Hardly anything is so thoroughly bad that nothing good whatever can be taken from it. By discarding bad parts and interpreting ambiguous parts nicely, you can make something decent out of almost anything. If you do enough discarding and interpreting, though, there comes a point at which it would be a clearer use of language to change the name as well. If what I'm driving is basically a Ford, I should not keep calling it a Mercedes just because it's got some tri-star hubcaps on it.
Behind the pointless word games there is a genuine debate: Does there exist a subject which is
a) coherent enough to deserve a specific name of its own,
(b) closely enough related to the original work of L. Ron Hubbard (insofar as Hubbard actually did any original work) to warrant the use of Hubbard's title of 'Scientology', and
(c) good?
If there exists a subject that satisfies all three of those criteria, then I think the indie Scientologists could have a place to stand, despite whatever inconsistencies or evils there may be within Hubbard's legacy as a whole. But if there does not exist such a subject, satisfying all three of the above criteria, then defending Scientology while repudiating Hubbard is merely a sophistical word game, like naming your car for its hubcaps.
Furthermore, suppose for the sake of argument that there does exist a coherent subject that is of value, and is also close enough to Hubbard's Scientology that it would be reasonable to call the refined subject Scientology after it. I'd want to ask, is it actually necessary to call the refined subject by Hubbard's name? Is the refined subject really so close to Hubbard's creation that it would be disingenuous to call it anything else but Scientology? Or would it not be just as legitimate to find a new name for the subject nowadays, even if one feels bound to admit that the Scientology of L. Ron Hubbard was an important source?
I agree with this.
The use of the word
scientology was not my choice, but neither do I have any strong objection to the word on either emotional or substantive grounds. Many of those who object to the word do so simply because of unpleasant personal associations, and not for substantive reasons.
The subject of
scientology as it is commonly understood encompasses much of material which I have found to be useful. Valid spiritual/mental concepts & practices which may be found in a wide variety of schools of thought. Also, many of these concepts which may exist in obscure or archaic forms elsewhere are simply described and easily understood in descriptions available in
scientology material.
It could be called 'Principles of Post-Modern Esoteric Gnosticism', or just about anything you care to name it. It would still BE scientology.
Many spin-off endeavors created by former members of the Co$ have adopted different terminology out of preference for a policy of disassociation with the church. This has often been despite the fact that much of what they offer is quite similar, if not exactly the same, as
scientology.
My own preference is
NOT to attempt to disguise a prior association with the Co$. Basically, it just adds unnecessarily to the complexity of understanding the relationships involved among such practices. But also, thanks to the history of the Co$ and l. ron hubbard neither is there any
glory or
benefit to be had in being seen to retain a
'hubbard brand'. Yet I see no particular benefit in adopting a different word, just as I see no particular difficulty in retaining the use of the word
scientology.
Since this is a board for former members of the church of scientology, it is fair to assume that
most of the people on the board are familiar with the ideas embodied in the subject of
scientology, associate those ideas with
scientology, and
first became familiar with those ideas in
scientology.
Many of the people here have developed convoluted objections to the word
scientology which are fundamentally founded upon their own individual histories involving abuse and upset with the Co$. That does not invalidate the use of the word
scientology. It simply indicates the degree of emotional bias present on any forum where open discussion of
scientology is conducted. If a person is so traumatized by the word
scientology as to be unable to bear it, then perhaps regularly frequenting a message board where that word forms the basis of much discussion and is in fact included within the title is an action of questionable advisability.
Accordingly, to some degree the continued use of the word scientology promotes mutual discussion and has the additional benefit of being accurate, even if some are blinded by their own emotional associations with the word.
ESMB is among other things a place which encourages open discussion of
scientology, something not encouraged within the church. Different members have had different experiences and accordingly there are many different views of what exactly constitutes
scientology. Some are quite interesting & informative. Others are heavily
polarized and, whereas these are often among the most popular, they are
often the least reasonably defensible.
My interest is in enhancing spiritual awareness. I have found much of benefit in the subject of
scientology which relates to spiritual awareness. The same is true of other spiritual practices and studies. Each has advantages as well as disadvantages. There is much that is common among the various disciplines just as there are things which are unique.
What a thing is to be called ultimately is not especially important; whether it is seen as a 'pro' or a 'con'.
... O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet; ...
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Sc. II, ll 46-48
Mark A. Baker
