New member here. I've always been fascinated by Scientology. I never joined, however. I was made aware of Scientology because I was approached by somebody on the street in downtown Ottawa, Ontario, Canada to take a "free personality test" in 1997. So I walked inside the building.
Knowing nothing of Scn, I took the test in a somewhat humorous if ironic way (to humor the one administering the test), not really caring how I came across and tried to answer as honestly as I could. According to the person who administered the test, I had a short attention span and lacked empathy in general. But I also could be helped and improve my character flaws with Dianetics, and eventually, Scientology.
It's true that I always struggled to listen to lectures in class from my formative school years all the way to college. I still passed, because I'm the type of person who can read only portions of a text in a half-hearted manner and grasp what is being taught by just extrapolating common sense and educated guesses. Case in point, I was quite proficient in spelling bee competitions, being able to sense how words in English should be spelled by a simple basic understanding of the rules of the language. And English wasn't even my first language, having learned it from watching Sesame Street as a child.
As for lacking empathy, shouldn't that be a feature and not a flaw? Aren't there creeps and charlatans who take advantage of those who are good-natured? I am that countervailing force that is sometimes needed in this world. Yin-yang and all that. I was quite the cold fish when I was young, but I enjoy having time alone. I wasn't a complete social pariah, my above-average good looks allowed me to talk my way into going out with a member of the opposite sex once in a while, in spite of having the social graces of a gnat.
These 'defects' are just part of what makes me who I am. Sure I have OCD tendencies, and I probably suffer from a milder form of Aspberger's (think of Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory), so even if I never read a railway timetable in my entire life, I would like to answer "yes" to that question if I do engage in that sort of thing (Not sure if L. Ron would consider that a positive aspect or not). Who doesn't find pleasure in reading about the socio-economic-political conditions that lead to the War of the Austrian succession? Wikipedia is like crack cocaine to me.
The interviewer asked me what I did for a living. I replied that I worked in IT. He sort of shrank back and said that whatever is said of Scientology on the internet is BS.
Being the inquisitive kind, I read whatever I could on Scientology on the web. I read all about the thousands of dollars it costs to be a good-standing member of the religion. I would have liked to dabble in the Scientology, but being a frugal cheap bastard, I decided against it
Which begs the question: since Scientology is a high-margin, low-volume religion, why doesn't David Miscavige turn it into a low-margin, high-volume religion? Get rid of the abuse, the excesses, and the bilking of your followers, and then it might not suffer so much from bad press. Make it an open source religion, and let Xenu be known to all. If the goal is to 'clear' the Earth from evil thetans, then wouldn't it be better to attract as many followers as possible with a religion that claims to help so many people?
I imagine that Scn found it's niche among a populace that wanted to help themselves. It's a lot like those health/exercise equipment/diet plan peddlers on late night infomercials that promise you miraculous results. I've followed Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer's "High Intensity Training" routines (easily found on the web) and Dr. Atkins' "New Diet Revolution" (paperback, but I also imagine that the text is easily found on the web) to much success. No need for me to join Weight Watchers or hire a personal trainer or having to buy all sorts of expensive equipment (I just use a barbell and 400 lbs of plates at home, I avoid carbs in general).
So I understand that self-help is a strong motivator. But Scn or Hubbard don't have a monopoly on having the answers. One could find motivation to be a better person by just listening to a Tony Robbins tape or reading Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" (the latter actually helped me a lot).
So perhaps the reason why Scn is so secretive, is that in order to monetize whatever they do works (from my cursory reading of Dianetics, there is some truth to it, with a lot of half-baked ideas), quite a few layers of confusion and mystery is thrown in. If the answer to become 'clear' was freely available, then you can't make much money from it.
Knowing nothing of Scn, I took the test in a somewhat humorous if ironic way (to humor the one administering the test), not really caring how I came across and tried to answer as honestly as I could. According to the person who administered the test, I had a short attention span and lacked empathy in general. But I also could be helped and improve my character flaws with Dianetics, and eventually, Scientology.
It's true that I always struggled to listen to lectures in class from my formative school years all the way to college. I still passed, because I'm the type of person who can read only portions of a text in a half-hearted manner and grasp what is being taught by just extrapolating common sense and educated guesses. Case in point, I was quite proficient in spelling bee competitions, being able to sense how words in English should be spelled by a simple basic understanding of the rules of the language. And English wasn't even my first language, having learned it from watching Sesame Street as a child.
As for lacking empathy, shouldn't that be a feature and not a flaw? Aren't there creeps and charlatans who take advantage of those who are good-natured? I am that countervailing force that is sometimes needed in this world. Yin-yang and all that. I was quite the cold fish when I was young, but I enjoy having time alone. I wasn't a complete social pariah, my above-average good looks allowed me to talk my way into going out with a member of the opposite sex once in a while, in spite of having the social graces of a gnat.
These 'defects' are just part of what makes me who I am. Sure I have OCD tendencies, and I probably suffer from a milder form of Aspberger's (think of Sheldon in the Big Bang Theory), so even if I never read a railway timetable in my entire life, I would like to answer "yes" to that question if I do engage in that sort of thing (Not sure if L. Ron would consider that a positive aspect or not). Who doesn't find pleasure in reading about the socio-economic-political conditions that lead to the War of the Austrian succession? Wikipedia is like crack cocaine to me.
The interviewer asked me what I did for a living. I replied that I worked in IT. He sort of shrank back and said that whatever is said of Scientology on the internet is BS.
Being the inquisitive kind, I read whatever I could on Scientology on the web. I read all about the thousands of dollars it costs to be a good-standing member of the religion. I would have liked to dabble in the Scientology, but being a frugal cheap bastard, I decided against it
Which begs the question: since Scientology is a high-margin, low-volume religion, why doesn't David Miscavige turn it into a low-margin, high-volume religion? Get rid of the abuse, the excesses, and the bilking of your followers, and then it might not suffer so much from bad press. Make it an open source religion, and let Xenu be known to all. If the goal is to 'clear' the Earth from evil thetans, then wouldn't it be better to attract as many followers as possible with a religion that claims to help so many people?
I imagine that Scn found it's niche among a populace that wanted to help themselves. It's a lot like those health/exercise equipment/diet plan peddlers on late night infomercials that promise you miraculous results. I've followed Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer's "High Intensity Training" routines (easily found on the web) and Dr. Atkins' "New Diet Revolution" (paperback, but I also imagine that the text is easily found on the web) to much success. No need for me to join Weight Watchers or hire a personal trainer or having to buy all sorts of expensive equipment (I just use a barbell and 400 lbs of plates at home, I avoid carbs in general).
So I understand that self-help is a strong motivator. But Scn or Hubbard don't have a monopoly on having the answers. One could find motivation to be a better person by just listening to a Tony Robbins tape or reading Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" (the latter actually helped me a lot).
So perhaps the reason why Scn is so secretive, is that in order to monetize whatever they do works (from my cursory reading of Dianetics, there is some truth to it, with a lot of half-baked ideas), quite a few layers of confusion and mystery is thrown in. If the answer to become 'clear' was freely available, then you can't make much money from it.
It has the TECH to create a world w/o insanity and crimes.
and 
So how does the general public view all scno/co$? Do they even notice it? My expereience is that the general public has no clue what is going on, inside, in protest - nothing. 
open source scientology.. I love it! {{{{{{hugs}}}}}} 
