention stuck back on it

are different things.

For some people, it may be preferable that they just do #2 through 5, and skip #1, but for some, doing #1 is preferable - especially since others will benefit from having that new understanding shared with them.

 

[Tanstaafl]

That's what I mean.

Being an Ex-Scientologist includes having been a Scientologist.

It isn't a "cycle of action" that is "over".

Okay. You may have to elaborate a little for me.
Isn't it just a matter of the individual's consideration? Those who are no longer the effect of their involvement aren't really ex's except through the eyes of others. Those who are still protesting what happened to them are stuck in a ex-scn beingness that is, at least to some degree, reactive.

(Nothing in this post should be construed as being dismissive of the pain experienced by some during their involvement with the Church) Sorry, but it's good to be clear about these things.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I've been thinking about cycles of action in my destripping process. What cycle is not arbitrary? Which one can't be ended or continued anytime one wants, since a cycle is wholly one's own creation? The Jews and many other cultures have ceremonies which are intended to end one's cycle as a child and begin as an adult, for instance. At what point is one not a child, at one point is the hole dug deep enough, at what point is the house painted enough for you to say, "done". It is your cycle that counts, not someone else's version of it, isn't it? So what cycle isn't arbitrary?

I guess that's the difference between cycles which are chiefly significance and those which are chiefly physical; there being some overlap. A Bar Mitsvah (sp?) may aid a boy in changing his considerations about his role in life, his relationships with others, his duties and responsibilities in his community and in a broader sphere. Whereas, his balls dropping, his voice breaking and the onset of facial hair are part of a physical cycle of action.

 

[Vinaire]

You seem to be confused. You're confusing an 'attribute' with an exclusive label.

I'm a man; I'm politically independent; I'm Joe Lynn; I'm Zinjifar; I'm in my late 50s; I'm an american; I'm a musician (even when I'm not playing music); I'm an artist; I'm the proud owner of a used motorcycle; I'm a cigar smoker (that may change; it's starting to be a drag); I'm a carnivore by preference, but have been known to eat veggies and on and on and on.

A person who labels *himself* an 'ex-scientologist' is an ex-scientologist and *other things*. It's a recognition of history, and, for some, a rejection of a past belief system. Nothing about being an 'ex-scientologist' implies obsession, although, some may be obsessed.

Zinj

That attribute is not a part of your original identity.

You simply experienced Scientology. That's it. Now do you have to carry some attribute around with you. For what?" I am ex-fucked-up person." What use does that have?

Do you have to have an attribute for every experience you ever had?

Maybe mental image pictures... but that is an unneccesary load to carry.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Okay. You may have to elaborate a little for me.
Isn't it just a matter of the individual's consideration? Those who are no longer the effect of their involvement aren't really ex's except through the eyes of others. Those who are still protesting what happened to them are stuck in a ex-scn beingness that is, at least to some degree, reactive.

(Nothing in this post should be construed as being dismissive of the pain experienced by some during their involvement with the Church) Sorry, but it's good to be clear about these things.

A person who has been a scientologist retains aspects of that 'beingness' long after he's stopped being one. Like callouses or scars or a sunburn, there are 'after-effects'. And, much like a 'scientologist' finds 'ex-scientologist' an incomprehensible 'state', a new 'ex-scientologist' may take years even recognizing those scars, and assumptions and 'modalities'.

At one point it was popular for people to call themselves 'unindoctrinated', as if it were a switch that could be thrown and shrug off years of indoctrination.

For Ron, being a Scientologist was a totality. *The* label. 'The' beingness. Scientology is a jealous god and will have no theety-weety, middle-class, dilletantism before it.

Whether anyone ever achieved the heights of 'absolute' Scientology Ron envisioned or not is irrelevant; certainly many were well on the way, and, the indoctrination is insidious.

But, you can probably no more convince a Scientologist that 'ex-scientologist' is a legitimate state than you can convince them that 'processing' is hypnotic

Zinj

 

[Snuffy]

I'm inclined to simplify this thing as much as possible.

Did I once consider myself a Scientologist?

Yes.

Do I still go into the org to take services?
No.

Do I go to IAS events?
No.

Do I follow KSW?
No.

Do I support the organization known as The Church Of Scientology?
No.

Do I believe everything Lafayette Ron Hubbard ever said or wrote is absolute truth?
Gimme a break.

Ipso Facto - ex-Scientologist.

Do I still find parts of it useful?
Yes.

I also find parts of the Bible useful. Does that mean I'm a Christian? No. Should I call myself an ex-Christian? No, because I never considered myself a Christian.

To practice or use or believe in parts of something doesn't imply an identity assocaited with the whole of it. I believe in science but would not consider myself a scientist.

I've been indoctrinated to believe that "Scientologist" means that kind of gung-ho, on-purpose, upstat member of the group that calls itself The Church of Scientology. I used to be that. I am no longer.

Ex.

Simple as that.

 

[Tanstaafl]

But, you can probably no more convince a Scientologist that 'ex-scientologist' is a legitimate state than you can convince them that 'processing' is hypnotic

Zinj

I do believe ex-Scn is a legitimate state but I think you have to take each case on its own merits. There will be some common phemonena for sure.

I found processing undid my self-hypnosis, but you can probably no more convince a Scn-critic of that than you can convince them that you've lived before. Anyway, trying to convince anyone of anything is a mug's game.

Cheers

tanstaafl

 

[Snuffy]

But, you can probably no more convince a Scientologist that 'ex-scientologist' is a legitimate state than you can convince them that 'processing' is hypnotic

Zinj

Hypnotic???

 

[Tanstaafl]

You nailed it Snuffy!
But you may have ruined the game of this thread. :mad:

 

[Snuffy]

You nailed it Snuffy!
But you may have ruined the game of this thread. :mad:

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I think it depends on what the individual wants to do, what he believes, etc.

 

[Vinaire]

From a demographic point of view the answer is simple.

Scientologists are people who believe and say they are Scientologists.

An ex-Scientologist is therefore someone who used to believe and say that, but no longer does so.

The exceptions would be people who are irrational and/or insane.

This of course ignores the Trade Marking of 'Scientologist' by the Church of Scientology, but that has not been tested in court IIRC. I would hope that it would be laughed out of court.

Somehow I never associated any beliefs with Scientology. To me, Scientology meant the methodology of "knowing how to know."

To me, this methodology was most closely represented by the Data Series. I like Data series. Per LRH (Scn-EOS) this was the methodology he used to come up with the discoveries of Dianetics and Scientology.

"Knowing how to know" is senior to any knowledge. I have benefitted from both the methodology and the knowledge gained from that methodology. Those benefits are part of me even when I totally as-is all my experiences of Scientology.

It is like Scientology uncovered in me what was already there, something like polishing a diamond and bringing out its beauty.

I am more myself after my encounter with Scientology. To that degree I no longer need Scientology.

That is how I feel.

P.S.: I can also see the squirreling of true knowledge in Scientology because of my awakening in which Scientology definitely helped. Today's Scientology is no longer the Scientology that helped me.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Somehow I never associated any beliefs with Scientology.

.

Yet another of the implanted post-hypnotic commands

'I don't believe; I don't believe; I *know*'

Zinj

 

[Tanstaafl]

Yet another of the implanted post-hypnotic commands

'I don't believe; I don't believe; I *know*'

Zinj

Okay Zinj, have you met anyone (or believe that anyone might exist) who, having left Scn, is not now mentally enslaved to some degree?

 

[Zinjifar]

Okay Zinj, have you met anyone (or believe that anyone might exist) who, having left Scn, is not now mentally enslaved to some degree?

In a way this is a variation on a 'straw man fallacy'.
There may be some accuracy in considering full-bore Rondroidism, as designed and promoted by Ron and His 'Church' as a form of 'slavery', but, for the most part the mere fact of leaving ends the slavery.

Not, however, the 'indoc'.

We all deal with our self-imposed and even invisible mental 'chains' and, where we become aware of them, we may or may not be able to cast them off. *Until* we're aware of them, that's unlikely.

So, while I know many Scientologists and ex-Scientologists, for the most part, I wouldn't consider them 'enslaved', but often 'bound' by the 'indoc' they're *not* aware of.

For me, the term 'unindoctrinated' translates to 'So far and no further!'

Like I said though, we're all chained in some way; Scientology is only of particular interest in that the chains are a *Standard Set*, and, therefore, far more accessible than many of the cultural bias and 'raised that way' chains we all carry, but, seldom see.

I do know any number of 'recovering Scientologists' who have done a great job casting off the shackles; many of them post here. And, where a bias is *recognized*, it's possible to 'allow for it' and counteract the influence.

But, to deny it (itself the most insidious chain) precludes that

Zinj

 

[Tanstaafl]

Got it. Just wanted a better understanding of your overall view on this. Thanks Zinj.