Technical Purity

Veda

Sponsor
There is no definition for "Scientologist." Thinking there is a definition - an honest definition - is a joke played on people who call themselves Scientologists.

If there were ever to be a definition of "Scientologist" it might be, "Someone who doesn't get the joke."

It's kind of sad.



-snip-

I'm not using these words to sound hoity-toity, but because they are very precise words for a precise point.

When Veda says there is no definition for the word Scientology

-snip-

It's obvious that you have no idea what I'm saying.

Can you even hear me?

The topic was the definition of the word, "Scientologist," not the word, "Scientology."

Wrapping yourself in pedantry is not the same as understanding.

In fact, it impedes understanding.

And not other people's understanding, your understanding.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
LOL, you guys!

So Leon practices "Leon's Scientology" (Leonology?)

"Hubbard's Scientology" is a 6 layered onion as laid out by Veda's references. Oh yes, thank you Veda, I just finished reading the "Brainwashing Manual Parallels" - that should be required reading for anyone wanting to understand Hubbard's Scientology. I had read the BW Manual, but the parallels and additional confidential policy data was extremely enlightening.

Then there are those that have added to Hubbard's Scientology, like Robertson, Ogger, Filbert, etc. - giving more potential variations for someone to pick and choose from.

The run of the mill kool-aid drinking Scientologist in the Co$ understands only a portion of Hubbard's Scientology - Layer 1 to maybe 3.

So a Scientologist is a person that believes and practices some subset of Hubbard's Scientology plus possibly other people's Scientology add-ons (including their own.)

Thus there are many flavors of the beast.

So I suppose one needs to qualify the term, like: tech-purist (and those have different flavors too), or "kool-aid drinking" or rondroid, OSA, OSA-bot, Ron's Org, OnionLevel6 Scientologist (like DM) if one wants to be clear about what kind of Scio one is talking about.

Phew, easier just to say scilon :biggrin:
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
And now, to actually add the 1st comment that has something to do with what Terrill posted, LOL

Mayo isn't doing much talking about the issues of "Tech Purity" in that article. He is mainly blasting DM/RTC for some specific outpoints dealing with the abuse of tech for the purpose of "ethics" handlings (and promoting that his group isn't). Said outpoints, unfortunately, are still going on to this day in DM's joint.
 

Veda

Sponsor
LOL, you guys!

So Leon practices "Leon's Scientology" (Leonology?)

"Hubbard's Scientology" is a 6 layered onion as laid out by Veda's references. Oh yes, thank you Veda, I just finished reading the "Brainwashing Manual Parallels" - that should be required reading for anyone wanting to understand Hubbard's Scientology. I had read the BW Manual, but the parallels and additional confidential policy data was extremely enlightening.

Then there are those that have added to Hubbard's Scientology, like Robertson, Ogger, Filbert, etc. - giving more potential variations for someone to pick and choose from.

The run of the mill kool-aid drinking Scientologist in the Co$ understands only a portion of Hubbard's Scientology - Layer 1 to maybe 3.

So a Scientologist is a person that believes and practices some subset of Hubbard's Scientology plus possibly other people's Scientology add-ons (including their own.)

Thus there are many flavors of the beast.

So I suppose one needs to qualify the term, like: tech-purist (and those have different flavors too), or "kool-aid drinking" or rondroid, OSA, OSA-bot, Ron's Org, OnionLevel6 Scientologist (like DM) if one wants to be clear about what kind of Scio one is talking about.

Phew, easier just to say scilon :biggrin:

You're welcome.:)

IMO, the Scientological
yellowonion.jpg


and Hubbard's Law of
commotion.jpg


as well as an understanding of Hubbard's use, of
brainwa1.jpg

on his own followers, are essential to understanding the Scientology doctrine and the Scientology operation.


And, referring to your last post, and considering that Hubbard may have had a hidden agenda, and that Miscavige may be - largely - forwarding that hidden agenda (with his own perks added), and that Miscavige, as Jesse Prince noted, may be, largely, following Hubbard's (mostly confidential) instructions, what appears to be an "outpoint" may not always be an "outpoint."

Many people leaving Scientology in 1982/1983 didn't realize that the madness was coming from Hubbard, and coming from Hubbard so as to forward Hubbard's hidden agenda, an agenda that has existed since at least 1938, and has very little to do with helping people or with spirituality.

The poor Freezoners still haven't figured this part out.

However, many of those who were naive in 1982/1983 did, eventually, assemble the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, step back, squint slightly, as see the picture that appeared.
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
Virus?

Virus?

Yikes!

One man's virus is another's nourishment.

You have this idea that enters the picture. It spreads, replicated over and over and over, taking over the mental structure of those infected, replacing old memes with new ones.

Horrible, horrible, horrible.

Then the various sides begin to label and define that idea, that meme, that "virus."

Odd how truth becomes vilified. How truth begins to be viewed as a "virus."

Then, again, considering human nature, not so odd at all.
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
"Wrapping yourself in pedantry is not the same as understanding."

Now that's some creative writing.

Qui accuse, s'accuse?

"I just wanted to see if you'd massively derail this thread, with a nine page diatribe, as you did the other thread."

Hey, no fair! I thought manipulation was a bad thing!

Bad, bad, bad!
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Gadfly - and others - Thanks very much for your reply. However when one talks about what is "true" scientology then I hold by the following:

"It seeks to improve the lot of mankind, not by imposing upon it a code of behaviour nor by demanding allegiance to a set of divine commandments, but by uncovering within each individual that which is good and noble, that which is in fact the true basic person stripped of all falsehood, and thereby empowering him or her to the living of a better, more spiritual, life."

This is the core of it, and not the other attendant shit.

Though I grant that, as you say, this may be my own arbitrary, yet I don't think so in truth. I think this is the real core of the real subject.

You're on a roll Leon :)
 
It's obvious that you have no idea what I'm saying.

Can you even hear me?

The topic was the definition of the word, "Scientologist," not the word, "Scientology."

Wrapping yourself in pedantry is not the same as understanding.

In fact, it impedes understanding.

And not other people's understanding, your understanding.

There is a definition of the word "Scientologist."

When you say an "honest" I suspect you mean one that you agree with.

But you are not the person who solely gets to say what is honesty, truth, and the correct definition that people are allowed to use.

That's what Hubbard did and Scientologists believed in him.

I hope nobody replaces believing in Hubbard with believing in you.

That's just more of the same.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:

Smilla

Ordinary Human
It's perfectly typical of the [STRIKE]Free[/STRIKE]zone Cult, that they make efforts to make themselves look respectable by seeking to associate themselves with David Mayo in people's minds but please note:

David Mayo is not a Scientologist.

David Mayo got out of the Scientology trap.

David Mayo does not wish to be associated with the
[STRIKE]Free[/STRIKE]zone Cult.

David Mayo does not give the Freezone Cult any seal of approval.


If you want to know what the Freezone Cult is really about, take a look at the profoundly deluded Rey Robles, or Terril Park their failed recruiter, cyberstalker and cyberbully as seen in his hateful persecution of Aida Thomas when he relentlessly hounded her for months.

That's the 'Freezone' as it really is.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Gadfly keeps reminding us that no one can understand anything.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Oh, you or anyone else can understand a great many things. We each do. But, no two people "understand" in the same exact way. The "understandings" may be similar, but they are NEVER the same.

The Map is not the Terrain. (from general semantics)

Or, in other words, the IDEA is not the Thing it refers to.

For all practical purposes, in life, in science, the "similar" works in many ways.

But, the only reason that people argue on this thread about what the word "scientologist" means or "is", is because each person sees (understands) it differently.

Oh, so TAJ, your view is right? Right?

Veda, your view is right? Right?

Leon, your view is right? Right?

You each feel so, but sorry, it just ain't so. There is a bigger picture that you each fail to see.

But, yes, also, I enjoy and very much like each of your smaller pictures. :yes:

Though, I do try to keep in mind that the isolated little pictures are only a PART of the puzzle. Many have a tendency to confuse their own personal little picture with the bigger picture. Of course, that IS an inherent problem of having a viewpoint of any sort.

Also, a major failing/weakness for many people is that they refuse to take into consideration HOW others view things, and to communciate accordingly. Of course, doing that wouldn't allow all the intellectual posturing and wouldn't allow us to have such wonderful arguments! :omg:
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
What is Hubbard's Law of Commotion?

HelluvaHoax came up with this.

The idea, and I paraphrase here, is that in Scientology, for every datum there is an equal and opposite datum.

With that in mind, one can find any answer, and justify anything from somewhere in Hubbard's subject.

Also, having contradictory "data" strewn all throughout the subject results in endless commotion (conflict, etc).

Hubbard's Law of Commotion is a twist on "Newton's laws of motion". Newton's third law can be stated as:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

For example, take Hubbard's essay on Personal Integrity. It states that a person should have be true for him or her only what a person has observed. That is one datum. But then on the flip side, the other datum is, in Scientology, you are not allowed to observe a great many things (talk to SPs, look at any critical websites, etc), and you are never allowed to have things be true for you, even when based on honest observations, if they dispute Hubbard or contradict current Scientology management.

There are MANY MANY examples of such contradictions in Scientology (both between ideas in the subject, ad between applications and the subject theories).
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Huh?

I don't want to convince you of anything, but it would be nice if you could understand what what I wrote in a short post. However, apparently, that's not possible.

Oh well.

I haven't had any trouble with TAJ's posts for a couple of years now. I don't read them. :biggrin:

Paul
 

Veda

Sponsor
I haven't had any trouble with TAJ's posts for a couple of years now. I don't read them. :biggrin:

Paul

What was it about his posts that made you stop reading them?

I'm only just now noticing TAJ's posts.

He derailed an important thread on Scientology's religion angle&religious cloaking into oblivion. (Another thread was started which salvaged some of the key posts of the trashed thread.)

And now he's attempting to nullify the Bill Franks thread, even though most of what Franks has said has been verified by credible evidence and witnesses, and stands on its own.

Can you shed any light on this?
 

Gadfly

Crusader
What was it about his posts that made you stop reading them?

I'm only just now noticing TAJ's posts.

He derailed an important thread on Scientology's religion angle&religious cloaking into oblivion. (Another thread was started which salvaged some of the key posts of the trashed thread.)

And now he's attempting to nullify the Bill Franks thread, even though most of what Franks has said has been verified by credible evidence and witnesses, and stands on its own.

Can you shed any light on this?

I think you are framing it improperly. TAJ, just like anyone else here, calls them as he sees them (based on his own unique, yet limited set of experiences).

What you see as him attempting to "nullify the Bill Franks thread", is simply an accidental by-product of him expressing his views. While he may cause that to happen to some degree, I very much doubt that it is his primary intention to nullify your thread. You DUB THAT IN Veda. To assume his intention, to pretend to be able to look into his mind and see what he is "attempting to do". :duh:

And, while also, he may have "derailed" another thread, again, I doubt that he has ANY sort of intention to upset the continuing negative and critical discussion of various aspects of Scientology.

Sorry TAJ, I know, the last thing you probably want is ME defending you. :biggrin:

But, I am not really defending you - I am simply expressing my own view on what I see here.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

And, while also, he may have "derailed" another thread, again, I doubt that he has ANY sort of intention

-snip-

Yes, it did seem to be more of a prolonged posting-spasm than a deliberate act, and I'm not terribly interested one way or the other.

However, since I'm just noticing TAJ's posts - outside of an occasional glance - and since DOF, apparently, stopped reading his posts some time ago, I thought I'd ask DOF about it.

As for Bill Franks thread, TAJ claimed that I, and others, were being, in effect, followers of Bill Franks by considering what he had to say, and noticing that it lines up with other information from credible sources.

I'm sorry, but my questions are appropriate. So relax. :)
 
Top