Yes I can just imagine someone walking into an org. and saying “Hello I am interested in ChristianScientology. I have heard about it on the net, apparently it was started by this guy called Pip”. Guess what their first action will be – handle or disconnectand in this case the org. would not see handle as an option. If they still didn’t “smell a rat” they deserve all they get.
You might as well just call "ChristianScientology" - "Pipology". Because you are the only one in probably the entire universe who views things as you do.
Which is fine and well, because we each do exactly the same thing - we each view the world and universe around us in a VERY unique and distinct manner. No two people view it all exactly the same - and looking for some "exact truth"
out there, that more than a few people wholly agree with is completely nonsensical - such as "it's God's plan" or such nonsense.
But, why give your paradigm or worldview any name at all?
I mean I don't go so far as to give my current package of views ANY label or name. And, many others don't care to give their bundle of ideas some "name". I wouldn't even call my framework of ideas "Gadflyology", first because it changes, grows and morphs into something different every day, and second because ANY labeling or slotting into some cubbyhole of significance LIMITS and RESTRICTS. I don't want to feel that I have to conform to some notion of things I had yesterday if the content of my OBSERVATIONS change today.
I find defining and labeling to be a decidedly HUMAN function. Often, unknown to the person accepting the various definitions, labels and significances, the experience of the world is hindered now in a very real way since all experience is filtered through the veil of meaning and significance.
In a very real sense when Eve ate of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden (ref: Book of Genesis), what THAT
symbolized was Man's gaining of "knowledge" through dissecting, breaking up, compartmentalizing and
naming all aspects of reality into cute little boxes. While that "seems" to be a "good thing", it acted to separate Man from any direct knowledge or experience of ANY aspect of reality. In fact, all real understanding was lost. Man now had an "intellect" and the ability to form "concepts" - but an idea is NEVER equal to, complete or sufficient to define or describe ANY aspect of the world and universe. Man began his confusion of IDEAS with everything else out there. Many continue that trend today, here on ESMB and elsewhere.
Note: The story of Genesis is JUST an "analogy".
Innocence was lost along with "direct knowledge".
Anyway, my point is that calling yourself an "anything", not to mention a "Christan Scientologist" is, well, simply dumb to me. I don't well fathom people who feel the need to label and IDENTIFY with things. Just be you, and communicate as best you can what you see, how you see it, and how your names and labels CONNECT to
experiencable aspects of reality.
Too often you and others throw out words that have no meaning and cannot be experienced by others. And you pretend that you are having a conversation. Granted, this is a common humman trait. What the fuck is the "4th dimension"? Can you show it to anybody? Do your words align with anything at all that can be experienced outside of your over-active imagination? I am not saying that such a dimension might not exist, but now, here today, there is NO REALITY that you can point to that can confirm such a notion. It is ONLY an IDEA in your head. Though you apparently
believe that the "idea" defines some real and actual place or reality. It might, but when you talk of such things you need to realize that these words have little, no or different meanings to others who read what you type.
For example, I at times talk about Hubbard's theories on thetans and relate them to other paradigms such as Hindu notions. I try to be careful to present them as "theories", as IDEAS that MIGHT define and correlate to actual situations.