So what if Scn (not just CofS) goes away?

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Of course, I'd welcome any discussion on this. But my actual question as written in the thread title is for non CofS Scientologists.

A lot of critics refer to Scn going away completely. Not just CofS. I personally think the ideas will persist but piecemeal and often not identified as Scn or Dianetics. But that's ONLY my guess.

What if --way in the future-- there was so much bowdlerization of Hubbard books where the cult really got a hold of most copies of the originals, others were lost, people drifted away from both the church and non church scene and...

there was nothing called Scn. Not Free Zone. Not indie.

Would the non CofS (or CofS ones, if there are any here) Scn'ists here feel that mankind's best hope was gone? Would any of you feel that not only are there are other methods and belief systems and spinoffs out there that have commonality with Scn, but that those things might be just as effective as Scn and Dn ever were at keeping man from the dwindling spiral?

Or would you feel more like, ok, they're there but it's not going to be good enough, it won't be as good as Scn as far as dealing with cases and keeping people off the dwindling spiral.

I think that some people would think that there are other methods out there that could be good but it really would NOT be as good as if there was auditing and LRH tech around. I also think some non CofS Scn'ists might not feel that way. I think the tech purists among the Indies and FZers might find this hypothetical issue a potential problem for mankind, though.

The idea for this thread germinated in my mind based on things my husband has said to me and that I sometimes see non CofS Scn'ists discussing here and there.

I used to really really worry about this issue. In CofS, they want you to worry about it. They want you to be flat out terrified, IMO. I do think, though, that this worry and fear can be found in non church Scn venues, too, sometimes.

Whaddaya think?
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
The concern about this (in scientology) started with Hubbard, and is promulgated heavily in the "Student Hat" course, which nearly every serious Scientologist has to take as a prerequisite to taking any Academy courses. The idea is that it is possible to lose "the Tech" due to people misunderstanding it, piece by piece, through incorrect transmission: either incorrect training, or incorrect study, leading to incorrect application and then a chain of misunderstandings piled onto each other, until the subject ceases being recognizable as whatever Hubbard had intended Scientology to be (I leave that open). This fear is echoed in KSW, Safeguarding Technology, Wordclearing Series, Case Supervision materials, and is one of the primary functions of Qual. Miscavige capitalizes on it when he wants to force a book boom by saying there was a problem with earlier books, so you must now buy the new ones which more properly transmit Hubbard's exact intentions for and understanding of the subject. Misduplication is considered a very serious offense, a mere justification for those who are secretly harboring counter-intention or other-intention to Hubbard's own "command intention".

I am not concerned about Scientology disappearing or going away. Large parts of its understanding originated outside of Hubbard or his writers-for-hire. The particular "processes" and "rundowns" are sales gimmicks for people who haven't understood the subject. When you understand the subject, you don't need trademarked or copyrighted methods, you can create them based on the needs of a client. You don't even need copyrighted and trademarked words, as they are just labels for ideas that cannot be copyrighted or trademarked.

Since the understanding that underpinned the subject didn't originate with Hubbard, concern about his death, or the wholesale rejection of his work, can be released. What contributions he may have made were largely in the direction of confusing the subject and then making those confusions confidential. That's my opinion.
 
Personally I can't see anyway Scientology could survive, what little is has to offer is pretty much obsolete or heavily tainted with Hubbard's convoluted nonsensical theories that he pawns off as indisputable facts. It's base consists of middle ager and geriatrics clinging to the past.

The only way it has ever been able to attract new members is through deception and deception is much more difficult in the internet age.

I guess they can go after third-world countries where internet access is not as prevalent, but even that is temporary.

I'm surprised it's run lasted even this long.

Can anyone here honestly say they can picture people under the age of thirty getting interested in Scientology for anything other than it's bizarreness?

Scientology can not exist in an open environment, and even if it could why would anyone even bother? it's not like it's ever produced any results worth bragging about, quite the contrary, it has a 60 year trail of human carnage, empty promises, and broken families.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Scientology, at best, was a little itty bitty cult started by one batshit carzy man and taken over by even a worse one.

All it ever had was a con to fleece it's flock. There was no 'salvation for mankind''.

So, outside the confines of the cult, what it had to offer is laughable.

50s pop psychology run by teeny boppers with no life experience running around in salvation navy faux uniforms telling mind numbed cult members which way to jump and how high into the one-size-fits-all dictum of scientology. That is as good as it got.

Some stopped drinking the koolaid ( The Sacred Sacremental drink of the Holy Scientolgists Worlwide ). Some not only still drink the koolaid they mix it as the magic potion to serve to others for salvation of the world !


Oh, and the C o $ only serves that one flavor of koolaid:duh:

And, oh......BTW, How the hell did threy invent that " eternal battery " to keep Xenu trapped?
 
Last edited:
nope

Of course, I'd welcome any discussion on this. But my actual question as written in the thread title is for non CofS Scientologists.

A lot of critics refer to Scn going away completely. Not just CofS. I personally think the ideas will persist but piecemeal and often not identified as Scn or Dianetics. But that's ONLY my guess.

What if --way in the future-- there was so much bowdlerization of Hubbard books where the cult really got a hold of most copies of the originals, others were lost, people drifted away from both the church and non church scene and...

there was nothing called Scn. Not Free Zone. Not indie.

Would the non CofS (or CofS ones, if there are any here) Scn'ists here feel that mankind's best hope was gone? Would any of you feel that not only are there are other methods and belief systems and spinoffs out there that have commonality with Scn, but that those things might be just as effective as Scn and Dn ever were at keeping man from the dwindling spiral?

Or would you feel more like, ok, they're there but it's not going to be good enough, it won't be as good as Scn as far as dealing with cases and keeping people off the dwindling spiral.

I think that some people would think that there are other methods out there that could be good but it really would NOT be as good as if there was auditing and LRH tech around. I also think some non CofS Scn'ists might not feel that way. I think the tech purists among the Indies and FZers might find this hypothetical issue a potential problem for mankind, though.

The idea for this thread germinated in my mind based on things my husband has said to me and that I sometimes see non CofS Scn'ists discussing here and there.

I used to really really worry about this issue. In CofS, they want you to worry about it. They want you to be flat out terrified, IMO. I do think, though, that this worry and fear can be found in non church Scn venues, too, sometimes.

Whaddaya think?

dianetics was here to stay the day dmsmh was published. period.
 
dianetics was here to stay the day dmsmh was published. period.

Does anyone still think there is a point in searching for an imaginary basic-basic engram, or entertaining Hubbard's silly redefinitions of the subconscious and subconscious mind?

If someone is interested in regressive therapy to uncover repressed traumatic incidents, there are much better ways of doing it without including all of worthless baggage and false absolutes that Hubbard added to it. Not to mention the imaginary state of Clear, or his asinine nerd's club vocabulary.

Regressive therapy can be accomplished quite successfully and without the side-effects of Hubbard's mindfuck, if you stay clear of Hubbard's material.
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
dianetics was here to stay the day dmsmh was published. period.
My understanding is that while Dianetics initially sold quite well, it's mainstream success was essentially a fad that quickly died out. The follow-up, "Science of Survival", sold very poorly on release. By that point, Dr. Winters had distanced himself from Hubbard and criticized his lack of scientific rigor and the methods had been criticized by the mainstream mental health establishment.

Without the Scientology organization it seems unlikely Dianetics would still be in print, let alone a significant influence on the field of mental health.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Does anyone still think there is a point in searching for an imaginary basic-basic engram, or entertaining Hubbard's silly redefinitions of the subconscious and subconscious mind?

If someone is interested in regressive therapy to uncover repressed traumatic incidents, there are much better ways of doing it without including all of worthless baggage and false absolutes that Hubbard added to it. Not to mention the imaginary state of Clear, or his asinine nerd's club vocabulary.

Regressive therapy can be accomplished quite successfully and without the side-effects of Hubbard's mindfuck, if you stay clear of Hubbard's material.

Agreed, but many of us, myself included, were introduced to this sort of procedure through Hubbard's "Dianetics". I wish that was not true, my life probably would have been a lot different had I experienced it through a psychotherapist. I don't regret learning the procedure, or the benefits I got from it, but I do wish that I found it first with Hubbard. Led to the old Chinese curse: interesting times.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
It will slowly fade away to nothing. But people will always be looking at ways to improve themselves and gather information, and the same kind of stuff will be tried every now and then.

If someone actually approached the subject in a scientific way they might even come up with ways to make that kind of thing work. Truth cannot be destroyed, it'll find a way back into sight. Not saying that there's much truth in the subject but there is some.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
It already has. Check out cognitive flooding, REBT, Abreactive Therapy, or my own favorite, Traumatic Incident Reduction as part of the metapsychology model.
 
Does anyone still think there is a point in searching for an imaginary basic-basic engram, or entertaining Hubbard's silly redefinitions of the subconscious and subconscious mind?

If someone is interested in regressive therapy to uncover repressed traumatic incidents, there are much better ways of doing it without including all of worthless baggage and false absolutes that Hubbard added to it. Not to mention the imaginary state of Clear, or his asinine nerd's club vocabulary.

Regressive therapy can be accomplished quite successfully and without the side-effects of Hubbard's mindfuck, if you stay clear of Hubbard's material.

yeah, "basic-basic" is not viable literally. neither is the concept meaningless.

TRs 0-4? essential and perfect.

Auditor's Code? not letter perfect but pretty good. and it's spirit is noble and essential.

there is a hell of a lot of meat in hubbard's writings.
 
yeah, "basic-basic" is not viable literally. neither is the concept meaningless.

TRs 0-4? essential and perfect.

Auditor's Code? not letter perfect but pretty good. and it's spirit is noble and essential.

there is a hell of a lot of meat in hubbard's writings.

yeah if you're interested in that. I prefer focusing on the results and there isn't much I've seen in the way of Scientology that I would recommend.

Theory is nice if you are interested in it or are looking to make a career out of it, but most people are not interested in it, they are just looking for results.

And when it comes to Scientology the results are always one level and a mountain of theory away.

It's been sixty years now, what does Scientology have to show for itself? Other than a bunch of OTs that have gone insane?
 
The problem with a lot of these therapies is too much time is spent on the therapy and not enough on the solution, not everybody with a hangup or phobia wants to be an expert in curing them or becoming a practitioner of the therapy.

Scientology is an absolute joke even it comes to this, you not only have to spend the rest of your life studying the pile of shit Hubbard compiled and listening to tapes of him incoherently babble about utter nonsense, you have to forget about yourself as an individual and devote your life to it.

Could you image going in to get your oil changed at a service center and the mechanic hands you an auto repair manual to study before he will do the work and then forces you to write a positive recommendation before he will hand you the keys back?

Richard Bandler and John Grinder had the right idea when they were developing NLP, when it came to curing phobias, they were not interested in focusing on people with phobias, they placed an ad in the newspaper looking for people who had phobias and now were cured of them then studied these people looking at all of the similarities of their conditions and what resulted in the cures.

Theory is nice if you are interested in it or are looking to make a career out of it, but most people are not interested in it, they are just looking for results.

And when it comes to Scientology the results are always one level away.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
NLP is an interesting animal. I don't think Bandler, et al, decided on their techniques out of the blue after studying people, though (if they represent it that way, I find that farcical). Seems much more likely (since they use his terminology extensively) that they took their theoretical construct from Alfred Korzybski and then attributed the cure of the phobias to methods derived from General Semantics. Not knocking Korzybski, or NLP.

I agree that most people just want whatever is troubling them to stop it. Most of the time, this is possible with a few hours (maybe twenty or so) of reflection, possibly some regression, and some incidental abreaction (what Hubbard termed dramatization). However, some people need or want to know the theory behind how something they wrestle with developed, so that they might prevent it from occurring, and some smalled number might want to learn it so that they can help a friend or family member or become a professional.
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
Not having ever been a Scientologist, though I had several opportunities, I can only say my experience of the cult from the outside has been 100 per cent negative. I know it to be damaging, dangerous and delusional.

I am sure large chunks of Tubbie's "tech" work very well and achieve the mind-bending results he desired but I am equally sure he used them to work evil, to manipulate individuals for his own benefit, and to make vast sums of money. The main difference between Tubbie and his disciple Charles Mason was that Tubbie took a long-term view while Manson wanted to demonstrate that the tech worked. And it does, yes indeedy.

And so I hope Tubbie's creation dies completely, branch, stem and root. Nothing I have learned about Scientology or the CoS in the last twenty years has made me think any different.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Commander Bird Song said:
yeah, "basic-basic" is not viable literally. neither is the concept meaningless.

TRs 0-4? essential and perfect.

Auditor's Code? not letter perfect but pretty good. and it's spirit is noble and essential.

there is a hell of a lot of meat in hubbard's writings.


Yeah, and it rotted and fell off the bone - LOL !
 
Last edited:

bts2free

Patron with Honors
Could you image going in to get your oil changed at a service center and the mechanic hands you an auto repair manual to study before he will do the work and then forces you to write a positive recommendation before he will hand you the keys back?

Not only that, but imagine if the service center required you to become a fully trained mechanic, and get other people in to become mechanics, so you can all eventually change your own damn oil, but still have to forever report in and pay a fee to make sure you're doing it right and not squirelling sacred and standard mechanic Tech. And no, you can't have your keys back. You sold your car and your mother's car so we could train you, sucker.
 
Top