Open-Source Scientology

[Dulloldfart]

NEW BOOKS.
If you wish to develop this theme, feel free to start a new thread.
Mark A. Baker

It's his fault.

Open-Source Scientology is really an oxymoron, as the S-word is trademarked by you-know-who and the subject itself is (falsely) declared to have been solely developed by Hubbard.

But to take up Mark's point, I asked what would be the interest in open-source Scn apart from losing the copyrights and trademarks. His two-word answer doesn't reveal a great deal of his thought processes here. Except maybe the idea excites him terribly as he normally goes on for paragraph after paragraph in every post.

NEW BOOKS. This could mean revising the shit out of the existing ones, to remove the garbage and leave in them what is plausible or at least vaguely defensible. Or it could mean bringing out new stuff that is worth putting into a book. An example would be Ralph's Super-Power issues and supporting documentation, the former of which is readily available online and the latter isn't.

But who would be accepted as being in charge of this kind of thing? Pierre? :D Iffy Mike? We're back in CatHerdistan.

Paul

[Veda]

During the 1960s, old timer and "squirrel" Jack Horner rejected the idea of "Source," and established 'Eductivism'; however, he had the intellectual realism and honesty to recognize that it wasn't Scientology, and would have never called it that, and didn't want it to be called that.

If there's going to be a new improved Scientology, behind which the faithful will unite, it will likely require L. Ron returning on the Mothership, as Ken Urquhart expressed it, "1000 times more brilliant."

Scientology has spent so much time and effort pretending to be things which it is not, that the word has become an object of ridicule.

IMO, if some things are to be salvaged, better to disassemble the subject, the entire subject, lay it out for everyone to see - including the crazed and nasty stuff - and, then, select the worthwhile bits and pieces.

Of course, those selected bits and pieces wouldn't be "Scientology" anymore.

[Dulloldfart]

IMO, if some things are to be salvaged, better to disassemble the subject, the entire subject, lay it out for everyone to see - including the crazed and nasty stuff - and, then, select the worthwhile bits and pieces.

Of course, those selected bits and pieces wouldn't be "Scientology" anymore.

Yes. Quite. There are already other subjects that have taken useful bits of Scn tech — and left very much behind — and added other developments to them. Which is why I think open-source Scn is an oxymoron, as it can't be open-source and still be Scientology.

This will probably be a very short thread.

Paul

[Cat's Squirrel]

Yes. Quite. There are already other subjects that have taken useful bits of Scn tech — and left very much behind — and added other developments to them. Which is why I think open-source Scn is an oxymoron, as it can't be open-source and still be Scientology.

I disagree here Paul. It can, as long as it confines itself to permutations of the existing Scientology data and procedures. Ralph's innovation of getting the client to hold pairs of corners of the room whilst doing TRs is a case in point.

P.S.; Have you had an expansion in "business" recently as a result of Newcastle being relegated from the Premier league? My nan came from Newcastle so I'm slightly sad (and I have a lot of respect for Alan Shearer, he was a truly great striker in his day).

[Veda]

Yes. Quite. There are already other subjects that have taken useful bits of Scn tech — and left very much behind — and added other developments to them. Which is why I think open-source Scn is an oxymoron, as it can't be open-source and still be Scientology.

This will probably be a very short thread.

Paul

It is interesting that there's an attempt, by some Scientologists, to classify other subjects, which have rejected the name "Scientology," and which are not Scientology and don't wish to be identified with that name, as being "open source Scientology."

Somehow, I've a feeling that "open source Scientology," gradually, will lead into "Source (Grade Chart/KSW/Xenu) Scientology," not unlike the big plastic sign in front of a Scientology Org, that announces "Think for Yourself!", leads into the Org.

[programmer_guy]

IMO, if some things are to be salvaged, better to disassemble the subject, the entire subject, lay it out for everyone to see - including the crazed and nasty stuff - and, then, select the worthwhile bits and pieces.

I wouldn't trust freezoners to do a good job of this.

AND the real professional psych researchers are apparently not interested... gee, I wonder why?

[degraded being]

It's his fault.

Open-Source Scientology is really an oxymoron, as the S-word is trademarked by you-know-who and the subject itself is (falsely) declared to have been solely developed by Hubbard.

But to take up Mark's point, I asked what would be the interest in open-source Scn apart from losing the copyrights and trademarks. His two-word answer doesn't reveal a great deal of his thought processes here. Except maybe the idea excites him terribly as he normally goes on for paragraph after paragraph in every post.

NEW BOOKS. This could mean revising the shit out of the existing ones, to remove the garbage and leave in them what is plausible or at least vaguely defensible. Or it could mean bringing out new stuff that is worth putting into a book. An example would be Ralph's Super-Power issues and supporting documentation, the former of which is readily available online and the latter isn't.

But who would be accepted as being in charge of this kind of thing? Pierre? :D Iffy Mike? We're back in CatHerdistan.

Paul

Put Mark and Alex in charge.

[Mark A. Baker]

Put Mark and Alex in charge.

If there had to be a central authority, I rather suspect we would be pretty damn good at it. I'm a pretty damn good editor. I'd of course be looking for input from individuals like Paul & other "independents" as well as standard tech freezoners. I can easily imagine Alex successfully pestering a few Co$ techies for contributions to the effort.

However, we would only except the responsibilities on condition that we are fully funded as WE deem necessary by critics such as yourself, DB.

Show me the money.


Mark A. Baker

[degraded being]

If there had to be a central authority, I rather suspect we would be pretty damn good at it. I'm a pretty damn good editor. I'd of course be looking for input from individuals like Paul & other "independents" as well as standard tech freezoners. I can easily imagine Alex successfully pestering a few Co$ techies for contributions to the effort.

However, we would only except the responsibilities on condition that we are fully funded as WE deem necessary by critics such as yourself, DB.

Show me the money.


Mark A. Baker

Yes, if there had to be a central authority you would be good at it.
You already are.

[RogerB]

If there had to be a central authority, I rather suspect we would be pretty damn good at it. I'm a pretty damn good editor. I'd of course be looking for input from individuals like Paul & other "independents" as well as standard tech freezoners. I can easily imagine Alex successfully pestering a few Co$ techies for contributions to the effort.

However, we would only except the responsibilities on condition that we are fully funded as WE deem necessary by critics such as yourself, DB.

Show me the money.


Mark A. Baker

OK Mark,

You are excepted from editorship since you will only except the responsibilities . . .

Tho I do like you erudite fulsome writing

Rog