A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I was trying to make a point regarding this and failed to make myself sufficiently clear.

The "cultic structure" you refer to is result, and indeed the inevitable result, of the written policies -- the HCOPLs, the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, the HCOBs, etc. Particularly in a religion where the policy re: policy is that "if it isn't written it isn't true," the writings make a big difference. And the written scriptures of Scientology are as autocratic, rigidly hierarchical, "top down" and "cultic" as possible.

Yes, many of them are. You're not saying anything I haven't said in the past.



Even if a given HCOPL is on its face purely procedural and does not by itself mandate a substantive form of abuse, the entire structure of HCOPLs, HCOBs, books, tapes, etc. create the "cultic structure" you have correctly identified and rightfully complain about. And those HCOPLs, HCOBs, books, tapes, etc. are Scientology. Scientology isn't anything but them.

'Cept that the majority of those things contain Hubbard's theories about spirituality,communication, and other things. Easy enough to isolate the toxic stuff from that.
 
"just as Newton's words are secondary to the subject of real analysis?"

What does this mean? How could this be a simile of Hubbard and Scientology?

Newton was not even the founder of physics, let alone "real analysis".

What are you talking about? How does this relate to L Ron Hubbard and his subject of Scientology?


Analysis is the general area of mathematics which constitutes what is commonly called the calculus. Real analysis constitutes the subject of analysis limited to the field of real numbers. Newton was one of the originators of the field along with Leibniz. Neither one is wholly & unequivocally the "source" of real analysis. Their original references are relatively rarely directly referenced in the study of the subject by contemporary mathematicians. That does not invalidate either the subject or the real contributions [pun :) ] of these gentlemen.

It is necessary to separate the subject matter from the way it is described or the people involved, just as serious students who concentrate on other disciplines do. :)


Mark A. Baker
 
Who said that?

Hubbard? I thought he was inconsistent.


The fact of inconsistency does not mean that all statements are false. It means that some statements are mutually contradictory. The trick lies in learning to weed out the conflicting, erroneous, or non-beneficial bits. :)


Mark A. Baker
 
But that does not mean that the bullshit you are spewing here is objectively true.

A. It's not bullshit. :D

B. No, it's SUBJECTIVELY true.

Subjective truth is all that is possible with regard to spiritual insights. Requiring a different standard of truth for what is an innately intense personal experience is indicative of a fundamental lack of wisdom.


Mark A. Baker
 
Mark - I only meant to compare BWG to Sarah Palin as to looks, having above average intelligence and having some verbal skill or something verbally which set each apart from the crowd.
I didn't take your remarks too seriously. I took your remarks as an opportunity to illustrate a few of her major defects in contrast to a few of the obvious virtues of Ms. BWG. Palin, like W, is a figure tremendously out of her depth.
I think the key to the dispute is in the definition of terms. Mark is trying to define the term Scientology as he sees it and Alanzo is going with a more conventional use of the term. There is nothing logically to stop Mark from defining Scientology his way and building a logical edifice around this definition. The problem he will face is one of agreement. The rank and file Scientologist and ex Scientologist is more likely to use Alanzo's definition and thus Mark will find and should expect to find that many Scientologists and ex Scientologists do not agree with him. The two sides can continue to try to persuade the opposing side to adopt their definition while each will continue using their different definitions as the battle is going on.


I prefer to think it is less of an argument and more of a discussion. I'm not terribly bothered about agreement with others. I do like to encourage others in considering different perspectives. I also enjoy when others can point out new perspectives which I have not previously encountered.

There are few definitive answers for the majority of issues that ex-scientologists are faced with about scientology, LRH, & the Co$. I tend to think there is more benefit to be had from seeing these events from a variety of perspectives than from one fixed set of hardened beliefs.

Beliefs of any character are of little service beyond defining the limits of expectations. This is not an "unalloyed positive".


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
I'm good with everything you say here.

I prefer to think it is less of an argument and more of a discussion. I'm not terribly bothered about agreement with others. I do like to encourage others in considering different perspectives. I also enjoy when others can point out new perspectives which I have not been previously encountered.

There are few definitive answers for the majority of issues that ex-scientologists are faced with about scientology, LRH, & the Co$. I tend to think there is more benefit to be had from seeing these events from a variety of perspectives than from one fixed set of hardened beliefs.

Beliefs of any character are of little service beyond defining the limits of expectations. This is not an "unalloyed positive".


Mark A. Baker

I am fine with what you say here. If the discussion is to continue, I guess the ball is in Alanzo's court. I guess my remarks were not relevant in this discussion. Perhaps if I want to discuss that matter I should start a new thread myself...............................Lkwdblds
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
B. No, it's SUBJECTIVELY true.

Subjective truth is all that is possible with regard to spiritual insights. Requiring a different standard of truth for what is an innately intense personal experience is indicative of a fundamental lack of wisdom.
This is one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about Scientologists, Independent Scientologists, and Freezoners.

When they want to avoid all rational analysis, objective inquiry, and scientific or statistical scrutiny, it (i.e., Scientology, Independent Scientology, or the Freezone) is purely a religious and/or spiritual pursuit completely beyond rational or objective analysis, where subjective, spiritual truth is the only relevant criteria.

But they market it (again, Scientology, Independent Scientology, or the Freezone) as a form of therapy with results (although not methods) akin, and indeed superior, to those obtained by psychiatry, psychoanalysis, psychology, marriage and family counselors, and other mental health professionals who actually have recognized education, training and credentials, and are licensed and regulated by the state.

In other words, what I'm trying to say in the nicest possible way is that one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about Scientologists as well as many Independent Scientologists and Freezoners is that they are they are, and continue to be, deceptive and manipulative. That they hide behind shield of religion and spirituality, and when necessary the First Amendment, to avoid all scrutiny or objective analysis, but promise and represent they will obtain secular psychological and emotional results.

I saw the same thing (and indeed practiced the same thing) all of the time in Scientology, so I shouldn't be surprised to see it in "Independent" Scientology and the Freezone.

I must admit, it seems like a good gig. If one becomes a clinical psychologist, for example, one must go to and graduate from a credentialed college, go to and graduate from a credentialed graduate school, take an internship at a credentialed hospital or mental health facility, take and pass a licensing exam, be regulated by the state, and then take credentialed continuing education courses for the rest of one's life.

If, on the other hand, one becomes an "Auditor" one can be a high school drop out who learned the "tech" of a paranoid, delusional and psychopathic cult leader, avoid any regulation or scrutiny by the state, avoid any requirement for continuing education, and hide behind the mantle of "religion" and "spirituality" to avoid any and all objective scrutiny. To assert, with a straight face, that no, something is not actually objectively true (like anything in Scientology has been proven to be objectively true, lol), but it is subjectively true, it is "true for you," and that is all that is ever required. Yes, nice work if you can get it.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about Scientologists, Independent Scientologists, and Freezoners.

When they want to avoid all rational analysis, objective inquiry, and scientific or statistical scrutiny, it (i.e., Scientology, Independent Scientology, or the Freezone) is purely a religious and/or spiritual pursuit completely beyond rational or objective analysis, where subjective, spiritual truth is the only relevant criteria.

But they market it (again, Scientology, Independent Scientology, or the Freezone) as a form of therapy with results (although not methods) akin, and indeed superior, to those obtained by psychiatry, psychoanalysis, psychology, marriage and family counselors, and other mental health professionals who actually have recognized education, training and credentials, and are licensed and regulated by the state.

In other words, what I'm trying to say in the nicest possible way is that one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about Scientologists as well as many Independent Scientologists and Freezoners is that they are they are, and continue to be, deceptive and manipulative. That they hide behind shield of religion and spirituality, and when necessary the First Amendment, to avoid all scrutiny or objective analysis, but promise and represent they will obtain secular psychological and emotional results.

I saw the same thing (and indeed practiced the same thing) all of the time in Scientology, so I shouldn't be surprised to see it in "Independent" Scientology and the Freezone.

I must admit, it seems like a good gig. If one becomes a clinical psychologist, for example, one must go to and graduate from a credentialed college, go to and graduate from a credentialed graduate school, take an internship at a credentialed hospital or mental health facility, take and pass a licensing exam, be regulated by the state, and then take credentialed continuing education courses for the rest of one's life.

If, on the other hand, one becomes an "Auditor" one can be a high school drop out who learned the "tech" of a paranoid, delusional and psychopathic cult leader, avoid any regulation or scrutiny by the state, avoid any requirement for continuing education, and hide behind the mantle of "religion" and "spirituality" to avoid any and all objective scrutiny. To assert, with a straight face, that no, something is not actually objectively true (like anything in Scientology has been proven to be objectively true, lol), but it is subjectively true, it is "true for you," and that is all that is ever required. Yes, nice work if you can get it.

Interestingly, one CAN become a licensed psychologist and practice the technology that is used in scientology and dianetics, and even be educated in it in the sort of academic environment you feel is objectively relevant.

It just isnt CALLED scientology and dianetics but MetaPsychology, and was developed by former scientologists, the psychiatrist Dr Gerbode, and the famous or infamous former senior C/S international of the Church of Scientology and NOTS expert, David Mayo.

YOU are free to apply all the "objective" analysis you want to scientology, but it is silly to think that we should pay for it to satisfy your desires.

Meanwhile the church and other scientologists are free to do what clergy have done for centuries and perhaps millenia, counsel.
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
'Cept that the majority of those things contain Hubbard's theories about spirituality,communication, and other things. Easy enough to isolate the toxic stuff from that.
I'm going to make the same presumptuous suggestion directly to you that I made earlier. I really think "Independent Scientologists" might want to consider referring to themselves, and thinking of themselves, as "Reform Scientologists." It would signal to the knowledgeable public (including me) that they recognize that the body of work that the vast majority of people consider to make up the subject matter of Scientology (e.g., all of the currently extant books, tapes, HCOPLs and HCOBs) are indeed in need of reform, and that some of the material is morally or otherwise objectionable and needs to be excised.

Since, as I understand it, that is your technique anyways (and I very much respect the effort, though I'm not convinced that in the end it will be possible or practical), I see no harm, and some benefit, in adopting a label that more accurately represents your intent.

I also think it would be useful to distinguish yourself and your like minded compatriots from those who blame everything on DM, and think everything will be OK once things are returned to the "Golden Age" of pure Hubbard tech.
 
Last edited:

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Interestingly, one CAN become a licensed psychologist and practice the technology that is used in scientology and dianetics, and even be educated in it in the sort of academic environment you feel is objectively relevant.

It just isnt CALLED scientology and dianetics but MetaPsychology, and was developed by former scientologists, the psychiatrist Dr Gerbode, and the famous or infamous former senior C/S international of the Church of Scientology and NOTS expert, David Mayo.

YOU are free to apply all the "objective" analysis you want to scientology, but it is silly to think that we should pay for it to satisfy your desires.

Meanwhile the church and other scientologists are free to do what clergy have done for centuries and perhaps millenia, counsel.

The main reason it isn't called Dianetics or Scientology is because it isn't Dianetics or Scientology, though it tackles the same things Dianetics and Scientology claim to. Methods are different, particularly when you get to the Implantology levels, and the theory is also different.

It's not about immortal spiritual beings and manipulating people's "ruins". The two things are different.
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
YOU are free to apply all the "objective" analysis you want to scientology, but it is silly to think that we should pay for it to satisfy your desires.
I have been giving this some thought. I haven't made any decisions, mind you, but I've been contemplating the following.

I realize that sometimes I take this stuff much too seriously. I should follow Ron's advice and make it a game. A fun game. A game called, "Let's see if we can get a Freezoner indicted for practicing psychology /s therapy without a license."

Or how about the, "Find the disgruntled 'parishioner / client' and help them sue the Freezoner into oblivion for practicing psychology /s therapy without a license" game?

Seems fun to me. And yes, it may be a way to make you pay the cost of satisfying my desires.

Like I said, I'm still giving this some thought.

Meanwhile the church and other scientologists are free to do what clergy have done for centuries and perhaps millenia, counsel.
LOL, back to the hiding behind religion angle. You learned well at the feet of your Master.

Except that clergy to not now do what they did centuries and millenia ago. I once saw my mainstream, Christian minister for spiritual counseling. When things veered into the secular psychological area she, being a good and caring professional, unlike a Scientologist, Independent Scientologist or Freezoner realized she was outside her area of expertise, pulled out a business card, and recommended a licensed psychologist. As would any religious professional in her place who was not suffering from delusions of competency and adequacy.
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
A Common Denominator Model For Understanding 'How' The 'Tech Works' On The Mind.

Here is a hypothese that I am experimenting with in an attempt to understand better (from an exterior point of view) what is occurring in the mind for practicioners (receiving or adminstering SCN techniques), and when investigating evidence and facts about Scientology, Hubbard and The 'Tech':

'The Common Denominator of any experience, thought or judgement about it lies in BELIEFS'.

See following thread for more info:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=285925#post285925
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
If, on the other hand, one becomes an "Auditor" one can be a high school drop out who learned the "tech" of a paranoid, delusional and psychopathic cult leader, avoid any regulation or scrutiny by the state, avoid any requirement for continuing education, and hide behind the mantle of "religion" and "spirituality" to avoid any and all objective scrutiny. To assert, with a straight face, that no, something is not actually objectively true (like anything in Scientology has been proven to be objectively true, lol), but it is subjectively true, it is "true for you," and that is all that is ever required. Yes, nice work if you can get it.

Aint it the truth! Some teen ager who has dropped out of high school can be your Ethics Officer and be sitting across a table from you giving you advice about how to handle your family and what you are doing wrong. If he or she had humility and were acting like they were representing LRH, that would be bad enough but one could rationalize that it was okay. However, often the teenage staff member is pompous, arrogant and drunk with power and abuses you and scolds you with little or no respect and that, comming from someone who has no real life experience is too much to take. I brought my 12 year daughter to the Org to do the Student Hat course, and she was routinely pulled off course by teenage recruiters and when I found out and objected to this and ordered them not to recruit her anymore, they snapped back that I was following the "enemy line' and was committing a suppressive act. They threatened to have me declared SP. I made written complaints to management and when I received no apology and the offenders were not handled, I pulled my daughter off of course and quit C of S for good after 31 years of being an active member in good standing.
Lkwdblds
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I'm going to make the same presumptuous suggestion directly to you that I made earlier. I really think "Independent Scientologists" might want to consider referring to themselves, and thinking of themselves, as "Reform Scientologists." It would signal to the knowledgeable public (including me) that they recognize that the body of work that the vast majority of people consider to make up the subject matter of Scientology (e.g., all of the currently extant books, tapes, HCOPLs and HCOBs) are indeed in need of reform, and that some of the material is morally or otherwise objectionable and needs to be excised.

Since, as I understand it, that is your technique anyways (and I very much respect the effort, though I'm not convinced that in the end it will be possible or practical), I see no harm, and some benefit, in adopting a label that more accurately represents your intent.

I also think it would be useful to distinguish yourself and your like minded compatriots from those who blame everything on DM, and think everything will be OK once things are returned to the "Golden Age" of pure Hubbard tech.

I think as long as there's a qualifier (what type of Scn'ist) then that's fine. I often say non CofS Scn'ist...sometimes indie but mostly only someone who posts to ex or critical Scn internet boards and ngs is going to even get what that means. Non church, non cult, non Cofs- or even heretical which I've also used- no mistaking that.

I don't identify myself just as a Scn'ist w/o qualifier as described above.

I don't really like the term reform Scn'ist but that's just me. Others may like it and decide they want to use it.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Aint it the truth! Some teen ager who has dropped out of high school can be your Ethics Officer and be sitting across a table from you giving you advice about how to handle your family and what you are doing wrong. If he or she had humility and were acting like they were representing LRH, that would be bad enough but one could rationalize that it was okay. However, often the teenage staff member is pompous, arrogant and drunk with power and abuses you and scolds you with little or no respect and that, comming from someone who has no real life experience is too much to take. I brought my 12 year daughter to the Org to do the Student Hat course, and she was routinely pulled off course by teenage recruiters and when I found out and objected to this and ordered them not to recruit her anymore, they snapped back that I was following the "enemy line' and was committing a suppressive act. They threatened to have me declared SP. I made written complaints to management and when I received no apology and the offenders were not handled, I pulled my daughter off of course and quit C of S for good after 31 years of being an active member in good standing.
Lkwdblds

Just.....outrageous!

My son and his girlfriend (over 18) were recently on full time training at Flag. S.O recruiters couldn't break my boy down, but they did a real number on his girlfriend. The recruitment sessions were relentless...and at one point they ORDERED my boy to not speak to her during this "handling".

He called me and was wildly upset and frantic and confused....they had threatened this sweet, innocent kid with a NON-ENTURBULATION ORDER if he dared to speak to her. He "had to" do what they said or they would "declare" him!

Here was the "Mecca of Technical Perfection" and "The Friendliest Place In the World" terrorizing a sweet young couple under the pretense of "greatest good for mankind".

It unraveled eventually and they got back together and are still happily in love today (but still on "The Bridge to Total Freedom", not having a clue that they just narrowly avoided having their lives derailed and destroyed so some punk recruiter could show an up-slanted line on his graph that week.)

Everything and everyone gets trashed, no exceptions. The monster of Scn is an equal opportunity destroyer, turning on all within contagious proximity to its influence. MSH was not immune to the life-destroying effects. And L. Ron Hubbard himself became a victim of the spiritual Frankenstein virus he created. There ain't no anti-virus software for that program, it IS a virus!

What does it all mean, I ask myself after reading your poignant post....

C of S SENIOR POLICIES (BPI version):

"Always deliver what you promise"

"Always maintain friendly relations with the environment"


C of S SENIOR POLICIES (Actual version):

"Always deliver a promise"

"Always maintain friendly relations with the environment (except when it conflicts with the senior purpose of acquiring money & cult members)


Scientology....utter madness masquerading as an offer of help. No thanks, I already ate.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
We share a common interest.



Just.....outrageous!

My son and his girlfriend (over 18) were recently on full time training at Flag. S.O recruiters couldn't break my boy down, but they did a real number on his girlfriend. The recruitment sessions were relentless...and at one point they ORDERED my boy to not speak to her during this "handling".

He called me and was wildly upset and frantic and confused....they had threatened this sweet, innocent kid with a NON-ENTURBULATION ORDER if he dared to speak to her. He "had to" do what they said or they would "declare" him!

Here was the "Mecca of Technical Perfection" and "The Friendliest Place In the World" terrorizing a sweet young couple under the pretense of "greatest good for mankind".

It unraveled eventually and they got back together and are still happily in love today (but still on "The Bridge to Total Freedom", not having a clue that they just narrowly avoided having their lives derailed and destroyed so some punk recruiter could show an up-slanted line on his graph that week.)

Everything and everyone gets trashed, no exceptions. The monster of Scn is an equal opportunity destroyer, turning on all within contagious proximity to its influence. MSH was not immune to the life-destroying effects. And L. Ron Hubbard himself became a victim of the spiritual Frankenstein virus he created. There ain't no anti-virus software for that program, it IS a virus!

What does it all mean, I ask myself after reading your poignant post....

C of S SENIOR POLICIES (BPI version):

"Always deliver what you promise"

"Always maintain friendly relations with the environment"


C of S SENIOR POLICIES (Actual version):

"Always deliver a promise"

"Always maintain friendly relations with the environment (except when it conflicts with the senior purpose of acquiring money & cult members)


Scientology....utter madness masquerading as an offer of help. No thanks, I already ate.


Hoaxy (I noticed Sweetness and Light called you Helly as a nickname, but I prefer Hoaxy - if that is OK)

I can see why I always like your posts, we have something in common with our kids. You can add to the lists of high ranking people who were not immune to the destroying effects of C of S, not only MSH but Class XII's Otto Roos and Pierre Ethier and Senior CS International David Mayo. Mayo had years of history of working directly with LRH and being considered the top tech guy on the planet. Within a period of weeks his was RPFed and villainised to be the biggest SP and squirrel in the history of SCN. I was c/sed by a terrific Class XII, Ron Shafran, and audited by another top Class XII, Alex Sibersky, both of whom were declared suppressive ages ago.

It seems like having your children's lives messed with seems to cause many people to stop tolerating bullshit from C of S and either make a stand or leave or both. Wouldn't you agree.

Nice twist of words on those two senior policies, Very clever and also true.
Besides the parody on Mecca of Technical Perfection, the other slogan they use is "The Friendliest Place in the World". That one is even more inaccurate than "The Mecca..." Just imagine the 6 month checks being imposed upon all the most upstat C of S members, those on Solo Nots, costing about $20K per pop and consisting of hour after hour of nosey sec checking probing into the remotest areas of a person's psyche including masturbation or thinking a bad thought about C of S. Do you think that people being forced to undergo this practice consider it FRIENDLY? Particularly since the sessions are both recorded and open to direct observation through an electronic eye.
Lkwdblds
 

Thrak

Gold Meritorious Patron
I pulled my daughter off of course and quit C of S for good after 31 years of being an active member in good standing.
Lkwdblds

:thumbsup: I'd really love to the thoughts some "OTs" I know still in good standing are trying not to think right now.
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
I think as long as there's a qualifier (what type of Scn'ist) then that's fine. I often say non CofS Scn'ist...sometimes indie but mostly only someone who posts to ex or critical Scn internet boards and ngs is going to even get what that means. Non church, non cult, non Cofs- or even heretical which I've also used- no mistaking that.

I don't identify myself just as a Scn'ist w/o qualifier as described above.

I don't really like the term reform Scn'ist but that's just me. Others may like it and decide they want to use it.
I have to admit, I really like term "Heretical Scientologist." It is very powerful, and really seems to suit you.

I am curious, however, regarding why you dislike the term "Reform Scientologist." Particularly given the fact that you have used the term "Heretical Scientologist," which seems to imply much greater distancing from not only the official Church of Scientology, but also from generally recognized Standard Tech.
 
Top