Scientology: hard and soft, tech and religion

Terril park

Sponsor
This definition of computation didn't happen to be in the version of the dictionary I found online (Google's top hit for 'Scientology dictionary'). I concede that it's a reasonable one, though a bit awkward, since the normal meaning of 'computation' has nothing to do with that. Evidently the minor criticism I made of the dictionary I found, that it was occasionally incomplete, does not apply to better versions.

But I made it as a minor criticism, and acknowledged that even the version I had found was a pretty thorough dictionary. My main complaint about Scientologese was that as well as introducing technical terms for its original concepts, it introduces special terms for ordinary real things, in such a way as to blur or hide the distinction between concrete reality and the hypotheses of Scientology. This is a serious problem in itself, independent of whether Scientology is good, bad, or indifferent. Even if Scientology did everything it claimed, this would be a legitimate criticism of its use of language, and a call for clarification and improvement by radically pruning the hedge of jargon.

As I've said before, I do not doubt that good things can be found in Scientology. I do doubt that anything as extremely good as Scientology's extreme claims can be found there; I also doubt that the good things that are to be found in Scientology are unique to Scientology. I strongly suspect they can be found elsewhere, and with fewer strings attached. I therefore have a hard time seeing how Scientology could really be attractive to an informed and unbiased outsider, other than through the false extreme claims that I call 'hard' Scientology. I admit this attitude of mine is a form of antagonism, but it's not just a mindless prejudice that Scientology is all bad. It's the viewpoint that 'soft' Scientology is operating in a very competitive space, with lots of alternatives offering comparable benefits, so that merely having some good in it is not good enough to make Scientology worthwhile. The bar is higher than that.

Let me put the language issue this way. From an honest non-fundamentalist Scientologist's point of view, what would be wrong with radically purging the dictionary, by replacing as many terms as possible — hopefully, all of them or nearly all — with more ordinary ones of common speech? What would really be lost, that wouldn't be outweighed by the gain in transparency?

The antagonistic guess is, that the only actual loss would be that an awful lot of Scientology would suddenly sound either ridiculous, or banal. If it wouldn't, then that sounds like awfully good reason to drop the cumbersome jargon.

One of my best friends is a graduate of Oxford university in english lit,
and happens to be of chinese origin, and professionally was at the cutting edge of IT discovery. He initially didn't like the populist style of Hubbards works. He ended up doing most of the bridge.

It is true that COS has stated many exaggerated claims for the benefits of the subject.

It is also true that people in very early experience of scn had mind expanding experiences that made them follow this path.

A common experience was going " exterior" on TRs.

Guess you havn't gone exterior? I did many times before scn. Others have also.

To understand the subject it is best to do it rather than speculate about it.

The " Jargon"? You make good points, the offshoot of scn and dianetics,
TIR and Metapsychology used simpler/different terms. Possibly more about
avoiding legal attacks. The Author Frank " Sarge" Gerbode spent 10 years funding the legal attacks of COS against David Mayo. Mayo helped him in writing his book. Gerbode was a psychaitrist and in the introduction to his book wrote that he had more success with scn than his day job.

Last summer the practitioners of TIR/ Metapsychology held a symposium
at the UK Cambridge university.

I happen to have a hundred or so page addition to the scientology Technical dictionary, which goes for 482 pages.
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
Nothing would be wrong with it. However, apart for some "academic" interest in the study of Hubbard's contributions to scientology this endeavor would be largely pointless. If I may remind you neither, Hubbard, the Co$, nor those persons actually using scientology technology for varying reasons have as a high priority an academic study of the contributions of LRH to the practice of scientology.

For the actual purposes of those with a legitimate interest in the field of spiritual technologies generally and scientology technology specifically, it would be far better to write NEW materials which seek to organize what is valuable about the practices of scientology in a more consistent & clear fashion and so as to eliminate those aspects of traditional scientology which are self-contradictory or simply lacking utility.

Clearbird has been one such attempt at this. :)

Additionally new materials can seek to incorporate additonal data which are not at present as a part of the standard scientology repetoire but which experienced practitioners have found to be useful in promoting the aims of the subject of scientology.


Mark A. Baker

Mark, these last two posts were wonderful for me to read! I wish I could have said it so clearly.
 
Top