Step up to the plate!

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I have seen from both the pro-Scientology and anti-Scientology sides some arguments that are not really arguments.

They just resort to name calling or statements that do not address the point in question.

Here is something from John Stuart Mill in his book "On Liberty."

"What Cicero practiced as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth.

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.

His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.

But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination."


If you can't make a sound defense against opposing ideas then you should check your own beliefs.

But you must be able to defend your beliefs, soundly, against opposing ideas.

More than likely when this is done, both sides will understand the other's position much better as well as understanding their own position better too.

There are so many people who can articulate their views so well on this board; Mimsey, Gadfly, Student of Trinity, Olska, just to name a few.

Any encounter with them increases one's understanding of their position and even one's own position.

We've got a good crew here, and we can take on anybody with reason, not taunts.

I don't think other boards and pages can do it as well as we do (and I think some are jealous of that).

So whatever you think or feel, step up to the plate and take a swing.

It will be a learning process for all sides involved.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[degraded being]

I have seen from both the pro-Scientology and anti-Scientology sides some arguments that are not really arguments.

They just resort to name calling or statements that do not address the point in question.

Here is something from John Stuart Mill in his book "On Liberty."

"What Cicero practiced as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth.

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.

His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.

But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination."


If you can't make a sound defense against opposing ideas then you should check your own beliefs.

But you must be able to defend your beliefs, soundly, against opposing ideas.

More than likely when this is done, both sides will understand the other's position much better as well as understanding their own position better too.

There are so many people who can articulate their views so well on this board; Mimsey, Gadfly, Student of Trinity, Olska, just to name a few.

Any encounter with them increases one's understanding of their position and even one's own position.

We've got a good crew here, and we can take on anybody with reason, not taunts.

I don't think other boards and pages can do it as well as we do (and I think some are jealous of that).

So whatever you think or feel, step up to the plate and take a swing.

It will be a learning process for all sides involved.

The Anabaptist Jacques

"....We've got a good crew here, and we can take on anybody with reason, not taunts...."

Until Veda's next post?

 

[Emma]

"....We've got a good crew here, and we can take on anybody with reason, not taunts...."

Until Veda's next post?

I too hope his next post is not a taunt.

 

[degraded being]

I too hope his next post is not a taunt.

Or taunted.

 

[Emma]

Or taunted.

I guess that depends on whether he pokes someone in the eye or not. I hope he doesn't.

 

[Lone Star]

I too hope his next post is not a taunt.

...nor a tautology...

 

[Jump]

"....We've got a good crew here, and we can take on anybody with reason, not taunts...."

"Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!"

[video=youtube;A8yjNbcKkNY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY[/video]
​

 

[AnonyMary]

 

[Leon]

I have seen from both the pro-Scientology and anti-Scientology sides some arguments that are not really arguments.

They just resort to name calling or statements that do not address the point in question.

Here is something from John Stuart Mill in his book "On Liberty."

"What Cicero practiced as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth.

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.

His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.

But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination."


If you can't make a sound defense against opposing ideas then you should check your own beliefs.

But you must be able to defend your beliefs, soundly, against opposing ideas.

More than likely when this is done, both sides will understand the other's position much better as well as understanding their own position better too.

There are so many people who can articulate their views so well on this board; Mimsey, Gadfly, Student of Trinity, Olska, just to name a few.

Any encounter with them increases one's understanding of their position and even one's own position.

We've got a good crew here, and we can take on anybody with reason, not taunts.

I don't think other boards and pages can do it as well as we do (and I think some are jealous of that).

So whatever you think or feel, step up to the plate and take a swing.

It will be a learning process for all sides involved.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I would suggest, politely, that the portions I have underlined above apply to you yourself in your essay on the other thread.

You do not appear to know the other side of why some believe that Scio can be an effective tool in human betterment, and since you don't know what they are you have no grounds for preferring your own option, and thus you are either led by authority [you being your self-proclaimed own authority in this case], or you adopt, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination, [i.e. your own].

I do not support everything that Hubbard has said and proclaimed - not by a very long chalk - but I do say that within the voluminous writings and utterings of his there is enough good stuff there which, when applied by a person of good intent, can produce great benefits for himself and others.

And the fact that there are such people as myself who have done and continue to do this, in itself refutes your generalised argument that we are somehow deluded by his presentation of the subject.

 

[Gadfly]

I get what Leon is saying, because I also am often turned off by some of the things you say TAJ. I also like and enjoy many of the things that you say!

What is the problem?

To me it is a tendency to get stuck in MIND. One can get lost in the realm of INTELLECT. This has to do with getting caught in the web of ones OWN conceptual world of unique meaning, significance, descriptions and definitions. Some people get this idea that intellect is all that there is, that logic is the only path to truth, and that reason is senior to all else.

But the intellect is only a PART of a mind.

It is an important part of any mind, but it often gets exaggerated in importance. At this point in human history the intellect is given over recognition - the right side of the brain rules . . . sadly for us all.

Thinking will never lead to truth. Thinking deals only with ideas. And, this is key, ideas are only representations or distorted mirror-images of some aspect of reality.

I understand what TAJ is saying when he talks about how within the whole context of Scientology ideas that "Scientology always works". That is an assumption or idea or consideration that is indoctrinated via KSW into the minds of RTC Scientology participants. These are basic idea that are forwarded through involvement with Hubbard's subject materials:

Scientology always works when correctly applied.

If it doesn't work then YOU did something wrong, or have something wrong with YOU.

Scientology is the only system of ideas and practices that can change, help and better any human being.

If something makes you feel better and do better, it is actually Scientology in some form, because Scientology is the true study of life in its most basic and accurate aspects.

I could spend a few days digging through policy letters and books to list out statements made by Hubbard that enforce the above ideas, but really, just read KSW. It is all there. These are assumptions, but are never called assumptions, and are treated as "truths". These are accepted "on faith" through severe and demanding Scientology indoctrination - that mainly happens ONLY in the official organized Church of Scientology. But again, the followers who accept and adopt these ideas, and they are ONLY IDEAS because they do not align with honest observations of actual reality, do not ever realize that they are acting on faith - they have been convinced through Hubbard's mind control that the above statements are entirely TRUE.

Keeping Scientology Working

To keep Scientology working in the minds of adherents, one must accept and believe what Hubbard says as described above in bold. All of this has to do with IDEAS and BELIEFS. And, in fact, these ideas and beliefs are LIES.

But there is another aspect that Leon touches upon, and it IS a valid aspect of all of this. I know some hate that this can or might be true in any way, but it is what it is.

Outside of that entire belief system of KSW, one can still get results from some of the methods found within the larger subject of Scientology. These things don't work because "they are Scientology", but as I said earlier, because they cause or enable a caring and interested person to direct attention and focus in a way that he or she would have otherwise NOT DONE. All forms of mental and spiritual healing or growth involve this direction of focus, concentration and attention. Of course, manipulation and deceit also can contain the same things in various ways.

Some process or method of Scientology does at time get results, but not because of how or why Hubbard defines such things. There may or may not be anything similar to what Hubbard calls an engram, but there is no doubt that MANY people have benefited from recounting past moments of pain, upset and abuse. Call it Dianetics or call it abreaction therapy - reliving an experience in order to purge it of its emotional excesses; a type of catharsis. Such methods have been proven to "work", and Dianetics is just one of many.

Visualization "works" for some people. Creative processing in Scientology is actually a form of visualization. In a sense, the materials of OT III are a very complicated form of imaginative visualization (that traps people because it is never taught as a form of CREATIVE IMAGINATION - and thus involves a made-up scenario that through acceptance affects the mind).

We can argue all day long about where specific parts of Scientology come from, and that much of it is stolen and distorted from other fields and authors. It is.

There is no doubt that the BELIEF SYSTEM created by involvement within strict Scientology is NUTS - THAT is what TAJ is talking about here and elsewhere, and he is correct about that. But there is more to it. Much more.

 

[Free Being Me]

>snip<I do not support everything that Hubbard has said and proclaimed - not by a very long chalk - but I do say that within the voluminous writings and utterings of his there is enough good stuff there which, when applied by a person of good intent, can produce great benefits for himself and others.

Verifiable examples? (which you fail to mention).

 

[shadow]

Darn! I read the thread title and thought there would be food. All I found was another discussion! And now I can't even find a sarcasm smilie, so just disregard...
Love the taunting scene, almost as much as the 3 questions to cross the bridge scene.
......I'm going back to bed.

 

[Leon]

Verifiable examples? (which you fail to mention).

Well, Gadfly gives a good example above. Important thing is that it is not "the tech" that is working it is really the good intent of the auditor which produces the results.

Hubbard himself even acknowledged this fact somewhere in his writings when he said words to the effect of "It is the auditor's postulates that produces the gains in the preclear".

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I would suggest, politely, that the portions I have underlined above apply to you yourself in your essay on the other thread.

You do not appear to know the other side of why some believe that Scio can be an effective tool in human betterment, and since you don't know what they are you have no grounds for preferring your own option, and thus you are either led by authority [you being your self-proclaimed own authority in this case], or you adopt, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination, [i.e. your own].

I do not support everything that Hubbard has said and proclaimed - not by a very long chalk - but I do say that within the voluminous writings and utterings of his there is enough good stuff there which, when applied by a person of good intent, can produce great benefits for himself and others.

And the fact that there are such people as myself who have done and continue to do this, in itself refutes your generalised argument that we are somehow deluded by his presentation of the subject.

I was in Scientology for over 35 years.

How does that not count?

My argument is not generalized it is very specific.

Scientology only works in a Scientology context.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I get what Leon is saying, because I also am often turned off by some of the things you say TAJ. I also like and enjoy many of the things that you say!

What is the problem?

To me it is a tendency to get stuck in MIND. One can get lost in the realm of INTELLECT. This has to do with getting caught in the web of ones OWN conceptual world of unique meaning, significance, descriptions and definitions. Some people get this idea that intellect is all that there is, that logic is the only path to truth, and that reason is senior to all else.

But the intellect is only a PART of a mind.

It is an important part of any mind, but it often gets exaggerated in importance. At this point in human history the intellect is given over recognition - the right side of the brain rules . . . sadly for us all.

Thinking will never lead to truth. Thinking deals only with ideas. And, this is key, ideas are only representations or distorted mirror-images of some aspect of reality.

I understand what TAJ is saying when he talks about how within the whole context of Scientology ideas that "Scientology always works". That is an assumption or idea or consideration that is indoctrinated via KSW into the minds of RTC Scientology participants. These are basic idea that are forwarded through involvement with Hubbard's subject materials:

Scientology always works when correctly applied.

If it doesn't work then YOU did something wrong, or have something wrong with YOU.

Scientology is the only system of ideas and practices that can change, help and better any human being.

If something makes you feel better and do better, it is actually Scientology in some form, because Scientology is the true study of life in its most basic and accurate aspects.

I could spend a few days digging through policy letters and books to list out statements made by Hubbard that enforce the above ideas, but really, just read KSW. It is all there. These are assumptions, but are never called assumptions, and are treated as "truths". These are accepted "on faith" through severe and demanding Scientology indoctrination - that mainly happens ONLY in the official organized Church of Scientology. But again, the followers who accept and adopt these ideas, and they are ONLY IDEAS because they do not align with honest observations of actual reality, do not ever realize that they are acting on faith - they have been convinced through Hubbard's mind control that the above statements are entirely TRUE.

Keeping Scientology Working

To keep Scientology working in the minds of adherents, one must accept and believe what Hubbard says as described above in bold. All of this has to do with IDEAS and BELIEFS. And, in fact, these ideas and beliefs are LIES.

But there is another aspect that Leon touches upon, and it IS a valid aspect of all of this. I know some hate that this can or might be true in any way, but it is what it is.

Outside of that entire belief system of KSW, one can still get results from some of the methods found within the larger subject of Scientology. These things don't work because "they are Scientology", but as I said earlier, because they cause or enable a caring and interested person to direct attention and focus in a way that he or she would have otherwise NOT DONE. All forms of mental and spiritual healing or growth involve this direction of focus, concentration and attention. Of course, manipulation and deceit also can contain the same things in various ways.

Some process or method of Scientology does at time get results, but not because of how or why Hubbard defines such things. There may or may not be anything similar to what Hubbard calls an engram, but there is no doubt that MANY people have benefited from recounting past moments of pain, upset and abuse. Call it Dianetics or call it abreaction therapy - reliving an experience in order to purge it of its emotional excesses; a type of catharsis. Such methods have been proven to "work", and Dianetics is just one of many.

Visualization "works" for some people. Creative processing in Scientology is actually a form of visualization. In a sense, the materials of OT III are a very complicated form of imaginative visualization (that traps people because it is never taught as a form of CREATIVE IMAGINATION - and thus involves a made-up scenario that through acceptance affects the mind).

We can argue all day long about where specific parts of Scientology come from, and that much of it is stolen and distorted from other fields and authors. It is.

There is no doubt that the BELIEF SYSTEM created by involvement within strict Scientology is NUTS - THAT is what TAJ is talking about here and elsewhere, and he is correct about that. But there is more to it. Much more.

So name one instances where the Tech does not have another Technical reason why the Tech failed.

Scientology always and only works in a Scientology context.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

Well, Gadfly gives a good example above. Important thing is that it is not "the tech" that is working it is really the good intent of the auditor which produces the results.

Hubbard himself even acknowledged this fact somewhere in his writings when he said words to the effect of "It is the auditor's postulates that produces the gains in the preclear".

While the good intent of any person has something to do with results, it is not the only factor. Yes, it IS important - in ANY relationship.

I don't have the view that "it is the auditor's postulates that produces the gains in the preclear". I think that is just more mumbo-jumbo.

There are many DETAILED and UNIQUE aspects within the larger subject of Scientology. Hubbard worked very hard to keep them all "equal", so that members would not differentiate among the various tidbits of information and ideas, but that doesn't mean that WE can't. Hubbard took a great many isolated and unrelated ideas/practices and STUFFED them all together while foisting the name SCIENTOLOGY upon them. Just because Hubbard rammed this view down our throats does not mean that we have to continue to accept it.

TAJ, there is NO "scientology". Point to a "Scientology". It is a vague generality. It is so absurdly abstract. The statement "Scientology works" is equally absurd. It can only make sense to an over-indoctrinated Scio-doofus. Why do you even use such terms and sentences? I don't get it. It is so horribly vague as to be meaningless.

Take clearing the definitions of words. Doing that helps any person to better understand things. It just is a fact. That little bit of "tech", by itself, and not connected to other stupidities such as "MUs precede all overts", can be beneficial to any person. But, the one useful bit needs to be extracted from the rest of the idiocy.

It "works" because it is based on a legitimate aspect of human beings and how they function. It matters little within what "context" one finds it or uses it. It matters little what words you use to describe it. Knowing the agreed-upon meaning of words, and even the derivations of words, benefits any person. Now if you set that one idea within a larger framework of study idiocy such as Hubbard's Study Tech, and say that the ONLY proper way to study anything is to understand and agree with it and never dispute it, well then it gets colored with a certain degree of absurdity.

Simply, there ARE parts of the "tech" that can be taken out of the larger framework, and can get results, without any association to the significance of the greater part of Hubbard's stupid subject.

I really don't get what all the fuss is TAJ. :confused2:

The whole paradigm as designed and setup by Hubbard is a TRAP. THAT is what exists in the official Church of Scientology. But anywhere else, within other frameworks that discard some or much of the detailed stupidities (Sea Org, Hard Sell, handle by overwhelm, OSA, heavy ethics, SP declares, disconnection, etc.), it can operate in other, less nefarious ways. One need not accept and function within a 100% pure fanatical KSW mindset. In fact, definitions and descriptions CHANGE when the framework (context) changes.

TAJ, what you describe and seem to imply as the ONLY possible framework is that which exists in the modern Church of Scientology, that operates on a strict KSW fanatical mindset.

Also, when you talk in such immense generalities as "Scientology works", please, oh PLEASE come down from the lofty heights of ridiculous abstraction and provide SPECIFICS. This cannot really be discussed at all unless one talks about specific processes, specific methods, and with specific people.

Vague abstractions = mind = concepts = ideas

Specifics = reality = observation = actual behavior

Suggestion: Brush up on General Semantics

Buy, read and understand:

Language In Thought and Action by S.I. Hayakawa

Personally, I don't see how anyone could study philosophy without a good familiarity with the ideas and observations of GS. While philosophy often gets mired in thinkingess, GS manages to connect ideas with the specifics of actual observations of existing behaviors (physical and mental).

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

snip
TAJ, what you describe and seem to imply as the ONLY possible framework is that which exists in the modern Church of Scientology, that operates on a strict KSW fanatical mindset.

Also, when you talk in such immense generalities as "Scientology works", please, oh PLEASE come down from the lofty heights of ridiculous abstraction and provide SPECIFICS. This cannot really be discussed at all unless one talks about specific processes, specific methods, and with specific people.

Vague abstractions = mind = concepts = ideas

Specifics = reality = observation = actual behavior

I am not implying anything about the framework of the Church.

I am specifically saying that Scientology only works in a Scientology context.

My abstractions are not vague, but they are abstraction.

But my point is that when you say specifics you are talking about sensations, and any and all sensations are given an interpretation.

So a euphoric moment in a Scientology session---in or out of the Church framework---is only a release, or a win, or a gain because that is the interpretation, or abstract concept, explain by Scientology.

As far as looking up a word in a dictionary you will find that Hubbard did mot invent this and it is not his Tech for that reason.

If Hubbard had a policy on how one should wipe their ass it does not mean that he invented the activity of taking a crap.

Hubbard did not invent the Technology of looking up words. He only suggested his followers do that and then claimed the idea was his Tech on learning.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

As far as looking up a word in a dictionary you will find that Hubbard did not invent this and it is not his Tech for that reason.

If Hubbard had a policy on how one should wipe their ass it does not mean that he invented the activity of taking a crap.

Hubbard did not invent the Technology of looking up words. He only suggested his followers do that and then claimed the idea was his Tech on learning.

The Anabaptist Jacques

And, a great many other ideas that are found within the larger subject of Scientology are just like this too.

They don't "work" because they are "Scientology" - they work because . . . they work (all on their own).

As I said earlier, in the previous post, Hubbard took and compiled a great many UNRELATED ideas and methods, and foisted this umbrella name of "Scientology" above them all.

So then, since it is true that Hubbard borrowed or stole various ideas from others, while claiming them to be his own, let's then talk about some idea and practice that is ONLY Hubbard's, pure Hubbard invention, and let's talk about whether it "works". Name one. Because, if you are going to resort to slotting every method that does work as someone else's (as with clearing words), well, we can keep at this for days. :confused2:

I do get how over-indoctrinated Scientologists will tend to label ANY good feeling or experience to the "wonders of Scientology Tech". They have been indoctrinated into thinking and seeing everything in terms of "gains" and "wins". But, regardless of what you call these experiences, I had some amazing things happen, and they did NOT occur in some vacuum, but pretty much as a direct result of the application of some exact process or method. Objectives "worked" to do something. I went exterior on Life Repair. It happened. Personally, I never got into talking about "wins" and "gains", and it always annoyed me how the examiner would force me to attest to such things. I simply tried to keep it simple - I went into a session one way, and I came out another way - often brighter, filled with joy and lightness, feeling great. To me, it was more than a coincident or due to some "set of significances" I had adopted about it all.

Something was doing something. Something was "working". And, for me, a great deal of this happened well BEFORE I was overly-familiar with ideas such as KSW and other more fanatical fare. I was content to experience the stuff without the labels and nomenclature, though of course, for awhile there, I did try to fit it in with and explain it all by and through Hubbard's paradigm of meaning & significance. Lucky for me, I had other paradigms to view it through already in place . . . .

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

And, a great many other ideas that are found within the larger subject of Scientology are just like this too.

They don't "work" because they are "Scientology" - they work because . . . they work (all on their own).

As I said earlier, in the previous post, Hubbard took and compiled a great many UNRELATED ideas and methods, and foisted this umbrella name of "Scientology" above them all.

So then, since it is true that Hubbard borrowed or stole various ideas from others, while claiming them to be his own, let's then talk about some idea and practice that is ONLY Hubbard's, pure Hubbard invention, and let's talk about whether it "works". Name one. Because, if you are going to resort to slotting every method that does work as someone else's (as with clearing words), well, we can keep at this for days. :confused2:

I do get how over-indoctrinated Scientologists will tend to label ANY good feeling or experience to the "wonders of Scientology Tech". They have been indoctrinated into thinking and seeing everything in terms of "gains" and "wins". But, regardless of what you call these experiences, I had some amazing things happen, and they did NOT occur in some vacuum, but pretty much as a direct result of the application of some exact process or method. Objectives "worked" to do something. I went exterior on Life Repair. It happened. Personally, I never got into talking about "wins" and "gains", and it always annoyed me how the examiner would force me to attest to such things. I simply tried to keep it simple - I went into a session one way, and I came out another way - often brighter, filled with joy and lightness, feeling great. To me, it was more than a coincident or due to some "set of significances" I had adopted about it all.

Something was doing something. Something was "working". And, for me, a great deal of this happened well BEFORE I was overly-familiar with ideas such as KSW and other more fanatical fare. I was content to experience the stuff without the labels and nomenclature, though of course, for awhile there, I did try to fit it in with and explain it all by and through Hubbard's paradigm of meaning & significance. Lucky for me, I had other paradigms to view it through already in place . . . .

Now you are just twisting things.

You gave the example of looking up words and I responded to that one example.

I am not "Because, if you are going to resort to slotting every method that does work as someone else's (as with clearing words), well, we can keep at this for days. :confused2:"

That's bullshit.

I am talking about Scientology, not something that Hubbard says is his Tech that already existed.

What I responded to is not the same thing as "Because, if you are going to resort to slotting every method that does work as someone else's (as with clearing words), well, we can keep at this for days. :confused2:"

That's bullshit!

Likewise, if you are going to call any action "Scientology" because Hubbard mentioned it, then it is you who are not making the distinction between Hubbard's technology and any other idea.

There is a difference.

It is not all the same thing nor is it simply one thing.

Scientology only works in a Scientology context.

It seems that the word you have a confusion about is Scientology.

What do you think that word means?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

It seems that the word you have a confusion about is Scientology.

What do you think that word means?

The Anabaptist Jacques

I don't have any confusion about it. I think you might though.

I don't think it means much of anything really. Not to me. But, I am well aware of what it means in the minds of, and to, various OTHER people.

The word had no existence until Hubbard made up the word. Then Hubbard defined the word all sorts of ways - which are largely just him stating bullshit ("the science of knowing how to know" and other inanities). Well, it sure isn't what Hubbard stated it to be. We can agree on that. So, what is it then? It is largely an empty shell that people contribute meaning to. It is a tremendously abstract idea that functions as a catch-all and chameleon for anything Hubbard said fit into it. It is a fiction. It is make-believe.

Then there came the history of events and people and practices that occurred within the context of the Church of Scientology, and other things attached to and associated with the label "Scientology" (such as books, policies, bulletins, etc.). But really, when it comes right down to it, the term is a FICTION created by Hubbard that refers to NO REAL THING outside of the imaginations and mental contributions of people.

The word "Scientology" means something different to every person who thinks with it. It is so vague on its own, that it is easy for the term to function in that way. The word and the organization of Scientology are contrivances of Hubbard's. The word has no meaning outside of Hubbard's statements (postulates), what people associate with the term, and of course, with the now verifiable historical events and behavior by people claiming to be or having been Scientologists.

Yes there is a large subject of things called Scientology (mainly by Hubbard's decree of saying that these various ideas and practices were "Scientology"). There are buildings owned by the Church of Scientology.

The word "Scientology" isn't like the word "car", where there is some real thing that people experience in common. Hubbard MADE UP THE TERM, and declared that it had certain meanings ("the study of life"). Those meanings are all bullshit of course. Then the word became attached to Hubbard's organizations and corporations, to his books, and more. There is a historical series of events relating to groups and people who have aligned with this vague nothing called "Scientology", but actually, there is no such things as "Scientology". It is an illusion. It is an idea without any substance to fill it. Hubbard was a very very good stage magician of IDEAS. He created this illusion called Scientology. I have a hard time talking to people who see things that aren't actually there . . . .

Note: Just because the word "Scientology" is an illusion, and the result of mental stage trickery, that doesn't mean that certain isolated ideas and practices that happen to fall under and within the larger vague term don't have some validity. See, while Hubbard DID make-up the term "Scientology", and filled it with all sorts of exaggerated meaning and value, some or many of the details that he stole or borrowed or altered from other fields and authors DO have some validity and workability.

Most words develop meaning because people experience certain things in common, and then manufacture words to represent these things and relationships. Then, these people can talk about these things and relationships that they share the experience of. But, the word "Scientology" is something else entirely. In fact, there are not that many words in any language that are the pure creation of one person, which had the associated meanings created by one person, and which were then foisted on everybody else as if the word referred to some REAL thing. It is a fabrication. It is pretense pushed to the maximum. What I just said is important. Really.