Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Panda Termint, Feb 22, 2014.
A new thread.
Kate, may I ask which of the more general parts of Scientology align with your personal beliefs?
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
* 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.
Thanks, Kate! That gives me a MUCH better idea of where you are coming from.
Kate, I've been reading your posts on another thread and what I don't understand is why you call yourself a Scientologist when the Church of Scientology would definitely not consider you to be one of them.
You have said you study other religions etc. That is called "other practices" in Scientology and it is a very bad thing for which you would be sent to Ethics.
You have said you audit yourself but you make up your own processes to audit. This is called "squirreling" and you would be sent to Ethics for doing it.
You have said you believe some of LRH's works but not others. You will do correspondence courses but not pay for auditing. In the CofS this is called "being a dilletante" and you would be sent to Ethics for it.
LRH said you can't be half in and half out of Scientology but you clearly are, therefore you are not a Scientologist by LRH's definition.
So why do you call yourself a Scientologist? I think this is probably one thing that is irritating those of us who really were Scientologists.
Personally, I think she calls herself one in her own terms, not in the terms of the church. The two do not necessarily align and I don't think she gives a toss what the church thinks.
Her thoughts of Scn have some alignment, but it ends there.
How did I do, Kate?
Personally, I think she calls hersaelf one in her own terms, not in the terms of the church. The two do not necessarily align and I don't think she gives a toss what the church thinks.
Her thoughts of Scn have some alignment, but it ends there.
How did I do, Kate?
And yes, as per CoS definition, she is a squirrel.
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.
That pretty much sums it up perfectly.
Why does it need a name at all unless you're trying to start a cult? The problem with a label like "Scientology" is that it means a whole lot of stuff to the reader, most of which probably doesn't apply to your beliefs at all. And some people wouldn't like to be known as "a Scientologist" for much the same reason that they wouldn't want to be known as "an axe murderer."
Without trying to sound snarky at all Kate, perhaps using a different word to Scientologist on an ex Scientologists board might have helped your cause a little better?
when did you leave church?
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.
As I mention in a reply to Paul, I tried this before and got accused of being OSA because I still talked about scientology as having some value. I'm certainly open to suggestions here...
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.
I remember few years ago , lots of "then Indies " have a same problem, but usually these days - they do not want anything to do with $cio (few years,lots of lurking and learning)... see you in few years - you will be there...:wink2:
but while you have internet, do not be afraid of lurking.
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.
Iam ok with that unless you hurt someone or go broke with out wanting that.
I dont have a problem with believes.
I have a problem with doing bad things to others. just that.
wish you a nice day, and hope you stay good person.
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.