Post-Scientology

Mark Rathbun has stopped calling himself a Scientologist. He explains why in his blog, Moving On Up A Little Higher.

It is eerie how things connect in the universe. I was thinking just yesterday about this very subject.

My first thought was that Scientology could only survive if you removed Ron’s personality and opinions from Scientology. A great example is the PL “Keeping Scientology Working.” The prescription of 1-10 is a great prescription for education of a specific technology. For example, building a bicycle frame. There are right ways and wrong ways to do it, and there is a “correct technology” to do it, etc., and if you own a shop that builds bikes, you want to ensure that your people are not going off in uncharted territory by “knowing best” how to braze a frame when they ought to use the tried and true. This is wisdom.

BUT: Then you have Ron’s opinions. Democracy is bad. Scientology is the sole route out. All the other technologies have ended worsening Man. Etc. These should be stripped out, as, really, adding no value to the basic message of “Learn and teach the technology as it is.” Frankly, I don’t have the same opinions about these things that Ron does.

So, my first thought: Scientology would be great if we strip Ron’s personality from the tech.

But then I realized: Scientology as Scientology does not exist without Ron’s personality embedded. It just isn’t Scientology anymore. Ron pervades the tech, and the development of the tech mirrors his life experiences. He is an incredible person – flawed, but incredible. However, I consider his opinions about “Man” and society that created the Sea Org a colossal mistake and failure. He has, since the first writings of Dianetics, had a “games condition” with the medical, mental health, scientific, and governmental communities. He put Scientology in an “Us and Them” mindset from the beginning. Scientology the subject is imbued with it.

My second thought was: What I personally see as “Scientology” is not Scientology. What I see as “Scientology” is a selected set of things that I found to be true, and in some cases profoundly true, that I took from Ron and my courses during my training. But that is not Scientology. It is a set of workable information that I found to be true.

There is a whole lot of Scientology that I have found NOT to be true – or not worthy of being used, like the Simon Bolivar PL, for example, or “Investigations Tech.” The list is long.

If you put these two observations together – that Scientology is not Scientology without Ron’s opinions and personality, and that the truths I have discovered studying Scientology are merely a subset of the broader subject – then I am a man without a religion – or more correctly, a man with my own observations that are my own “religion.”

Personally, I believe that what I found workable in Scientology should be continued. I myself will continue to use it and teach it, and I hope others do so to.

Speaking of which:

The group “Milestone Two” is starting out today – it is comprised of a set of ex-Church members who decided that Independent Scientology should be organized. One of its stated objectives is to “To preserve and protect and correctly use the original spiritual philosophy and technologies developed by L. Ron Hubbard in order to secure this path to spiritual freedom for all those who wish to walk it.” I truly wish them well, but I have to say that one of the benefits of being “Independent” is not having to subjugate oneself to someone else’s ideas and opinions about “What is Scientology” and are you “doing it right.” If “Doing it right” means declaring someone who disagrees with “Command Intention” or who makes plans to leave staff before they leave staff, or disconnecting from someone who disagrees with some organization or another, then count me out. And, it is not cool to judge someone else on how they are or are not using Scientology, or talk about what their duty is.

From what Marty says in the blog post I linked to above, some of the founding members of this group, well, insulted him and his wife, and stood in accusation. This is not a smart move and of course it is not polite. The concept of KSW (Keeping Scientology Working) cannot be applied in the Independent world – since following KSW means not splintering Scientology and forming non-Church groups.

If you can pick and choose what technologies and policies are “real” Scientology and call that “Standard Tech,” then you MUST allow others to do the same and honor their right to do so.

All Eleven of the people in Milestone Two violated a ton of policy and tech when they left the church. All of them. Not that this is wrong, but it is a fact. THEY chose which policies and technologies to apply.

If there is ever going to be a thriving community called “Independent Scientology,” tolerance must be its keystone. We are all in the same boat, but we are all on our own journeys. We have to respect that.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Post-Scientology

    1. Grasshopper Post author

      Thanks, P. There is no need for a games condition here. There is so much that is valuable in Scientology, but there is so much that is, well, destructive, and this stuff predates Miscavige and goes into Ron’s era. The bug difference between Ron and Miscavige is that Ron’s intentions were good, in my opinion. He was not trying to scam anyone. Even Lawrence Wright could see that Ron was earnest in his research and in his writings. His errors were that he went over the top, and that he set up an administrative structure that is designed for top-down control. I don’t know where Miscavige was back when he was a kid regarding Scientology – we are the same age and we came from the same area in Philly – but it is clear now that he has abandoned Ron and has turned this apparatus into an empire. And, to be honest, if Scientology were 100% workable, this would not have happened. QED.

      Reply
      1. sofia13

        Since the leader and his clique have abandoned Ron and turned the apparatus into an empire, then the only way to apply KSW is to leave that group and join or establish a group that does strive to apply LRH’s technology standardly. And that includes differentiating Scientology from Ron’s opinions about Scientology, as LRH strongly advised we become able to do.

        Reply
        1. Grasshopper Post author

          KSW points 1-10 are a wonderful way to teach a specific technology. In the case of Scientology, point 1, “Having the correct technology,” can no longer be defined by any organization. The church has blown it, so we individually are left to our own observations as to what the “Correct Technology” is. One thing I have come to learn is that there is not a single, easily definable “pool” of technology that all can agree is “Scientology.” Where are the boundaries? The RPF is Scientology, but it is bogus and needs to go. The Sea Org and all its FOs and advices are Scientology, and while there is wisdom in some of the Flag Orders (FOs) and OODs items (Orders of the Day), most of it has to go. The justice codes and Policy Letters – virtually all of them – have to go. I mean, what I am doing now is “suppressive” as per the Justice codes, but I am no SP, and I am doing the right thing. The last edition of the Auditor’s Code has points that need to go (cooperating with the official church being one point that is crazy). The Code of a Scientologist, same thing. Scientology is a huge swath of technologies and opinions, and somewhere in that huge swath is “Correct Technology.” The Class VIII course talks about a “thread” of truth that runs through all of Scientology, and that is Standard Tech – meaning that some of what Ron write is Standard Tech, and some of it isn’t.

          There is no one alive who can definitively define what Standard Tech is, or what “Correct Technology” is. It is up to each of us to find out what it is, if we care to do so.

          The kicker is that you cannot learn Scientology by holing up somewhere – it has to be learned in a classroom setting. You need other people to do TRs and meter drills – actually, you need people to help make or repair meters in the first place, and it is good to have a mentor or guide. And materials are needed, etc. So, adding to the individual need to define Scientology for yourself independently is the need to work with others to actually DO it. Frankly, I think that is where the tension is in the Indie community these days, to the degree there is tension.

          Reply
  1. phil pipieri

    I just left some comments on his blog,too. I really like what you just said;”What I see as “Scientology” is a selected set of things that I found to be true” . Take what you like, what is meant for you, and get on with YOUR show! You just may be the culmination of all things past which is needed for some people right here and now who can only hear your version of how things are and what to do. It’s quite a wonderful set-up if you just be yourself and not someone else.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s