Scientology tech is Scientology tech. Sure, there's Admin Tech, Study Tech, PTS/SP Tech, and OSA Tech - but *all* of it is Scientology tech. The fact that parts of it run contrary to each other does not remove it from the Scientology basket. There may be individual specific intents for each part of the tech but, overall, the encompassing intent is the aggrandisement of L Ron Hubbard and the personal enrichment of his successors. Each piece of the tech aids and abets that overall intention.
Some of the connections you make are arbitrary, not logical. For example, Hubbard's intention in putting together the auditing tech
could have been completely different from his intention in creating any of the other parts of what you call "scientology". The basket is
not it's contents, the contents are not the basket. The same basket can contain nourishing food and poison both, or a gun. The baby is not
the bath water is not the bathtub. The auditing tech could have been created with a benign intent, while the other parts, for other
purposes, including selfish ones. Failure to differentiate is, well, failure to differentiate. Also you have no way of being certain what the overall intention was,unless you are omniscient. So what you wrote is conjecture, or your theory or thesis or opinion, your own personal "take" on whatever of it you experienced and researched.
And even if his "overall intention" was100% selfish, including desires for money,fame and power, that still does not preclude him first developing a good product(the auditing technology) in order to have something to sell. How he chose to bring it to market, and the kind of organizations he built around it are separate issues.
Do you think Bill Gates created Windows software out of altruism? Or Steve Jobs, his products?
Extracting bits and pieces here and there is not, by its own definition, Scientology.
This is an arbitrary opinion as far as I can tell.
I have read every definition of "scientology" I could find. There are 14 entries in the Technical Dictionary alone. None of them even remotely say what you claim it is "by it's own definition". Of course I exclude anything that was written by others, as that is not necessarily scientology, anymore than what you say is scientology.
Nope. It is hugely relevant how L Ron Hubbard built the house. He built it with many different types of tech. The "house" that L Ron Hubbard built is *exactly* the same one David Miscavige manages today. Yes, probably, the house can be razed but given that the foundation was a lie about healing war injuries jumbled up with a plethora of half-understood plagiarisms, the results would be just the same.
This is obviously not true, that the house Hubbard built is exactly the same one DM manages today. Nothing in the world is exactly as it
was 40 years ago, or 25 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Moreover, the changes Miscavige has made in both the church structure, management,
and the auditing tech are very well documented all over the Internet.
I take it you believe the auditing tech doesn't work in the sense of helping anyone; Well, speak for yourself. You sound very bitter. I assume you are an "ex" scientologist and are therefore speaking from your own experience; I would be interested to know how long you were in, what years you were in, what training you did and what auditing you received. If this blows your cover I of course don't expect you to answer these questions. I bring them up because we used to say "Don't trust anyone over30", back in the 70s. Now my personal feeling is don't trust anyone who was in the CoS post about 1985, and especially post GAT. Nearly everyone who has been receiving training or "auditing', especially at Flag, is an overt product to a greater or lesser extent. That's because the "training" and "auditing" delivered at Flag nowadays are themselves non-standard overt products. As you correctly state, they are "poisoned".
I was connected peripherally to the world of scientology in the 1970s and a bit into the early 1980s, and it is very obvious to me that it has changed a lot over the years.
And it is academic, how Hubbard built the house or the basket or the bathtub, because he is gone and what happens to his structure is no
longer in his hands, hasn't been for sometime. And on the basis of the philosophy alone, a thousand different houses could be built, just as has happened with other philosophies. Come back in 1,500 - 2,500 years and see, how many hundreds or even thousands of different "baskets" and "houses" have been built around the basic notions of the scientology philsophy. Who is to say the dozens of differing outgrowths of Buddhism, for example, are "not really Buddhism"?
Or Christianity? The fact of The People's Temple atrocity does not indict the whole world of Christian churches and other Christian organizations.
I'm sure that's what Scientologists would like us to believe but it is, clearly, a nonsense. Sure, the entire first floor may be given over to auditing tech, but upstairs there's offices for executive, treasury, dissemination, qualification, and, of course, blackmail.
The above was your reply to this of mine: "The house is only there as a place for auditing tech to be delivered."
Yes, I did not qualify it enough, I stated an Ideal Scene, which we all know we don't have.
The shape of the bottle might not matter but the fact that it is labelled "wine" yet carries "poison" is relevant.
This is also true; the current contents are mislabeled. That needs to be dealt with and of course people here and else where are doing what they can to deal with it. We all know it is bad.
One of my overall points is that you and some others seem to feel and insist, even, that the way it is, is the way it must be, as though we are just helpless victims of some kind of deterministic Fate making it all happen the same way over and over again, like the movie "Groundhog Day." I don't subscribe to the notion that there's nothing we can do about any of it.
The way things are is not necessarily the way things will be, or the way things must be. That's not a rational or scientific view.
PS: In future, if you're going to quote me, I would be grateful if you'd indicate where you have "snipped" or just quote the entire passage to which you are responding. kthnxbai.