Scientology is all bad

[Claire Swazey]

I was reading over the recent posts on this thread and realized something that was probably obvious all along to everyone else. Infinite said earlier something to the effect that KSW#1 is inseparable from the subject of Scientology, and he's right. Hubbard made it that way intentionally so that he could maintain complete control over his followers. Scientologists are NOT free to accept or reject anything that Hubbard wrote because of this policy. Doesn't matter that he wrote other things that intimate or imply that they can do so, KSW#1 is a senior policy, everything else subordinate to it. If people are cherry picking (and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that) then why do they insist on calling themselves Scientologists? I just don't get it. It's a hated word, particularly here on this forum, with loads of negative associations. Why not ditch the word and continue with whatever practices they feel like continuing?

I understand that people have the right to call themselves whatever they choose. I've made that point myself. But I have to say, I think it's poor form to adopt a word that is known to generate a deservedly negative response in the audience. It's not opening oneself up to attack, it's soliciting attack.

I don't see that changing anytime soon. You might be waiting a long time for your kumbaya.

My position is that no religion, philosophy, school of thought- whatever you want to call it- that's been around more than a decade or so - is in the same form it originally was. You can see this with traditional/elder religions, you can see this with hard sciences, soft sciences, theoretical or New Age movements- all kinds of things.

So of course one can divorce Scn from KSW and one can change this and that. A prime example of someone who does this all the time is David Miscavige.

 

[Jquepublic]

My position is that no religion, philosophy, school of thought- whatever you want to call it- that's been around more than a decade or so - is in the same form it originally was. You can see this with traditional/elder religions, you can see this with hard sciences, soft sciences, theoretical or New Age movements- all kinds of things.

So of course one can divorce Scn from KSW and one can change this and that. A prime example of someone who does this all the time is David Miscavige.

Mine is that while you can do those things, absolutely, why would you want to continue to link your beliefs/practices to something that has become so tainted as the word Scientology? If you can divorce yourself from KSW#1, can ignore the founder's definitions and dictates, then surely you can divorce yourself from the WORD he used to encapsulate his subject. Generally speaking, when some person or group decides to break away from the classical or traditional teachings of a faith and formulate a different approach to its practice, they assume a new name to denote the difference, for example Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Pentacostal. Each is still recognized as Christian, but the practices and beliefs embraced are, to a greater or lesser degree, divergent from the original parent faith.

In the case of this board, identifying oneself as Scientologist to a group of people who have predominantly negative associations with the subject is inviting conflict. It's certainly not something that can be dictated to anyone as the choice remains with each individual, but I felt compelled to express my own views regarding it nonetheless.

P.S. The Kumbaya was for you.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: My baby & me !

Early on the orgs & missions were really great pick up places.
I met some really great gals & we went out & had loads of fun.

So, in a sense, I could say I got what I came for !

Was that bad ? Nah !

 

[Smilla]

The word 'Scientology' has about the same same level of feel good factor as 'Ebola' or 'Rabies', in the minds of the general population, and rightfully so.

As ye sow, so shall ye [STRIKE]creep [/STRIKE] reap.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I suspect these things mean what we want them to mean.

When I was an Indie Scn'ist (my term for it) I used to have this discussion frequently with other contributors.

Connotations are in the eye of the beholder. I'm not an Indie anymore but I don't see any problem with someone deciding they are some sort of free form Scn'ist. I didn't stop being one because I thought it was like tainted or whatnot, I just wanted to get away from any labelling, whether the labelling had warm and fuzzy associations for others or had vile spikey ones. Because, in the long run, it's oneself whom one should please, it's what's in one's heart as how one feels. That's the only worthy criterion when deciding what ology (or lack thereof) to profess.

Anyway, JQ, I think we've got a good bunch of people here and I do enjoy your posts.

 

[Jquepublic]

I suspect these things mean what we want them to mean.

When I was an Indie Scn'ist (my term for it) I used to have this discussion frequently with other contributors.

Connotations are in the eye of the beholder. I'm not an Indie anymore but I don't see any problem with someone deciding they are some sort of free form Scn'ist. I didn't stop being one because I thought it was like tainted or whatnot, I just wanted to get away from any labelling, whether the labelling had warm and fuzzy associations for others or had vile spikey ones. Because, in the long run, it's oneself whom one should please, it's what's in one's heart as how one feels. That's the only worthy criterion when deciding what ology (or lack thereof) to profess.

Anyway, JQ, I think we've got a good bunch of people here and I do enjoy your posts.

I wasn't trying to put you on the spot with my previous post, ftr. I tend to post the way I speak, with some of the thoughts that lead to what I have to say unexpressed, so I was continuing a conversation rather than challenging you to reply. Just want to be sure that's clear. Ditto for my previous comments to Mark.

I am all for people breaking free of the constraints that come with labels. My recent posts are a reflection of my own increased awareness of the impact of the words we choose to describe ourselves and my considerations specifically regarding the word Scientologist and the negative effect it can have on a conversation which might otherwise go smoothly.

I enjoy your posts as well, and agree with your assessment of this group. I suppose that goes without saying - if I didn't think these were good folk I wouldn't be here.

 

[Smilla]

I think that all the 'isms' are cradle subjects that we have to eventually let go of to achieve spiritual/psychological maturity. That's not easy, but when we're ready we know it and can do it. It's just another developmental task.

 

[Bill]

All we need for sanity to prevail in discussions with Mark is for a simple flag to signify we're talking about Hubbard's Scientology and Mark is talking about his personal and private Scientology. Those are two entirely different subjects and really don't belong in the same discussion at all.

Bill

I just had an idea. Apparently, Mark wants Scientology to become generic, like "Aspirin" did and maybe that is what's going to happen. In that case it will have to become "branded" whenever it is used. "Hubbard™ Scientology", "Baker™ Scientology", "Ron's Org™ Scientology", etc.

Otherwise, "Scientology" could mean anything from draconian punishments to "feel good" therapy to crush sell to snake oil cons to ... anything.

I vote for "branded" Scientology from here on out.

Bill

 

[Freeminds]

I just had an idea. Apparently, Mark wants Scientology to become generic, like "Aspirin" did and maybe that is what's going to happen. In that case it will have to become "branded" whenever it is used. "Hubbard™ Scientology", "Baker™ Scientology", "Ron's Org™ Scientology", etc.

Otherwise, "Scientology" could mean anything from draconian punishments to "feel good" therapy to crush sell to snake oil cons to ... anything.

I vote for "branded" Scientology from here on out.

Bill

Drugs become generic when the patents upon them expire... which typically means 15 years or less.

Copyrighted material lasts 75 years beyond the death of the creator (in most countries)... which means that Scientology (the RTC, the whole scam and shemozzle) has something less than 49 years left to go. After that... publish, adapt, parody, squirrel anything you want: it belongs to nobody.

Those Scientology victims who feel obliged to serve out a "billion year contract" are in for a shock. If Scientology hasn't already gone bust and ceased asserting its intellectual property right -- which is highly questionable, given the amount of Hubbard's material that was plagiarised -- then Scientology as a corporate cult entity will survive only until 2061. After that, anybody can do anything they want with any of it: no exceptions.

Personally, I doubt anybody will really remember Scientology by about 2035. We shall see. Or perhaps we won't: but neither will they.

You only have one life, lurkers. Make the most of it.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

...

I've reversed the order of your questions intentionally.

... If you can divorce yourself from KSW#1, can ignore the founder's definitions and dictates, then surely you can divorce yourself from the WORD he used to encapsulate his subject. ...

Why do you assume that an individual who does occasionally use scientology terms, is necessarily incapable of dispensing with the word 'scientology' altogether? A choice not to do so is not the same as an inability. Where is the necessity?

... Mine is that while you can do those things, absolutely, why would you want to continue to link your beliefs/practices to something that has become so tainted as the word Scientology? ...

Because some people are incapable of abandoning the term scientology, and just like critics they prejudge people based on the way they react to scientology terms.

I for one associate with a variety of freezoners & independents. Most of these people do not have rigid attitudes concerning the subject of scientology. Nonetheless some of the people I encounter from time to time are still quite involved with a more 'traditonal' and rigid attitude about scientology. These latter individuals may relate somewhat to a liberal freezoner who acknowledges the real value present in scientology tech, but may not feel at all comfortable conversing with a person who openly disdains any connection to the subject.

Not all the bull-headed ideologues on the topic of scientology are necessarily critics.

Hence a willingness to use such language can be useful in communicating with some individuals still more deeply involved with the subject despite the automatic hatred encountered from others elsewhere simply from having publicly made that choice.

The reality is that the subject of scientology contains much that is of value. It is a reasonable thing to do to acknowledge that where it is true. That is consistent with the way the subject was addressed historically within the scientology community, and it is consistent with the way the terms are defined within scientology.

That the cult worked to narrow interpretation of the language & practice of scientology is a given. But the cult is not all there is to the subject of scientology. Therefore a liberal and open interpretation is fully consistent with the subject yet still invites communication with those accustomed to the more stringent, but no more valid, attitudes & perspectives inculcated by the Sea Org.

Since you can't please everyone, why bend over backwards trying to please intolerant rigid @ssholes?


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Apparently, Mark wants ...

Actually the only thing I want is for all those on this board who don't understand what I've actually written yet who repeatedly insist on second guessing my views and interpreting my remarks for others simply to stop.

Let my words speak for themselves. Judging by the responses I get to my posts not everyone has difficulty understanding my posts. The would be analysts and interpreters serve only to misrepresent, mislead, and deceive others concerning my views. It's tiresome.

That you can't understand what I write except by relating it to your own complex thinking makes it clear you don't know that of which you have chosen to speak.

So if you guys would stop "translating" and let my words stand on their own, I'd like that a lot.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

-snip-

Since you can't please everyone, why bend over backwards trying to please intolerant rigid @ssholes?

-snip-

@ssholes seems to be a popular word with Scientologists.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I just had an idea. Apparently, Mark wants Scientology to become generic, like "Aspirin" did and maybe that is what's going to happen. In that case it will have to become "branded" whenever it is used. "Hubbard™ Scientology", "Baker™ Scientology", "Ron's Org™ Scientology", etc.

Otherwise, "Scientology" could mean anything from draconian punishments to "feel good" therapy to crush sell to snake oil cons to ... anything.

I vote for "branded" Scientology from here on out.

Bill

I vote for "Stupid™ Scientology".

It was created in 1950, beginning with the 4th word of the Book of Genesis, after which the Lord's original sin was compounded for the next ten million words.

DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH​

The highlighted words were color coded brown in accordance God's commandment, "Let there be shit."

 

[Jquepublic]

Why do you assume that an individual who does occasionally use scientology terms, is necessarily incapable of dispensing with the word 'scientology' altogether? A choice not to do so is not the same as an inability. Where is the necessity?

I don't assume that, and I see the usefulness in occasionally referring to something by its scientological term. Sometimes it's the easiest way to explain what you're talking about as you can safely assume everyone will have the same definition. I do it fairly often myself, though I try to always clarify that what I'm saying is an explanation of a concept, not necessarily a statement of belief.

That the cult worked to narrow interpretation of the language & practice of scientology is a given. But the cult is not all there is to the subject of scientology. Therefore a liberal and open interpretation is fully consistent with the subject yet still invites communication with those accustomed to the more stringent, but no more valid, attitudes & perspectives inculcated by the Sea Org.

Personally I don't see much worth in the subject of scientology. I see a lot of worth in the subjects of psychotherapy, spirituality, ethics (as it should be defined, not as Hubbard defined it) and philosophy. I see more value in making the sources of those things known than in continuing to refer to them as scientological. Demystifying their true origins helps to shoot holes in the Hubbard as Source lie, and that can ultimately put a person on the road to recovery from cult involvement.

I guess my bottom line is that it's so easy to separate the practices from the subject altogether that it makes sense to do so, and it's my opinion that doing so helps someone who is trying to make an honest evaluation of the subject. But as I said in my previous post to Claire, I'm aware that the choice of what labels to choose lie ultimately with the person who bears it. I don't intend to hammer you or anyone else for their choice of labels.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Actually the only thing I want is for all those on this board who don't understand what I've actually written yet who repeatedly insist on second guessing my views and interpreting my remarks for others simply to stop.

Let my words speak for themselves. Judging by the responses I get to my posts not everyone has difficulty understanding my posts. The would be analysts and interpreters serve only to misrepresent, mislead, and deceive others concerning my views. It's tiresome.

That you can't understand what I write except by relating it to your own complex thinking makes it clear you don't know that of which you have chosen to speak.

So if you guys would stop "translating" and let my words stand on their own, I'd like that a lot.


Mark A. Baker

[STRIKE]KSW[/STRIKE]
KBW
Keeping Bakerology Working​

TRANSLATION: When anyone doesn't agree with Baker or "alter-ises" his workable technology (posts), it is because of their Case and/or MUs. Those daring to comment on his inviolable scripture are committing a Technical Degrade. So, everyone is hereby respectfully instructed to STFU.

It's hard being an advanced guru amongst homo sapiens.

 

[Panda Termint]

I actually admire Mark Baker. Amongst other things, I admire his ability to hold his position in the face of relentless criticism and, dare I say it... of course I do, bullying.

There seems to be a level of tolerance for violations of the Board's "be courteous to others" Rule Of Conduct when it comes to Mark that sometimes astounds me. Perhaps the attitude is that Mark brings it on himself or encourages it but I'm not sure that's true. Mark, is that true?

In any event, Baker-Baiting is the thing I most dislike about ESMB. Luckily for me, there are a hundred other things about ESMB which I like immensely.

"Look around here and find something you don't have to chew up."

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

I actually admire Mark Baker. Amongst other things, I admire his ability to hold his position in the face of relentless criticism and, dare I say it... of course I do, bullying.

There seems to be a level of tolerance for violations of the Board's "be courteous to others" Rule Of Conduct when it comes to Mark that sometimes astounds me. Perhaps the attitude is that Mark brings it on himself or encourages it but I'm not sure that's true. Mark, is that true?

In any event, Baker-Baiting is the thing I most dislike about ESMB. Luckily for me, there are a hundred other things about ESMB which I like immensely.

"Look around here and find something you don't have to chew up."

 

[Jquepublic]

I actually admire Mark Baker. Amongst other things, I admire his ability to hold his position in the face of relentless criticism and, dare I say it... of course I do, bullying.

There seems to be a level of tolerance for violations of the Board's "be courteous to others" Rule Of Conduct when it comes to Mark that sometimes astounds me. Perhaps the attitude is that Mark brings it on himself or encourages it but I'm not sure that's true. Mark, is that true?

In any event, Baker-Baiting is the thing I most dislike about ESMB. Luckily for me, there are a hundred other things about ESMB which I like immensely.

"Look around here and find something you don't have to chew up."

I like Mark, and I'm sorry to have contributed to any Baker-Baiting. That was never my intention.

 

[Jquepublic]

Let my words speak for themselves.

Ok.

 

[Gottabrain]

I actually admire Mark Baker. Amongst other things, I admire his ability to hold his position in the face of relentless criticism and, dare I say it... of course I do, bullying.

There seems to be a level of tolerance for violations of the Board's "be courteous to others" Rule Of Conduct when it comes to Mark that sometimes astounds me. Perhaps the attitude is that Mark brings it on himself or encourages it but I'm not sure that's true. Mark, is that true?

In any event, Baker-Baiting is the thing I most dislike about ESMB. Luckily for me, there are a hundred other things about ESMB which I like immensely.

"Look around here and find something you don't have to chew up."

I've met and spoken to Mark Baker personally. He's a nice guy, with quite an eye for art and beauty and very good manners. Sure, we don't agree on most of the stuff re Scn, but I don't like when he gets baited here and treated discourteously, either.