Should Scientologists have the right to practice Scientology?

[Gib]

The VA rep was undoubtedly referring to this 28 March 1948 letter by Hubbard in which he makes the claim that he spent 1946 in civilian hospitals at his own expense.

Source: 03 Service Documents

More evidence of Hubbard's pathological lying. 1946 was the year Hubbard moved out of Robert Heinlein's home, moved in with Jack Parsons, performed the Babalon Working, worked his Allied Enterprises scam, wrote the Admissions, married Sara Northrup bigamously and continued to hound the VA for a better pension.

Caroline,

do you have the other two documents mentioned in the references?

If so, can you post them here.

 

[Caroline]

Caroline,

do you have the other two documents mentioned in the references?

If so, can you post them here.

The documents Hubbard referenced in his letter don't appear among the service documents that I received through my FOIA request. (Links to Hubbard's OMPF documents here.) The documents may be among the navy documents Arnie has on his site, but I haven't checked.

 

[Gib]

The documents Hubbard referenced in his letter don't appear among the service documents that I received through my FOIA request. (Links to Hubbard's OMPF documents here.) The documents may be among the navy documents Arnie has on his site, but I haven't checked.

ok, thanks.

 

[Caroline]

ok, thanks.

I looked again. The 23 March 1948 letter is in 03 ServiceDocuments.pdf, at pp. 58 and 59.

The second reference:

Sec. 302. (a) The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Treasury are authorized and directed to establish, from time to time, boards of review composed of five commissioned officers, two of whom shall be selected from the Medical Corps of the Army or Navy, or from the Public Health Service, as the case may be. It shall be the duty of any such board to review, at the request of any officer retired or released to inactive service, without pay, for physical disability pursuant to the decision of a retiring board, the findings and decision of such retiring board. Such review shall be based upon all available service records relating to the officer requesting such review, and such other evidence as may be presented by such officer. Witnesses shall be permitted to present testimony either in person or by affidavit and the officer requesting review shall be allowed to appear before such board of review in person or by counsel. In carrying out its duties under this section such board of review shall have the same powers as exercised by, or vested in, the retiring board whose findings and decision are being reviewed. The proceedings and decision of each such board of review affirming or reversing the decision of the retiring board shall be transmitted to the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Treasury, as the case may be, and shall be laid by him before the President for his approval or disapproval and orders in the case.

(b) No request for review under this section shall be valid unless filed within fifteen years after the date of retirement for disability or after the effective date of this Act, whichever is the later.

(c) As used in this section

(l) the term officer means any officer subject to the laws granting retirement for active service in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, or any of their respective components;

(2) the term counsel shall have the same meaning as when used in section 301 of this Act.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/content/gi-bill-act.html

 

[Magoo]

Hey Tory You'll get no argument from me on ANY of this (above).

I'm not "kind" on any sort of abuse to innocents. I'm talking about adults getting together to audit BTs out of their arthritic elbows, and yelling at ashtrays etc. Personally I have no problem with it.

If I'm going to get annoyed at folks believing they can attain super powers through Scientology, I might as well get annoyed at folks who think they are going to heaven if they go to mass on Sundays and refuse to use birth control (even though they can't afford more kids).

Start using kids for labour, taking them out of school, enforcing separation from parents etc. well that's a different ballgame.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that, Emma! I sort of thought
that's how you feel, but in the original post---it didn't make that clear and I think
each time it's important we point the abuses out.

Thanks for the great laugh re auditing out their arthritic elbows

Agreed re what peeps do re using "the tech"...as long as they are not harming others.

Love to you

Tory/Magoo

 

[Gib]

I looked again. The 23 March 1948 letter is in 03 ServiceDocuments.pdf, at pp. 58 and 59.

The second reference:

thanks Caroline.

as an aside, that document certaintly sums up where hubbard got his ideas for BOI's and comm ev's in the church, I would think.

 

[Magoo]

Just hang out with Ex Scientologist's that have not LOOKED - have no idea what happened to them - they will drive you crazy with their scientology filter's - THROW AWAY the tech and destroy everything scientology - it creates people who cannot think for themselves. They have no abilities left to think and look and speak the obvious but THEY THINK THEY DO. Yuck - scientology - all of it needs to be destroyed!

Ideal Morgue----I agree with Panda: that sounds just a bit extremist to me, too.
I hang out with ExScientologists all the time. Yes, SOME Of them have farther to go that others.
I would not agree "They have not looked". That's YOUR opinion, period, and actually quite far from the truth.
Many Ex-Scientologists I know have looked hard and long and learned a great deal re Cults, Abuses and have
been able to help others, too. I don't think you've learned these same lessons, darlin, per your own generalities.

"They have no idea what happened to them". A) HUGE Generality.
B) Who? Stop with ALL Ex-Scientologists as that just is not true. So............IF you want to run this line,
who *really* are you speaking about and what ACTUAL Example can you share?

If we (ex-scientologists) "Drive you crazy"....perhaps Scientology can help you with that!
Ok, OK!~ Calm down...I was just kidding!!

They have no abilities left to think and look and speak the obvious but THEY THINK THEY DO

WOW....I've lived with a LOT of make wrongs from people over the years...but yours is one of the biggest
for ~~all~~ ex-scientologists. Again, I ask for specifics. Meantime.....

Have a good day

Tory/Magoo

 

[Idle Morgue]

Ideal Morgue----I agree with Panda: that sounds just a bit extremist to me, too.
I hang out with ExScientologists all the time. Yes, SOME Of them have farther to go that others.
I would not agree "They have not looked". That's YOUR opinion, period, and actually quite far from the truth.
Many Ex-Scientologists I know have looked hard and long and learned a great deal re Cults, Abuses and have
been able to help others, too. I don't think you've learned these same lessons, darlin, per your own generalities.

"They have no idea what happened to them". A) HUGE Generality.
B) Who? Stop with ALL Ex-Scientologists as that just is not true. So............IF you want to run this line,
who *really* are you speaking about and what ACTUAL Example can you share?

If we (ex-scientologists) "Drive you crazy"....perhaps Scientology can help you with that!
Ok, OK!~ Calm down...I was just kidding!!



WOW....I've lived with a LOT of make wrongs from people over the years...but yours is one of the biggest
for ~~all~~ ex-scientologists. Again, I ask for specifics. Meantime.....

Have a good day

Tory/Magoo

Lighten up Magoo - wow - "generalities"...I think you had too much scientolgy "darlin"....

Scientology sucks! All of it...there is my "generalities"!

If you read my posts - I said "Ex Scientologist's WHO DON'T LOOK"! I don't have to give you specifics - you don't deserve it - I find your post rude!

 

[Caroline]

thanks Caroline.

as an aside, that document certaintly sums up where hubbard got his ideas for BOI's and comm ev's in the church, I would think.

I had a similar thought, and it reminded me of Ron-the-Editor's Introduction to How to Live Though an Executive:

The experience of L. Ron Hubbard in the handling and organizing of communications and communications systems is extensive. Educated as a mathematician and engineer at George Washington University, he early became interested in problems of human relationships and the applications of electronics thereto. He has studied and worked in several systems of communication in order to bring this system to perfection. Such systems included: the United States Army Signal Corps, the Marine Corps system, the Merchant Marine system (including British and Netherlands variations and wartime practices and refinements), U.S. Government communications systems, U.S. Navy systems (including letter mail, filing, radio, codes, networks for amphibious landings, and, most complex of all, combat information centres, as in the handling of fighter planes from carriers and in submarine search and destruction). The more beneficial points of these systems have been utilized, and their obvious and glaring mistakes have been avoided. [...]

Hubbard, L. Ron. (1953). How to Live Though an Executive: Communications Manual. Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.

That Ron. How did he figure it all out?

 

[Magoo]

Lighten up Magoo - wow - "generalities"...I think you had too much scientolgy "darlin"....

Scientology sucks! All of it...there is my "generalities"!

If you read my posts - I said "Ex Scientologist's WHO DON'T LOOK"! I don't have to give you specifics - you don't deserve it - I find your post rude!

Ok Ideal Morgue---I've lightened up.
A)Do you have a problem w/ the word "Generalities"? I'm still stripping this lingo off, so bare with me on this.
To me it seems like a fair word. Someone lumps everyone into s/t---that IS a generality, is it not?

B) You changed how you said that. Your original post was this:

Quote Originally Posted by Idle Morgue
Just hang out with Ex Scientologist's that have not LOOKED - have no idea what happened to them - they will drive you crazy with their scientology filter's - THROW AWAY the tech and destroy everything scientology - it creates people who cannot think for themselves. They have no abilities left to think and look and speak the obvious but THEY THINK THEY DO. Yuck - scientology - all of it needs to be destroyed!

Had you written it as you did with the bold....I would have read it way differently.
Can you see it doesn't quite read like that, w/out the bold?

Sorry if you felt I was rude. I felt you were, too---so we're even.

Fair?

It's FRIDAY____Have some

My best,

Tory/Magoo

 

[clamicide]

Ok Ideal Morgue---I've lightened up.
A)Do you have a problem w/ the word "Generalities"? I'm still stripping this lingo off, so bare with me on this.
To me it seems like a fair word. Someone lumps everyone into s/t---that IS a generality, is it not?

B) You changed how you said that. Your original post was this:

Quote Originally Posted by Idle Morgue
Just hang out with Ex Scientologist's that have not LOOKED - have no idea what happened to them - they will drive you crazy with their scientology filter's - THROW AWAY the tech and destroy everything scientology - it creates people who cannot think for themselves. They have no abilities left to think and look and speak the obvious but THEY THINK THEY DO. Yuck - scientology - all of it needs to be destroyed!

Had you written it as you did with the bold....I would have read it way differently.
Can you see it doesn't quite read like that, w/out the bold?

Sorry if you felt I was rude. I felt you were, too---so we're even.

Fair?

It's FRIDAY____Have some

My best,

Tory/Magoo

I'm lost... I don't normally weigh in on this sort of thing, but reading IM's post; IM said hanging out with exes that have not looked. It didn't say all exes... but, I could perhaps see how it could be inferred by the rest of the post.


I, personally, do have a problem with the term 'generalities' at this point, because to me it can become a thought-stopping word. Anyone should be able to back up a reasonable argument with examples, but someone can also form an opinion after years of observation. To me, 'generalities' has long been used by the cult to dismiss someone's observations over time. Any regular 'Joe-off-the-street' can come to conclusions about what they have experienced, and it might be wrong or right. Most 'regular Joes' will probably not keep track of every instance that led them to that conclusion and might not feel the need to say... well, Joe down the street, and Jody from high-school... Who the fuck does that? Oh, yeah... the cult.

Great point of attack for the cult, though, because people can introvert on it; mainly if they've been in the cult. What about "All psychs are evil"... don't get me started on the cult's generalities... but, of course, if you are in the cult, you have a reactive mind, which is the same among all the wogs, so that can be generalized also. When someone calls out a generality, it means that any point that the speaker had was invalid. I saw this so many times in the cult, where someone would speak of !@#$ that went on as a regular basis, and they became so numb that it was coming from 'everywhere', and that wasn't far from the truth. And us as Scios got trained not to name names, because if we named 'white hats', we were out-ethics.

This sort of thing irks me. Studying the 'logical fallacies' has been infinitely more helpful that Hubs bs. And, it really amuses me how badly THOSE are abused. I've even seen it on the board here. I had to grab an English prof of mine and say "gotta show you this... someone is claiming a person always uses ad hom AS an ad hom against that person". He thought I was kidding, and just went... "omfg, 'too true'" after he read it.

It's a message board, and I know people are at some level coming out of this mind-fuck, and if they express an opinion after going through whatever hell they've been through and just speaking their opinion about what they've seen, to knock them for generalities is a bit, well... fucked. Go ahead and ask for examples, but I didn't even see the post discussed here was even doing what was claimed.

Hell, I'm so completely out, but wanted to defend my position on this post by being able to back the meaning of the posts by how I was a MF when it came to word-clearing and I had grads from KTL just awed that they couldn't stump me on words. So, sometimes we play the old tapes, folks.

I think my 'reactive mind' was created by being in the cult...

 

[Idle Morgue]

Ok Ideal Morgue---I've lightened up.
A)Do you have a problem w/ the word "Generalities"? I'm still stripping this lingo off, so bare with me on this.
To me it seems like a fair word. Someone lumps everyone into s/t---that IS a generality, is it not?

B) You changed how you said that. Your original post was this:


Had you written it as you did with the bold....I would have read it way differently.
Can you see it doesn't quite read like that, w/out the bold?

Sorry if you felt I was rude. I felt you were, too---so we're even.

Fair?

It's FRIDAY____Have some

My best,

Tory/Magoo

Thanks for the reply Magoo - :wink2:

I am currently dealing with some ex scientologist's that have done absolutely NOTHING to get out - they won't look at anything - won't even read the internet.

I was very patient and it took me about 6 months to help them see the light. They threw 1,200 lbs of books, lectures, pamphlets and 4 e-meters in the trash - o - la after smashing everything to tiny bits!

They have woven the "cult think" into every aspect of their lives. In the past year -I personally have been the recipient of:
1. Extortion
2. Bribery
3. Threats of disconnection if I get declared!

AND THEY WERE OUT!

They recently pulled another "cult learned number" on me and I am reeling from it.:mindblow:

I am totally exhausted from dealing with them. I am happy I helped them get out - but what I have learned is that if one does not take a sincere interest in finding out for themselves what happened to them and HOW they got so hornswoggled - they will not recover. They will take the cult personality and weave it into every single thread of their lives.

They have accomplished "Keeping Scientology Working" and not knowing it. They have kept all of those icky aspects of that personality - it is ICKY, YUKY! They still use the lingo. They use extortion in their business dealings. They think complaining about something or someone = overts and withholds. The worst one - they are SO RIGHT and everyone else is SO WRONG.

They are the product of 25 years in Scientology and not doing anything about it!

 

[BardoThodol]

Thanks for the reply Magoo - :wink2:


I am totally exhausted from dealing with them. I am happy I helped them get out - but what I have learned is that if one does not take a sincere interest in finding out for themselves what happened to them and HOW they got so hornswoggled - they will not recover. They will take the cult personality and weave it into every single thread of their lives.

Hornswoggled?

All hope is lost.

Disconnect immediately. Do not pass go. Do not like green eggs and ham.

Anyone who causes another to use the word "hornswoggled" is too profligate for redemption.

One should only associate with those who inspire us to use positive (though slightly offbeat) words.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

Hornswoggled?

All hope is lost.

Disconnect immediately. Do not pass go. Do not like green eggs and ham.

Anyone who causes another to use the word "hornswoggled" is too profligate for redemption.

One should only associate with those who inspire us to use positive (though slightly offbeat) words.

I don't think I've ever been hornswoggled, well not yet, anyway. Am I missing out?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U

 

[Idle Morgue]

Hornswoggled?

All hope is lost.

Disconnect immediately. Do not pass go. Do not like green eggs and ham.

Anyone who causes another to use the word "hornswoggled" is too profligate for redemption.

One should only associate with those who inspire us to use positive (though slightly offbeat) words.

[h=3]hornswoggled past participle, past tense of horn·swog·gle [/h]Verb
Get the better of (someone) by cheating or deception.

 

[Mike Laws]

This is a tricky question to ask. Not because the answer is complex but because the question is complex.

I'm not asking if Scientology should be above the law. It should not. Any activities that break the law should be condemned & dealt with by law enforcement, e.g false imprisonment, using child labour etc. But what about Joe Public who wants to get auditing? What about the guy who wants to train to become an auditor? Should he be stopped from doing that?

I know I am late to the party, but IMHO this couldn't be answered UNTIL an earlier question was answered: WHAT EXACTLY IS SCIENTOLOGY?"

I believe the whole body of Scientology writings and culture when implemented with equal priority importance and value, makes people do bad things. There are parts of it that can be quite useful and helpful ... minimally not destructive, but these can also then be turned into bad, either by malicious implementation, or using it as a hook to sink in ... capturing for more abusive or high control aspects.

I honestly don't know what Scientology really is any more, the COS is pretty clear, it is a commercial business focused on increasing its wealth and power under a religious cloak, helping people if convenient, otherwise destroying detractors. The indi/freezone movement is something else, some believe everything LRH wrote is good, others use parts of it purely, others blend it with other philosophies to make something they feel comfortable using.

But people use the word Scientology as an absolute. I don't see it as mutually understood in definition, much less an absolute.

 

[Idle Morgue]

I know I am late to the party, but IMHO this couldn't be answered UNTIL an earlier question was answered: WHAT EXACTLY IS SCIENTOLOGY?"

I believe the whole body of Scientology writings and culture when implemented with equal priority importance and value, makes people do bad things. There are parts of it that can be quite useful and helpful ... minimally not destructive, but these can also then be turned into bad, either by malicious implementation, or using it as a hook to sink in ... capturing for more abusive or high control aspects.

I honestly don't know what Scientology really is any more, the COS is pretty clear, it is a commercial business focused on increasing its wealth and power under a religious cloak, helping people if convenient, otherwise destroying detractors. The indi/freezone movement is something else, some believe everything LRH wrote is good, others use parts of it purely, others blend it with other philosophies to make something they feel comfortable using.

But people use the word Scientology as an absolute. I don't see it as mutually understood in definition, much less an absolute.

Good post Mike. I think that is the question...WHAT IS Scientology?

This is WHAT Scientology is to me:
I was told via promo, books, lectures - that it is the Science of knowing how to know.

I can just stop right there - because there is no science of the subject - science would be something that if you did it - it would work and anyone outside of Scientology could do it and it would work.

Electricity was discovered through scientific means...you can't see electricity but we use it everyday. EXACTLY WHAT is something from scientology that you can you see - that proves it is working?

Scientology teaches ARC - WHERE DO YOU SEE ARC in scientology - only when they need money or free labor from you...otherwise no one even talks to each other. No love, no compassion, no care or help.

but what is it? It is a complicated set of books, lecture's and policy's on how to behave according to Hubbard.

It has contained in it - very long, expensive processes that have to be preformed by many people - C/S, Auditor, Qual, D of P, Ethics Officer, Registrar etc...and the person pays for it up front. After the money is paid - they are then given legal contracts before they get their service.

They are also fed propaganda which they are forced to agree with that make Scientology always right and them always wrong. There is nothing wrong with taking responsibility - but Scientology uses this mechanism to covertly control the members - it preys on this and devours their own members with it.

Any complaints or upsets cost the person tons of money and time. It is always your fault - THAT is Scientology!

Same thing with training.

Hubbard says the truth is simple. Most people agree - you think you are going to get to the truth in scientology - but when is the truth ever simple in scientology?

Some examples: People leave= they have crimes. Anyone critisize scientology - they have overts they are hiding, say scientology does not work=SP, complain=natter=overts. No case gain=SP. Don't give money=not a true group member etc.

By L Ron Hubbard's own definition - scientology has failed - it is not the science of knowing how to know - it appears in the beginning to be that way but these were "truths" he copied from others and sprinkled many truths in the beginning and mixed them with some lies - so now the question becomes...

When did Scientology not become the science of knowing how to know?

Well, Dianetics is a lie. Maybe it started with Dianetics? There is no scientific proof of a "reactive mind" that Hubbard claims - "you can get rid of and go CLEAR using Dianetics".

That is a fact!

Because as he developed Scientology - the "clear" cognition changes from "I know longer have a reactive mind - it is gone"
to "I have a reactive mind, I mocked it up and I can control it". He constantly has an excuse why it does not work and one needs the next layer - that does not work - you need the next and on and on and on.

Scientology - It is like boiling a frog in a pot with cold water - they don't know they are going to get boiled because the water feels fine - but the heat is slowly increased so they get used to it...then finally - water reaches boil and YELP! Too late! He is cooked. He agreed to stay though...seemed fine in the beginning - no problem and by the time he was cooked - it was too late...he did not even notice. That is Scientology technology in a nutshell.

LRH told lies - he lied about his past - Naval career, school. He lied about his marriages, his children, Aleistar Crowley, his failed education. He embellished his life and scientology continues to embellish the life of El Wrong each year with the efforts of David Miscavige and Dan Sherman as so eloquently portrayed in the 2.5 hour driveling Sherman-speak biographies the members must endure at the events. The "Ron Series" etc...

IT STARTED WITH L RON HUBBARD...HE LIED FROM THE BEGINNING.

He died - the leadership lied and said "he dropped his body to move on to Target Two" - "he felt his body was an impediment for further levels of awareness"...think about that! Does that even make sense now? LIES!

So far after doing Scientology and looking at the whole thing, I have concluded that Scientology is the science of lying!

Check it out...Scientology is a LIE and its leaders and members LIE to survive.

 

[In present time]

yes idle, i really had to laugh today when i was reading one of the comments on tonys blog. someone remarked that an ex scientologist wanted to make some statement in a court case and the churches OWN lawyer objected, stating to the judge that as an ex scientologist the witness was not credible because there is special scientology training on how to LIE.

 

[Gadfly]

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, and an exact meaning of the term "Scientology" is too.

Hubbard MADE UP the word "Scientology". Hubbard then defined it in various ways. These various definitions were largely claims and statements, that were/are entirely unable to be verified or proven. How does one prove whether or not Scientology is "the science of knowing how to know? What happens when a person gets involved is that he or she simply accepts and BELIEVES that what Hubbard says is true.

Hubbard was a stage magician of ideas. He made things appear to exist that really did not. He created illusions - many of the ideas found within Scientology are illusions. They are the result of "tricks" (mental deception).

There is an organization and a Church of Scientology, and THAT can be analyzed, studied and learned about. It IS a "real thing" that can be observed. But too often people confuse some abstract IDEA ("Scientology") with the observable Church of Scientology.

Now, people indoctrinated with Scientology are taught to NEVER differentiate about Hubbard and Scientology. Hubbard and management worked very hard to have all Scientology ideas equal to all other Scientology ideas. I remember talking to the CO OSA CW back in the mid-1990s, and I mentioned that the organization of Scientology, and the ideas behind it, were very different than the auditing and ideas behind IT. He immediately ATTACKED me, loudly and viciously, "THAT IS ENEMY LINE". He asked, "who told you that"? See, within the framework of Scientology as created by Hubbard, one is NOT ALLOWED to isolate various parts and analyze them separate from the rest of the subject. Hubbard made it a "package deal". And, it seems that some of the people here on ESMB who were involved, and over-indoctrinated, STILL carry forward this idea that it is not okay to differentiate and examine details and isolated parts of the whole.

Indoctrination into Scientology creates minds that are filled with vague abstract ideas about all sorts of things. This is only to be expected because so many of the claims and statements made by Hubbard cannot be verified or connected to observations of the relevant information. How does one verify that "Scientology makes a better world"? You don't and you can't, and instead you accept and believe. And, by doing so, you have added just another of many vague ideas into your very sloppy mind.

Hubbard asserted that there was a body of knowledge, integrated and related, called "Scientology". THAT was more Hubbard fiction. There never was any "integrated" subject known as "Scientology". That idea, and it is ONLY an "idea" because it doesn't exist in the real world, was/is just another of many fictions created by Hubbard. Hubbard wrote about a great many different things, often UNRELATED things, and placed them all under this made-up word called "Scientology".

There are some isolated ideas and practices that can be useful. To me, the best way to define "Scientology" is as the full and complete subject materials of Hubbard's, as applied and used within the Church of Scientology organization. Hubbard himself stated that "true and legitimate Scientology" can only exist within the official organization. The ethics and justice codes are meaningless without the Scientology organization. So, for me, and for most others, when they talk of "Scientology" they are talking about the CHURCH of Scientology. You can point to a church of Scientology. You can point to a book about Scientology. But you cannot ever point to a "Scientology". Why? Because it is not a real thing of the physical universe - it is AN IDEA. It exists ONLY in your head.

I should discuss abstractions, what they are, and how they relate to real things. But, this is too long already. Simply, the term "Scientology" exists at the very top of the ladder of abstraction. It omits an immense variety of qualifiers to exist at that level of abstraction. Just like the word "cat". The abstract idea "cat" includes all sorts of cats, dead, alive, big, small, brown, black, white, and so forth. An IDEA only becomes specific when you add in the qualifiers - exact time, place and form (to use an idea from Hubbard). Just like one can't point to a "Christianity". Such abstract ideas are SO general, and cover so many specifics, as to be meaningless without the qualifiers.

Now, if you want to talk about isolated ideas that occur within the overall larger subject of Scientology, then these things should NOT be called "Scientology", because it can't really be Hubbard-defined Scientology unless the isolated decent parts exists along with all the extensive CRAP. Minimally, one should qualify the idea or practice as an isolated idea or practice taken out of the larger subject found in the writings of Hubbard's Scientology.

Without the use of qualifiers or adjectives, the term "Scientology" means something different to every person who thinks with the term. In truth, without the use of qualifiers or adjectives the term "Scientology" is meaningless. It is a made-up word that has no correlation to ANY reality outside of Hubbard's definition for the term.

 

[Mike Laws]

Gad,

I feel you here man, and much of this is why I can't define it, lies mixed with truths, help mixed with betrayals and paranoia ... good and bad.

Here is an interesting thought for you ARC. Affinity, is somewhat of a clinical term. To me, ARC is as much a control mechanism in the current Scilon culture as it is a tool to help people learn how to get along better. You can use ARC to get someone to do something they don't want to do in a technical sense.

What if we switched Affinity with Love. Love, Reality and communication? how would that change things in a spiritual sense? Love is not as clinical. I recall LRH only rarely speaking of love. It is a deep and meaningful word and action.