Lakey, I suspect Ted's right, that many virtuous individuals were taken advantage of by Hubbard's immorality, "do as thou wilt shall be the whole of law, when smashing one's name into legendary history." I guess? Thanks for posting Ted's well drawn portrait!
I intended to post the following a few days ago, but we're bringing a new puppy and the preparations have put me behind. My youngest daughter came up with the name "sunny" for our new pooch. When I asked her why, she said, "Because a dog brings joy into your life, like the sun!" If you heard something hit the floor, that was proud papa swooning!
Face, I enjoyed your comments very much. The following is directed to Lake's intriguing categories and CO's remarks.
My curiousity about common traits among individuals attracted to scientology is not an attempt to pidgeon hole anyone. No one has suggested otherwise, I just wanted to underline that.
Lakey, your categories are very helpful in framing the picture of what made scientology attractive in those early years. I might question category #4. Are you saying that “leadership types” were attracted to COS simply because they were “looking for something, anything, to lead?” Or were you describing the group within COS that naturally rose to leadership, for whatever reason?
You are right! Why was Yvonne Gillham Jentzch attracted to Scientology? I was not because she was a leader. Something else attracted her, she would have risen to be a leader in any group she joined. She told me once, talking about Hubbard's "The Factors" issued in 1953 that when she first heard the Factor's she knew immediately that Scientology was her life's work. I no longer remember the exact words she used but it was something to that effect. The same with the other leaders, none of them joined because they were leaders but for something they saw in Hubbard and the subject of Scn.
I tend to think of “Movers and shakers” as a subset in any group. If you started a club called, “People Who Refuse To Take Responsibility” - somebody would ascend to a leadership position. Even in a group called, “People Who Insist on Leading” - the selection process might be messy, but someone would ascend to the leadership.
Recognizing these are broad characterizations, let me run through your groups to see if I understand.
1. The Technical Boys. These are individuals seeking, “something higher “ but their scientific nature makes it difficult to make the “leap of faith” that characterizes traditional religions. They are seeking a a tangible, logical, path to enlightenment. This is the crowd that stood behind Thomas Acquinas, anxiously waiting for that master logician to complete the scientific path to God. Interesting!
2. Creative Types and Entertainers. The appeal here seems understandable. The danger arises if these folks loose sight of the line between creative fantasy and reality.
A sidenote here. You wrote that this group,
I've never known what to make of the fact that so much of what western "seekers" have sought, was always in the back-yard. Unfortunately, often with a tarp thrown over it by the churches themselves!
Over many years, western Judaism and Christianity have hidden the rich tapestry from which they evolved. They have honed their message so uniformly, that for many, the profound richness from whence the religion came is lost. There are historical reasons for this, nonetheless, the result may seem rather homogenized to some.
I've logged a few hours studying western religion. To me, every impulse, vision, mystic sensibility or message that one might seek outside of western religion is also richly available within it. I don't mean that as a slight to other religions, it's just an observation. I also understand the allure of "grass that's greener on the other side." Still, it's a tremendous irony that much of what a western "seeker" might look for in a faraway place and a foriegn language, is so close to home. You have to know how to fish for it, but it is there.
And it is like fishing. I live in a town that features some of the best bass fishing on the east coast. So where do my friends and I fish? Thirty miles east! As I get older though, I stay closer to home and pull fish out of "honey holes" just as sweet as any to be found elsewhere.
3. Misfits. Face, I found my group! So many of us qualify in one way or another that this category seems difficult to generalize. That may account for it being a transitional category as A Lake sauggests. One possibly valid generalization is that misfits don't tend to be especially objective. The personal baggage that defines their "misfit-ness" may tend hinder a level viewpoint.
CO, I don't know if it's related, but your philosphy friend caught my attention.
Maybe your friend is a misfit of a different stripe? I've encountered obtuse philosophy profs, but the majority were exceptional realists who could summarize and hone actual events with stunning acuity. There's even some objective proof of this. Since the 1980's the dominant focus of philosophy has been medical ethics, environmental ethics, and other practical questions.
This was a somewhat controversial shift that came under the heading of "applied philosophy." Philosophy took advantage of the growing number of challenging ethics cases and started specializing in answering difficult questions. Since that time, lawmakers trying to craft legislation on, with-holding life support, life in the womb, assisted suicide, etc. have been turning to philosophy for analytic assistance. It's used to be a sardonic inside joke that if you're can't decide whether to pull the plug, "who ya gonna call? ethics-busters."
These days, LRH would have a hard deriding philosophers as ivory tower featherheads with no connection to "the real world." And of course LRH's remark was never correct. The only thing that remark proves is that Mr. Hubbard knew very little about actual philopshopy.
I'm going to leave off here. BRB, after bringing home puppy!
fisherman