Open-Source Scientology

[phnx3]

It's his fault.

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

Paul

I'd imagine it would be pretty stinky in Catherdistan

& if there was a poll on this - I'd vote "iffy Mike" last

[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.

[Dulloldfart]

So you guys want a name?

SANITOLOGY!

Short for "sanitized Scientology," or "sane Scientology." It even sounds like "Scientology." And www.sanitology.com is available.

You can tell how much I think of the idea of open-source Scientology by the fact that I didn't spend $10 registering it, but if anyone wants to do it, knock yourself out. Stick a wiki on the domain and you're off.

Paul

[Zinjifar]

So you guys want a name?

SANITOLOGY!

Short for "sanitized Scientology," or "sane Scientology." It even sounds like "Scientology." And www.sanitology.com is available.

You can tell how much I think of the idea of open-source Scientology by the fact that I didn't spend $10 registering it, but if anyone wants to do it, knock yourself out. Stick a wiki on the domain and you're off.

Paul

The name at least *implies* that there would always be TP in the Orgs. Which may be Out-Tech, but would be a necessary bug fix.

Zinj

[Dulloldfart]

I changed my mind and registered www.sanitology.com, since it is such a lovely domain name and only cost $7.69. I haven't changed my mind about open-source Scn, though.

Paul

[RogerB]

Some very good, well reasoned posts on this threat.

But there is one aspect of all this that has not been voiced.

That is the issue of comparisons.

We appear to have, predominantly, two camps among the "exies." That is if we exclude the "Anties" for the moment, for they don't want the continuance of any tech similar or comparable to Scientology, nor any continued application.

Among the exies who want to continue on with what they found worthwhile, we have those who want to strictly adhere to the "standard" as written, those who want to embrace ElRon elRay as channeled by CBR, and those who want to continue to develop and expand the knowledge and procedures based on and as compared to what they have learned and attained from earlier other practices including Scientology.

Some want to stick to the "standard" tech but edit out the ambiguity, unnecessary complexity and faux pas.

Whatever is done among exies, is going to be compared to "Scientology" no matter what is done, or by whom. I see we even have some subjects mentioned on this thread whose authors would not like their work to be seen as a "version" of Scn or being referred to as derivative of Scn simply because the authors have studied Scn. I know that a lot more was studied, analyzed, compared, tested and developed than merely "versioning" Scn.

The problem, of course, is that Hubbard addressed some essential truths . . . truths that many subjects have addressed; and we exies are still addressing those truths . . . and, some of us are seeing that there is a lot more to be discovered and developed before we have a complete and totally workable body of knowledge and procedures.

The fact that Hubbard "set the standard," so to speak, for the western Judeo-Christian society's address to these truths at the level and in the context he did, will mean pretty much anything developed by anyone will be compared to Scn by anyone familiar with Scn even if the person did not really, fully study Scn. In the early days, remember, Scn was compared to psychology as the earlier comparable subject.

So, I think Paul is correct, "Open Source Scientology" is an oxymoron, for "scientology" is exctly what it is, and any extractions, alterations or refining won't be it but will instead be a derivative of it . . . even a "version" of it.

So, in my view, any new book or version of the tech, would have to openly compare itself to the earlier published materials of Scn, but its authors should be wise enough to position and present their work as better and superior due to revisions, and as more accessible due to refinements.

This would not necessarily be in any effort to gain any credibility from association with Scn, as Zin suggested any reference to the name would do, but would be an effort to convey correct understanding as to the value of the new work and to position it as being superior and a great advance in the related subject area.

Then there are those among us, still in the game of wanting right answers and optimum results, who do not want to be "compared to" or seen to be a "version of" Scn in any way shape of form. And rightly so. But we also do not deny having studied Scn (along with other subjects and bodies of knowledge) and learned some valuable things from it . . . even if those lessons were and have been "what not to do, and what should not be!"

So, whatever one does in this subject area, it will always be compared to what the reader evaluating the product is already familiar with . . . that, unfortunately, is the way "the mind works." That is the way individuals come to understand new things; by comparing it to the already familiar or the already known.

How you folks label such a work will be argued over, of course, but the fact is, I recommend you do compare it to Scn if what you are doing is a representation of it . . . but make sure the comparison you make is on your terms and completely conveyed. You must not leave it to the reader to assume or be able to think "it is (slot in here all the things you don't want him/her to assume!)"

RogerB

[RogerB]

Busted!

Oh, well! It was late and I was supposed to be asleep.


Mark A. Baker

Nah, you are to be applauded for thinking enough of us to be working on our behalf instead of sleeping!

And my retort simply shows that we do pay avid attention to it!

Rog

[Dulloldfart]

An article I wrote for Scienowiki (www.scienowiki.org) a few years ago, which is mostly relevant here. It's about the different types of tech available and my labelling for them:

Standard Tech
This is the original tech, known throughout the Scientology world as LRH Tech, whether it was personally authored by Hubbard or an assistant and issued in his name. Different versions of it are essentially identical, even when moved into a new medium. Examples are the Technical Volumes and the OT Doctorate Course lectures whether on reel-to-reel tapes, cassettes, or in CD-ROM or printed transcript format.

Scienowiki does not contain such materials at all as it would involve copyright infringement.


Standard Tech BOTWO
BOTWO books are official CofS rewrites of LRH Tech, so-called because their covers bear the legend "Based on the Works of L. Ron Hubbard" instead of "By L. Ron Hubbard". These rewrites contain the apparently identical ideas of the original LRH Tech, unchanged, and also include large sections of the original texts. However, these original works may be reworded in part and recombined into new forms, while still retaining the original meanings. The CofS holds the copyrights and so has no copyright problems in doing all this. An example is the Scientology Handbook.

Scienowiki does not contain such materials at all as it would involve copyright infringement.


Standard Tech paraphrased
These are rewrites of LRH Tech, not officially sanctioned by the CofS. These rewrites are designed to contain ideas identical with the original LRH Tech, and possibly a small number of fair use quotes from the original texts. Scientology and Hubbard are usually mentioned by name, and regular Scientology terminology is retained. One great advantage of this is that the whole of one aspect of the tech can be presented in text-book form, without a need for trying to sort out the conlicts between different original LRH writings. A new student just sees the finished result, and doesn't have to follow through the twisting path it took to get there. Two good examples are the Clearbird and Prometheus materials.

This class of article is fair game for broad coverage in Scienowiki, and is the technical category worthy of most effort from editors, as long as there are no copyright conflicts. For example, the ideas published as Hubbard's by the CofS were written about extensively by Clearbird. The copyrights to Hubbard's writings are owned by CST doing business as L. Ron Hubbard Library, and the copyrights to Clearbird's work are owned by Clearbird Publishing.


Reworded Standard Tech
These are rewrites of LRH Tech, not officially sanctioned by the CofS. These rewrites are designed to contain ideas virtually identical with the original LRH Tech, but Scientology and Hubbard are rarely mentioned by name, and Scientology terms are generally replaced throughout. Two examples are Traumatic Incident Reduction (TIR) and Metapsychology. [I wrote this years before I read the Metapsychology text in more depth. There is more in it than I allowed for, and as a whole it does not really fit into this category, although parts of it do. — Paul 6/6/09]

These subjects rate some space in Scienowiki, but care should be taken not to infringe on any copyrights in the new subject's books or other materials.


Standard Tech derivatives
These are write-ups of theory and/or techniques with recognizable extensive foundations in the original LRH tech, but with fresh research done. This sometimes comes about when a research line that had previously been considered unworkable and thus abandoned is revived and discovered to be not so unworkable. A person somewhat familiar with Scientology tech but not an expert might wonder if such a subject were part of the original tech. There are many points of familiarity such as similar or identical axioms, the Auditor's Code, the Comm Cycle, the Mind's Protection, etc. Scientology terminology is generally retained, although a few new terms may have been coined. Some examples are The Pilot's Self-Clearing Manual; Robert Ducharme's Dianetic R3X; Geoffrey Filbert's Excalibur Revisited and the Ron's Orgs technologies.

These writings have a place in Scienowiki, as original research. But these should reflect findings rather than speculation. For example, someone who has audited fifty people on a new process derived from familiar tech could validly write up the results. Someone wondering whether a particular further change would be valuable should get it audited on some people before adding it to the write-up, and only then after appropriate discussion on the talk page. This category is expected to be the most contentious.


Offshoots
These are subjects that seem to have been developed out of some part of LRH tech, but are not based broadly on it. Such a subject bears little relationship to Scientology, and an expert in Scientology would rapidly know it is not Scientology although some small parts of it might seem very similar or identical. An example is TROM.

These subjects should have small entries in Scienowiki.


Otherisms
These are subjects that basically bear very little or no relationship to Scientology, although the founder of the new subject may have had personal experience with Scientology. An expert in Scientology would rapidly know it is not Scientology and furthermore would be hard-pressed to find any part of it that seems identical. Two examples are PEAT and Aspectics. There are also subjects like acupuncture, astrology, radionics/radiesthesia and many more which do not have their origins in Scientology at all.

These subjects do not really belong as entries in Scienowiki at all, although the words are not forbidden.

Paul

[Mark A. Baker]

Some want to stick to the "standard" tech but edit out the ambiguity, unnecessary complexity and faux pas.

Whatever is done among exies, is going to be compared to "Scientology" no matter what is done, or by whom. I see we even have some subjects mentioned on this thread whose authors would not like their work to be seen as a "version" of Scn or being referred to as derivative of Scn simply because the authors have studied Scn. I know that a lot more was studied, analyzed, compared, tested and developed than merely "versioning" Scn.

This is no doubt true. Nonetheless, such individuals often have a great deal to contribute to the discussion. Whether or not they wish to think of their current practices in that light. such often owe much of the development of their current practice to a foundation in the subject of scientology.

And why not formally incorporate ideas which have been developed outside the sanctions of the Co$? I see no reason the ideas espoused by you, Dart, or Alan, should not be incorporated into books which address aspects of open source scientology. The problem, if such exists, does not lie within the subject matter. Likely enough it is the name itself which you find offensive.

So, I think Paul is correct, "Open Source Scientology" is an oxymoron, for "scientology" is exctly what it is, and any extractions, alterations or refining won't be it but will instead be a derivative of it . . . even a "version" of it.

The point where I feel you & Paul are mistaken is that LRH himself chose to define scientology generically. It certainly was not his practice, or that of the Co$, to promote the "non-brand label" nature of the subject, but he did define it that way. As such it opens the door for exploitation as open source. I'm personally comfortable with the use of the term generically. Clearly others are not.

Could your reticence be addressed by adoption of a different title? Would "Open Source Gnosis" be a sufficiently broad label for the incorporation of ideas & technologies as diverse as those of us who continue with a technology of directly investigative spiritual practice represent? Would some other word be more suitable? This should not be thought of as as yet another "brand name" for a particular line of spiritual technology but as an umbrella category for the discussion of practical spiritual technologies such as; scientology, knowledgism, idenics, metapsychology, etc..

Clearly, the diverse practices included in the field have much in common. Under what framework would you suggest they be categorized so that a proper discussion on their exact natures, similarities, and differences could be publicly conducted with due decorum?


Mark A. Baker

[Veda]

This is no doubt true. Nonetheless, such individuals often

-snip-

The point where I feel you & Paul are mistaken is that LRH himself

-snip-

Mark A. Baker

You're trying every angle in an attempt to make others call themselves Scientologists or to, in some way, identify themselves with Scientology.

Can you understand that there are valid reasons for others rejecting that name? and for not wanting to be associated with it?