Ask Kate your questions here...

[Panda Termint]

I have not left the church. Outside of extension courses all of my Scientology practice has been outside of the church but to the extent that I've even been 'in', I'm still in.

The CofS has always had non-participating Fringe Dwellers who thought of themselves as scientologists. Back in the 70s most people just humored them when they made an appearance, these days they're, for the most part, persona non grata.

Kate, Forgive me if you've already answered this but are you actually a paid-up (as in IAS Membership) Member of the CofS or do you think of yourself as part of that group?

 

[ThetanExterior]

Well for one thing, all of the things you described wouldn't stop someone from being an independent Scientologist which is a specialization of the class 'Scientologist' in my book so to call oneself a Scientologist does not necessarily imply the things you mention. While I'm on good terms with the Church of Scientology in that they bug the living sh-- out of me with phone calls and emails and I do extension courses with them I don't look to them for validation and especially I don't look to them for auditing - thus Ethics is 100% a non-issue. I can have an Ethics folder a meter thick and it doesn't affect me at all. So far I've not run into any problems and if I ever do its no real loss; I mean I might not get to finish my extension courses but that not something I would shed a tear over.

If you can come up with a better name for the set of beliefs I outlined in my earlier post in this thread I'm all ears but IMHO Scientologist describes it fairly well.

Well, here's my opinion on the situation.

The people in the CofS don't consider you a Scientologist. To them you are "Mrs. Patty Cake". This is LRH's term for what you are doing.

Now, the CofS is instructed by LRH to turn Mrs. Patty Cake into a dedicated Scientologist but the problem in your case is that you seem to be somewhat remote from an org and therefore they can't get at you. Therefore you have a somewhat blinkered view of what being a Scientologist means. If you were to go into an org then you would be subjected to the gang bang regging, sec checks and all of the nasty things you have heard about and you would either have to become a "real" Scientologist or else you would be kicked out and probably be declared a suppressive person.

Currently you are not an independant Scientologist because you are affiliated with the Cofs and you are not a CofS Scientologist because you are just being Mrs. Patty Cake.

Therefore, I still don't see how the term "Scientologist" refers to you. As for a different term, well I don't know if there is one. You seem to be a seeker of knowledge with an interest in many different areas of spirituality, not just Scientology, so why label yourself as anything in particular?

 

[Gadfly]

The CofS has always had non-participating Fringe Dwellers who thought of themselves as scientologists. Back in the 70s most people just humored them when they made an appearance, these days they're, for the most part, persona non grata.

Kate, Forgive me if you've already answered this but are you actually a paid-up (as in IAS Membership) Member of the CofS or do you think of yourself as part of that group?

If a person pays the IAS membership, and continues to do so, no matter what he or she calls him or herself, he or she is directly supporting and funding OSA, and the endless litany of obnoxious lawyers, attacks on innocent people, media lying, PR capers, intel capers, noisy investigations, deceit, manipulation, and on and on. The purpose of the IAS, no matter how they mince words, is to protect and defend CORPORATE SCIENTOLOGY!

Within the context of ALL Hubbard's instructions and orders, the "Scientology religion" IS "corporate Scientology". That is obvious and clear if one simply reads the lists of suppressive acts without bias. To Hubbard, he made it entirely clear that "Scientology" equaled "corporate Scientology" and "the Church of Scientology". Of course, many FZers and fringe types tend to ignore that fact.

If a person keeps up on the IAS membership, then whether this person is a "fringe dweller" or not is moot - he or she DIRECTLY funds the nastiest side of the subject and practices of Scientology. At some point ones purported ideas must align with behavior (hopefully, ideally).

Oh, that's right, the poor sucker didn't know anything about what OSA was "really doing" - that is ignorance by choice, which is a common state of many Scientologists (for example, they are ordered to, and then comply with NOT viewing and learning from any "critical entheta" on the Internet). This is self-imposed ignorance by coercion and by personal agreement to conform to the orders of the "authorities" (Hubturd, DM, INT management, Sea Org, policy, etc.).

 

[MissWog]

If a person pays the IAS membership, and continues to do so, no matter what he or she calls him or herself, he or she is directly supporting and funding OSA, and the endless litany of obnoxious lawyers, attacks on innocent people, media lying, PR capers, intel capers, noisy investigations, deceit, manipulation, and on and on.

If a person keeps up on the IAS membership, then whether this person is a "fringe dweller" or not is moot - he or she DIRECTLY funds the nastiest side of the subject and practices of Scientology. At some point ones purported ideas must align with behavior (hopefully, ideally).

Do they let people stay on course if they don't join the IAS? I thought to be active, in anyway, it was required to be a current member. I'm not talking about buying a book but taking a course or receiving auditing or processing..I also assume if you don't buy an IAS membership you will get sent to ethics before you can do anything course or processing related to work on your case. I'm sure they will sell a book or lecture to anyone, IAS member or not.

 

[Gadfly]

Do they let people stay on course if they don't join the IAS? I thought to be active, in anyway, it was required to be a current member. I'm not talking about buying a book but taking a course or receiving auditing or processing..I also assume if you don't buy an IAS membership you will get sent to ethics before you can do anything course or processing related to work on your case. I'm sure they will sell a book or lecture to anyone, IAS member or not.

I don't know (doubt) if that applies to "extension courses". But, if you are going into the "Org", as far as I know, yes, you MUST have an IAS membership.

 

[l whip]

[FONT=&amp]I thought of a word to describe this tricky situation, well two or three.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]“Hava Nagila”[/FONT][FONT=&amp] ("Let us rejoice") is atraditional [/FONT][FONT=&amp]song that has become a staple of band performers[/FONT][FONT=&amp] at Jewish weddings and Bar Mitzvahs.
In my meatball Yiddish the translation is half a nagila. The words go [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]“Half a nagila, half a nagila, [/FONT][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]half a nagila, [/FONT]Is better than no nagila at all…”[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Half a Scientologist is better than no Scientology at all?[/FONT]

 

[Anonycat]

[FONT=&amp]Half a Scientologist is better than no Scientology at all?[/FONT]

Seriously?

 

[MissWog]

Dianetics, "clear", "ot", etc. are to me more or less meaningless or useless concepts.]

Then you are not a Scientologist and using that label only causes confusion and can be detrimental to those lurking who only see "I find Scientology useful" without the fact that this usefulness doesn't include the biggest parts of Scientology.

To me this is like saying "I'm a Christian but I don't believe Jesus was the messiah"

that _something_ genocide-like happened on the whole track which LRH interpreted as the Xenu myth but I don't believe his interpretation to be quite correct.

To me this is like saying "I'm a Muslim but I don't think Mohammed was THE Prophet" LRH was was/is Source, how can you say his interpretation of his own writings were incorrect? He wrote it and all this shit has only been going down in the last 64yrs.. There is no question that he is Source.

We can question who wrote the Koran and the Bible..but we have Hubbs on tape and video, this modern day. It's like saying my own interpretation of this post that I am writing is wrong at this minute is wrong. You might and others might interpret what I am writing to be not quite correct but I am the one writing it, there is no question it is my fingers on the keyboard. I am the author and Hubbard is the author of Scientology, he might have had assistance but he is the author.

 

[Terril park]

And that's certainly a reasonable question I think. I'm certainly not trying to start a cult lol but I personally believe that many of the negative aspects belong to the Church of Scientology and not the associated belief system, especially when one focuses on the mystical religious aspects of it. To some extent here I've run into this problem both ways - when I first started posting I was pretty much a panentheist who was dabbling in idie Scientology then I moved away from the Scientology label but more and more of my beliefs were aligning with Scientology toward the beliefs I hold now but then I would get tons of messages about me being a secret Scientologist and people could tell based on my posts and so I must be OSA and so on.

I've felt very damned if I do, damned if I don't on this board at times. If I say I'm a Scientologist I get crap because I don't believe everything LRH says. If I say I'm not a Scientologist I get crap (and accused of being an OSA spy) because I believe that some things in Scientology have value. If I say I'm an idie then I get mega crap for even talking to the church (which I guess I get anyway).

I can understand to some extent the way some people here feel, I'm a professional software engineer and I work on some pretty hard core things like neural network theory and huge applications in C++ and sometimes I meet someone who makes static HTML pages for local businesses and calls themselves a software engineer. Obviously I'm in a different class than them and there is a tendency to say "well he's not a _real_ software engineer." I feel that to some extent that's happening here - people see someone who only self-audits on the fringes of the CofS without getting very involved in the actual church culture and I must not be a 'real' Scientologist. Unfortunately in both of these cases labels fail and there isn't always a good alternative.

If you have a solution to the damned if I do damned if I don't problem please let me know.

Be true to yourself and damn the torpedos.

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

There's a double meaning in that!?
http://youtu.be/IKEJryBZ72E
Much Ado About Nothing!

 

[Gadfly]

Be true to yourself and damn the torpedos.

This is one of those slogans that has two sides.

Sure, we should each be "true to ourselves" (or so they say).

The problem is that the Inquisition priest who tightened the thumb screws down on a young unrepentant "heretic" was very much "true to himself".

The suicide bomber who believes he will find himself in Paradise as soon as he detonates the bomb on a school bus of kids is very much "true to himself".

The fanatical Christian who shoots people leaving an abortion clinic (because "abortion is against the Will of God") is very much "true to himself".

I can provide many more examples. Shall I continue?

The problem is that so much of what is "true" for people is delusional bullshit. It isn't such a great ideal to me. You would be better served finding your actual self (something that is basically impossible in any type of dogma-filled system, including Scientology), than being true to some arbitrary bucket of horseshit that is defined and identified with your "self".

If people actually came to "know themselves", along with abandoning ALL dogma (most or all of Scientology ideas in this case), there would actually be a "pure self" to be "true to". What most are "true to" is their limited and often convoluted belief system. A person (self) wrapped up in a belief system is not the same as a self FREE from a belief system. Scientology was designed to, and very well acts to wrap a person up in a complex web of IDEAS that actually block and hinder any awareness of "self". Scientology promises freedom and expanded awareness, while involvement with the subject often actually delivers and brings about the OPPOSITE!

"Be true to yourself" is a such a vague and general idea that can apply to just about any situation, from the wonderful to the entirely insane. Without some detailed context it is, like so much of Scientology too, quite inane and meaningless.

 

[Anonycat]

[video=youtube;K74hnnCQkuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K74hnnCQkuk[/video]

 

[DagwoodGum]

This is one of those slogans that has two sides.

Sure, we should each be "true to ourselves".

The problem is that the Inquisition priest who tightened the thumb screws down on an unrepentant "heretic" was very much "true to himself".

The suicide bomber who believes he will find himself in Paradise as soon as he detonates the bomb on a school bus of kids is very much "true to himself".

I can provide many more examples. Shall I continue?

The problem is that so much of what is "true" for people is delusional bullshit. It isn't such a great ideal to me. You would be better served finding your actual self (something that is basically impossible in any type of dogma-filled system, including Scientology), than being true to some arbitrary bucket of horseshit that is defined and identified with your "self".

If people actually came to "know themselves", along with abandoning ALL dogma (most or all of Scientology ideas in this case), there would actually be a "pure self" to be "true to". What most are "true to" is their limited and often convoluted belief system. A person (self) wrapped up in a belief system is not the same as a self FREE from a belief system. Scientology was designed to, and very well acts to wrap a person up in a complex web of IDEAS that actually block and hinder any awareness of "self".

"Be true to yourself" is a such a vague and general idea that can apply to just about any situation, from the wonderful to the entirely insane. Without some detailed context it is, like so much of Scientology too, quite inane and meaningless.

Now this hits those little generalizations that shleps like Elcon would repackage as "ultimate truths" and sell to the unsuspecting with disastrous results right between the eyes. But hell people are "responsible" for their own conditions. Ha!

 

[Sidney18511]

Hey Katie.....I have often wondered about you since reading your first confusing posts. Then today, like a bolt from the blue.....it came to me!

You are a Scientology Groupie! You can't get backstage, but hey, you speak to them in the phone and exchange emails! And you don't give a shit about who they just fucked before you

And the COS treats you like a groupie! The use you just to put another stat notch in their belt, before Thursday 2:00pm.

 

[Anonycat]

Be true to yourself and damn the torpedos.

This reminds me so much of the scientology thing.

[video=youtube;AbwiBv0mcAQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbwiBv0mcAQ&feature=c4-overview&list=UUCjMrinUDgoA_dWOZsvi4Dg[/video]

 

[Gadfly]

Now this hits those little generalizations that shleps like Elcon would repackage as "ultimate truths" and sell to the unsuspecting with disastrous results right between the eyes. But hell people are "responsible" for their own conditions. Ha!

Like lines from the stupid Code of Honor:

Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.

It seems to make total sense to the soggy-headed Scientologist who actually imagines him or herself to be "freeing this sector of the galaxy", "bringing about a world without war, crime and insanity", and "freeing thetans (for the first time in many ages). But, they never extrapolate the idea out into OTHER contexts. The Muslim fanatic who blows up the school bus of children THINKS EXACTLY THE SAME THING! And, he spreads around that HARMING of others in the name of his (or her) "just cause". But, most Scientologists, through Hubbard's "brilliant indoctrination system", stay totally locked in the strange and convoluted context created by Hubbard. And, they NEVER for a SECOND see what has been "done to them". Of course, they created the complex mental context and structure through agreement with Hubbard's detailed and interconnected bullshit.

A much higher truth might be, "never harm another in the name of ANY cause", and LOVE all equally as best you can. But that wouldn't fit well into Hubbard's nutty overall agenda.

So much of Scientology, as you correctly point out is GENERAL VAGUE PLATITUDES, that get strung together in some seemingly logical "whole". It is a big illusion (that some sucker buys into and selectively interprets without much attention to context).

It involves a sort of mental and spiritual "vampirism". Hubbard tricks the believers into FEEDING ones own deeply personal and vital meaning and value into what is really an EMPTY CHARADE.

 

[DagwoodGum]

Absolutely! This is a fairly broad question but I'll try to answer it the best that I can.

My actual views on metaphysics go (IMHO) quite a bit beyond Scientology and I personally view time and all experiences as highly episodic and much of my philosophy regarding this has strong ties to Schema Theory with a good smattering of crazy hypothesis based on personal mystical experiences. Having said that, within this 'type' of what I call a 'scenario' there is an apparency of the following items based on mystical experiences and logical extrapolation from those experiences:

* In general, to me Scientology is a mystical religious framework. Dianetics, "clear", "ot", etc. are to me more or less meaningless or useless concepts.
* something resembling cartesian dualism, though I view it in a bit more of a Platonic light with multiple levels of existence once you get completely beyond the physical reality
* reincarnation
* existence as a true static, but with temporal emanations into this (and other) universe(s)
* completely bizarre other universes
* the general concept of the 'full track'
* creation by postulate
* pre-each-life postulates that guide certain aspects of that life (ie similar to between-lives implants though less sinister in tone)
* that its possible to remember things from other lives
* the overall ideas of the 8-dynamics, the ARC triangle, the overt-motivator sequence, start-change-stop, though I'm sure there are some minor differences in my views on these
* that _something_ genocide-like happened on the whole track which LRH interpreted as the Xenu myth but I don't believe his interpretation to be quite correct.
* I believe that doing the lists in Self Analysis can be immensely helpful even if just used to get better at this-life recall of events and nothing else
* I believe that doing the processes in COHB can be very useful
* I believe the clear cognition to be sort of like a Zen koan

I also maintain a purely psychological-physicalist perspective in which I view all of these thing to be functions of the subconscious and the imagination but either way of viewing it generally works well for me as I find the associated phenomena fascinating either way.

Hope that explains it a bit, if I didn't answer your question please let me know what I can clarify.

* In general, to me Scientology is a mystical religious framework. Dianetics, "clear", "ot", etc. are to me more or less meaningless or useless concepts”.
Great, you are on your way Kate! Now that you have realized that these are “meaningless or useless concepts", all we have to do is wait until you stumble upon the realization that these concepts are the backbone of $cientology and the entire reason that I got in. Then connect the dots…
By the way, I like to add the $ because I don’t feel like they are worthy of my writing their name as they spell it. After all there is no real correct spelling as the flubster simply made up the word, just like I made up flubster. Maybe that makes me "the Son of Flubber" or Flubster.
And shame on you for leading off with a term like “Schema Theory” which is a classic Flubster tactic for MUing somebody early on in the text so as to slide them into “aneten” with the resultant effect of reducing their ability to think through the rest of the text and more or less just assimilate it into their subconscious to be figured out later. That was part and parcel of hypnotizing people into blinded abeyance, like hitting them in the face with handful of magic warlock powder. You just knew no one would bother to look up the term due to general lack of interest in it didn't you, you little scamp!
Have you figured out which one it is yet, meaningless or useless?
I’ll read further into your post manana and maybe you can further enlighten me with your kind response.

 

[kate8024]

I believe there are some things in Scn that have value. Anyone familiar with Scn who takes more than a cursory look at PaulsRobot will see that. If you can have a long calm talk with someone, it doesn't really matter what you call yourself, as you can point out that CofS Scn is different to Indie Scn because blah blah, and your thing is different to both of them because of blah blah blah.

But there's a problem when you only have 10 seconds. "I use some parts of Scientology, but I'm certainly not a Scientologist! <spit>" covers it, I would think.

Paul

Oh believe me I use PaulsRobot a lot and I find it awesome! But your experience here, at least at this point, is inherently going to be vastly different than mine. Back when I was going through non-label phase I said almost word for word what you wrote should cover it, because I think you're right - that _should_ cover it. What I got in return though, from some members of this forum, was accusations of secretly being a Scientologist and lots of 'you should just admit you are Scientologist and stop lying to us and yourself'-type messages. Well I took their advice and this the result.

 

[Gadfly]

Oh believe me I use PaulsRobot a lot and I find it awesome! But your experience here, at least at this point, is inherently going to be vastly different than mine. Back when I was going through non-label phase I said almost word for word what you wrote should cover it, because I think you're right - that _should_ cover it. What I got in return though, from some members of this forum, was accusations of secretly being a Scientologist and lots of 'you should just admit you are Scientologist and stop lying to us and yourself'-type messages. Well I took their advice and this the result.

Right . . . .

They "made you do it"!



Note: Accepting anyone's LABELS is still accepting labels - even if originally from some member or members of this board. The choice to accept any label is yours and yours alone.

 

[olska]

Yeah I mean who knows where I will be in a few years, I hate to speculate that far into the future considering some of the crazy twists and turns my life has taken. I know a few indies that eventually quit Scientology altogether but for me it was a bit backward as I disagreed with several things in some of the indie scientology ideas and got more into the CofS version.

Could you give us some specific examples (I'm thinking as succinct as possible description of three or four such?) of those "several things" you disagreed with in the indie scientology ideas, and the contrasting/related version of those same ideas from CoS version that you found you liked better. Thanks in advance.