Would you like to see CofS revamped and reformed?

Discussion in 'Human Potential, Self Discovery' started by Voltaire's Child, Feb 14, 2009.

?
  1. No, I don't think reform could happen.It would never get off the ground- it would be the same.

    34 vote(s)
    52.3%
  2. Yes. It's possible and I would rejoin once I was sure it wasn't like it was before.

    5 vote(s)
    7.7%
  3. Maybe possible but I'd not rejoin as it would be: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

    9 vote(s)
    13.8%
  4. I don't care if it's possible or not.I don't want to see anyone out there spreading Scn.

    14 vote(s)
    21.5%
  5. Yes, I think it's possible but I wouldn't rejoin because I'm too used to going my own way.

    6 vote(s)
    9.2%
  6. Yes, I think it's possible but I wouldn't rejoin because I don't want to do any Scn.

    4 vote(s)
    6.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
View Users: View Users
  1. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Last time someone called her by that f word she went ballistic. Let's see what happens this time. :)

    As for the section of the board I very rarely notice unless I'm specifically looking for it.

    Paul
     
  2. Pascal

    Pascal Silver Meritorious Patron

    Puns intended

    My bedsheets are made of Kevlar. Bring it on!

    :p
     
  3. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Oh my.

    If you look at the subjects in the Independent Field section, such as Knowledgism, Idenics, Meta-psychology, Paul's Robot Auditor, etc., none of the persons, originating those subjects, wish to be called "Scientologists."

    This is how it has worked out: It's just words - "Freezone," nowadays means "Scientology Freezone." You can call yourself a "fluffy Scientologist" if you wish, instead of "Freezone Scientologist," but you're still a Scientologist; on the other hand, the term, "Independent Field" has come to mean "people who still do auditing stuff who don't refer to themselves as Scientologists."

    These are just terms, but having some kind of definition for them prevents confusion.

    There could be other categories: "Scientology Freezone" is really the "Xenu Freezone," as it involves the Commodore Hubbard-era "Bridge," which Scientology Freezoners are very proud to "deliver" outside the C of $, and, they think, with "Scientology tech in," (unlike the "squirrel tech" of the C of $), etc.

    "Independent Field," these days, means, amongst other things, it's NOT the Scientology "Bridge" as developed by the "Commodore."

    Why Scientology/Scientologists seeks to confuse people about what Scientology is, while also creating certainties in that confusion is another topic, for another time.

    Anyway, IM(incredibly humble)O, your very nice survey should be in another section.

    We now return to the regularly scheduled broadcast.
     
  4. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    Well, I think it's a nebulous thing that means different things to different people. I don't think it means the same thing to you as it does to me.

    :)
     
  5. I would be all for that too if I thought Scientology had merit. I don't think the Freezoners want peer review. They could have opened it up to scientific scrutiny by now, but they haven't. They are hiding from doing that it seems. But if that did happen it would either disapear completely, or, if there is any merit, it would advance.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
     
  6. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill


    No, they aren't hiding. They don't really care. In fact, there is no they. Just individual practitioners. You make it sound like some big organized thing but it's not. Therefore it defies any efforts at stereotyping or typecasting.


    So like, who would "open" or "hide" it? Nobody. There ain't nobody....

    (Fluffy singing "I ain't got nobody...")
     
  7. Pascal

    Pascal Silver Meritorious Patron

    to serfac or not to serfac?

    The open mindedness of the "academic world" being what it is, I doubt they would take Scientology seriously. They know everything and defend their dogmatic views ferociously. There is no more philosophy or religion in campuses. Only the vomiting of yesterdays dinner and bending over to authority.

    Just look at the few poor souls trying to push intelligent design. They get shot from guns without trial. Science has it's accepted truth and out-grade IV does the rest.

    Maybe some heretic in the parapsychology department could spare 5 minutes with a freezoner at the most.
     
  8. What a bunch of generalized bullshit. This is a chicken-shit dodge. You probably don't know anything about academia or scientific peer review. You're typing on a computer keyboard and sending it electronicly all over the world. Did you invent that? You really need to discard the idea that you are the only one who knows best and know one else knows what they are doing.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2009
  9. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Banned

    Assuming Pascal's rote 'stable data' and 'axioms' his conclusions are not only foregone but inevitable.

    Zinj
     
  10. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill


    No, Paul, I did not go ballistic. I did point out that it's a porn term- and one that has been used against me on some forums by some stupid heartless people. But when nice people use it, obviously unaware of the other meaning and obviously not intending malice, if I say anything at all, I'm pretty gentle about it.

    I even was gentle with the person on OCMB who started the whole thing- I like hinted five or ten times, knowing that if people thought it bothered me that they'd want to use it against me. It didn't work because the person was not too bright and then it escalated. But that was in another country and besides, the wench is dead.
     
  11. Axiom142

    Axiom142 Gold Meritorious Patron

    I cannot see the CoS being reformed. Not in the proper sense of the word.

    They are locked into Hubbard and all his insanities.

    Yes, people come and go. I’ve no doubt that one day (soon hopefully) Miscavige will get the boot. Then there will be the witch-hunts, mass declares and reorganisations “so that it can never happen again”.

    But after the dust has settled, it will be fundamentally the same. The only way to make Scientology workable is to demolish the old structures and rebuild it from the ground up, using only the materials that are worthwhile and pushing the subject forward by conducting new research using proper scientific methods.

    But then, it wouldn’t be Scientology would it? Scientology had been irretrievably tainted.

    But perhaps Hubbard understood this all along and just conducted it as an experiment? Perhaps he is setting up another ‘ology’ even as we speak, incorporating all the lessons of the failure of Scientology.

    Axiom142
     
  12. TheSneakster

    TheSneakster Guest

    not important
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2012
  13. That's interesting. I didn't know where the term orginated. I thought it was simply a generic term for people still practicing Scientology ooutside of the Church. Maybe someone shuld do a poll on what these practicioners like to be called.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
     
  14. spbill

    spbill Patron with Honors

    Reform is all about modifying behaviour or adjusting policies (not really an issue for me). What Scientology needs is to get the correct understanding. Hubbard started out well but then went off on a wrong track somewhere. The "tech" he came up with doesn't go far enough, it is incomplete. If CoS ever got the tech right I'd go back in a flash.
    Bill
     
  15. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor


    Au contraire! You are quite wrong about this.

    Many of us do want to see some clinical studies done to test the effectiveness of specific auditing techniques, processes & rundowns. There are lively discussions relating to this interest that pop up from time to time on various freezone boards. Interest in clinical testing and peer review runs the gamut of all degrees of prior scientology experience.

    You are correct that not all express interest, however many do. I wouldn't call it a majority either way, but then it doesn't need to be. The freezone is not a unified whole and it certainly isn't based on popular voting. :)

    Nor do I recall having seen expressed by any freezoner than such clinical testing should not be done. Those who are "not interested" aren't so much opposed as simply themselves disinterested in the processes necessary for such testing.


    Mark A. Baker
     
  16. Well this is good to know. The Freezoners I have talked to (and only a very few) have the same attitude as Hubbard that they know it all and no one else knows anything. If they can get critical testing done then this would end much of the debate against the tech.

    The Anabaptist Jacques
     
  17. uncle sam

    uncle sam Silver Meritorious Patron

    I for one....

    Hello Mark -Are there any studies being done-now? Any studies being planned for the future? Have you found anyone who is qualified to do such studies? Would you be willing to sponsor or get personally involved in a study?
    Thank you for your consideration of these questions.
     
  18. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    There's not much difference between the Scientology Freezone and its promotion of the Commodore Hubbard-era Grade Chart and what Captain Bill's Ron's Org does. The difference is after OT 3.

    Most Freezoners in Europe are Ron's Orgs people, and you may wish to examine some of the recent threads in the Freezone section.

    The video, 'A Beginner's Guide to L. Ron Hubbard', promoted by the Freezone, was made at a Ron's Org Training Camp.

    http://internationalfreezone.net/OrgBoard.shtml

    "Michael was invited to attend a RJ 67 event which really blew his mind":

    http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Michael_Moore

    Partial transcript of Ron's Journal 1967 (Scroll down):

    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/xenu.htm

    The Scientology Freezone is the Scientology Xenu Zone. Why not be on the level about it? Why, in the Scientology Freezone, should there be a continuation of the "bait and switch" practice of the "Church" of Scientology?

    Why?, because using deception to attain a desired Scientological end is a standard Scientology practice.

    And that's one reason why people don't want to be Scientologists anymore.
     
  19. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I went and looked it up to check my memory. Yes, true, you objected but did not go ballistic. My hyperbole.

    Paul
     
  20. Megalomaniac

    Megalomaniac Silver Meritorious Patron

    After the rockets engines turn off, it follows a parabolic or elliptical (not hyperbolic) path, and that is ballistic, I think. If fluffy was flying in the atmosphere with wings, straight and level, that would not be ballistic.

    Fluffy, were you flying straight & level?

    Mac
     

Share This Page