How will Scientology -as body of work not CofS- survive?

Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by Voltaire's Child, Feb 20, 2011.

View Users: View Users
  1. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    This is mainly posted with my FZ, Independent and Indie friends in mind, though of course I'm always glad to see others participating in those discussions. But please do note where I've posted this if you're one of those who are pained by any positive mention of Scn methods and ideas.

    I see a lot of posts and discussions about Scn going away and being obliterated, etc. Not just CofS (which deserves to go away completely. No reformed church, just needs to GO) but also the ology aspect. And my perception is that a lot of people have wondered what's going to happen to this particular ology, often citing the Free zone, the church of Marty, and other endeavors.

    My personal belief is that when all's said and done and some decades and maybe even a century or two have elapsed, that we may see some indie or FZ groups here and there- though I tend to doubt it- but that what will probably happen is that the ideas and methods will survive piece meal.

    I've already heard of various New Age and pop psychologist types referencing ideas and terms that they could only have obtained through Scn literature or courses. Those concepts were blended in to their various talks and presentations. I actually think that this is exactly the way it's going to continue to be.

    In a way, that's poetic justice considering that Hubbard himself did the piece meal take from this, take from that approach.

    You've heard me say many times over the years that most, if not all religions and philosophies get changed. I usually say that in response to those who protest that Free Zoners aren't really practicing Scn as Hubbard intended. (Yeah? Neither's David Miscavige and he owns CofS.) There are virtually no religions (fundie Islam and Chasidic Judaism may be exceptions) that practice their religions the way they originally were. Just look at all the Christian sects and offshoots. They literally cannot be counted, there are so many.

    And there are groups and ologies and ideas and spinoffs of major religions- religions that weren't even started by a sci fi writer -- oh wait, the Bible's full of sci fi, never ind- whose ideas were borrowed by people who don't even call themselves Jews or Christians or Moslems or whatever.

    And so it goes with Scn. The process has already begun and I believe that in the long run, this will be how most of the ideas and methods continue. I think that also must mean that some of the ideas and methods in Scn might disappear altogether.
  2. MafiaWog

    MafiaWog Patron

    It is "ironic" (more like it is an obvious end result to most) that Hubbard's insistence on centralizing everything and keeping it "pure" has probably been the main factor in the formation of distinct offshoots (squirrel) groups and teachings. For someone who was supposedly so wise and everything, even with his moderate preparation for such situations (from the start, remind your followers that any (inevitable) spinoffs are evil, evil, evil), history has shown that particularly authoritarian and controlling religious bodies will end up pushing people away, who will just do their own thing anyway.

    I will miss the CoS; the non-stop slapstick comedic antics they put on are just priceless.
  3. GreyWolf

    GreyWolf Gold Meritorious Patron

    I belive that at it's core, Scn was wrong. I believe that Ron was wrong. Otherwise DM would not have been able to take over.
  4. It will survive as a form of curiosity and obscure entertainment, possible even used in case studies on destructive cults, other than that it will be of little value once the remaining diehard Scientologists die off.

    I'm not sure you can even market any of it into a franchise, such as a Xenu UFO themed Donut Shop or Bowling Alley. It's science fiction is just as uninteresting and outdated as it's 1950s flavor of pop psychology.

    I see the Super Power's Theme Park being a bigger flop than his empty mega stores known as Ideal Orgs.

    I do see some designers using Cold War Era Symbology in retro casual wear, so maybe in another thirty years someone will come out with a retro line of cult fashion and use some of Scientology's symbols
  5. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader


    A sensible OP you have raised.

    In my view, I'd say that Hubbard tapped into an age old dream humanity had pursued for eons . . . the search for the truth of our existence.

    It happens he corrupted that search, but the search continues . . . and in my view it will be continued and include some of the material he published that folks find beneficial and workable; and that which is demonstrably stupid, criminal, false and/or fraudulent will be dropped.

    But what is carried forward will be melded with other materials and discoveries. One thing is certain, and that is, there is much research still be done to realize the ideal . . . and so whatever of Hubbard's thing that is carried forward will be expanded upon, areas that were addressed negligently by him and so are incomplete with be expanded upon to be completed, and areas that are erroneous will likely be corrected.

  6. If you remove everything Hubbard stole and tried to claim as his own all that's left is the stupid, criminal, false and/or fraudulent material.

    Why build a foundation on that? Why not just scrap the con game altogether and reference the actual people who researched and authored the material he stole, and kick the con man and his fraud-ology to the curb where it belongs.

    Hubbard is a Cancer as is Scientology, anything to do with it or him will never be taken for anything more than it is ... a con game.
  7. Sindy

    Sindy Crusader

    Can you possibly lay this out? Posit a scenario. For example, some people may continue to offer the Purification Rundown? This may be but if it is no longer protected under the "religion" umbrella, it will require medical supervision and proof of safety and efficacy.

    What parts survive if it no longer has religious status?
  8. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    Do mediums still produce ectoplasm?

    "Do mediums still produce ectoplasm?

    I was doing some searches concerning paranormal, etc. and found a lot of what appeared to be older pictures of mediums, psychics, etc. producing entities from their noses, etc. supposedly made from “ectoplasm”. I assume that these were recognized psychics of the time. One photo showed what appeared to be a full body apparition appearing out of the psychics nose, another a face, etc....."

    Have you seen the trash bin of history where "ectoplasm" went to?
    Scientology will be found there.
  9. Sindy

    Sindy Crusader

    Will there be Ex-Ectos and Ecto-Indies? :coolwink:
  10. I'd like to comment on this, but no further comment is required. :thumbsup:
  11. well_that_sucked

    well_that_sucked Patron with Honors

    I think this pretty much sums it up

  12. lotus

    lotus autonomous rebellous

    Deleted post
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2011
  13. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    There have been very many small groups that have sprung up and faded away within a few generations, but there is no evidence that really large religions will eventually die out. The big ones are still going strong after quite a few centuries, after all.

    And I'm not sure, but I don't think there have been a lot of mid-sized religions, that have held tens of millions of adherents for a few centuries, and then died. If history included a lot of these, we could reasonably guess that the handful of major world religions are simply the ones at the far end of the curve, whose time has not yet come. But as it is, I think the evidence of history rather suggests that the major religions have something that the little groups don't have and never did, and that they are not part of the same pattern.
  14. lotus

    lotus autonomous rebellous

    There is only one religion that stand from centuries before christ and it is Judaism.

    Then , Bramanism as evoluted to hinduism and still stand.

    Then around at the tine Christ borned there has been new religions to born and that still stand





    At that time paganism fall down slowly till vanished

    AS one cannot become jewish, unless by the blood, it might be in danger as the Asia hold the most growing countries.

    We can suspect that islam and buddhism will grow up as demography goes.

    Scientology is a cult having tax exempt status of a religion in some countries but it is not considered as a religion in the wog and often totally unknown. It doesn't promote to have babies..these are things that are had already happened and is irreversible.

    Should I lead a sect I would order to reproduce and have lots of babies to survive. Christians priest were ordering it a couple of decades ago and are still denying contraception to try to avoid vanishing..but...churches are like idle org..empty and costly.
  15. Freeminds

    Freeminds Bitter defrocked apostate

    A very interesting question, VC. One that appears to provoke a broad range of different answers, depending on who you ask. ("What's true for you is true...?") Here's my take on how it breaks down among the different people who might have an opinion. I'd be interested to know what you think:
    • To the present-day victim of Scientology, it's the fastest growing religion on the planet, the only one to offer truth, etc., and all that's needed is "one last big push" -- and reg cycle -- to "get the orgs booming" and then Scientology will be established forever. And since the victors write the history books, the body of work will survive in their new Golden Age form. And you'll never need to buy them again... until next time they remove some semicolons or choose to re-publish the data series with numbers on the spine of each book. Oooh!
    • To the former Scientology victim who still thinks LRH was the messiah, Miscavige is squirreling and the original body of work must be preserved, regardless of its scientific blunders (Incident one happening way before the Big Bang, Piltdown man, clams, "it turns my blood to water" and so many more...) and also its morally indefensible elements such as racism, sexism and homophobia. In reluctance to correct or improve, there may be a good dollop of the Scn craving for legitimacy at work here; the idea that LRH's writings should be preserved in utmost originality could be an attempt to ape the authority vested in the Torah, which is studied in the original Hebrew and hasn't changed for 2,000 years or more. There was also LRH's aversion to anybody else making money or rising too high in the organization: only his sauce was source. Of course, he's long dead so there is less reason to worry on that score.
    • To the former Scientology victim who concedes that LRH was not without his flaws, some revision of the Tech is inevitable. The question is how much to change, and how much to leave the same. Does even that which is left 'the same' still mean the same thing, in a different context? It is possible that LRH might ultimately be recognised not as the prophet, but as one of many. Perhaps (depending on how honest people are feeling about sources...) not even the first prophet. This is an interesting one because it's impossible to know what neoScientology will become in the future, as a result of the changes. Some might say that it would be quicker and better to start with a clean slate, than to try to pick the good bits out of LRH's diatribe... but they don't really fall into this category. Of course, if you're a believer, you know that you will eventually discover what neoScientology can become, say two hundred years from now, because you believe in reincarnation.
    • To the former Scientology victim who has come to the conclusion that the work of LRH was a con, or perhaps the ramblings of a madman, his work will be studied only in the same way that diseases or crimes of the past continue to used as case studies by academics or criminologists. Since such academics don't have an agenda either for or against Scn, they are unlikely to tamper with whatever written evidence survives, but will report it dispassionately. (We know quite a lot about the religion of the ancient Egyptians, but very few people promote the notion of worshiping Horus nowadays....) Scientology becomes a very minor footnote in the history books, meaningless except to the few people who make it the subject of a thesis.
    • To Anonymous, Scientology was not a religion, so none of the above apply. (In fact, you could say the same for the UK Charities Commission.) Considered dispassionately, there remains only the question of copyright -- some of which lapsed due to CofS fumbling the ball in the Wollersheim case, while the remainder will expire 75 years after the death of the author. We're already a third of the way there.
    • To the general public, Scientology has only ever been poorly understood ("....that thing that Tom Cruise and John Travolta are in?" or thanks to the TV documentaries, "What, that Xenu UFO thing?") and as CofS shrinks, the public will be less and less exposed to it. Scientology will go the way of the Cathars, the Shakers, the Maya or the Norse religion, vanishing into obscurity. It then survives only in academic obscurity, as described above.
    Did I miss any? Perhaps somebody belongs to a different classification or subset that I haven't thought of.
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2011
  16. scooter

    scooter Gold Meritorious Patron

    I think the analogy of the Shakers is the best one - $cientology in all its forms has an aversion to reproduction because it gets in the way of "The Bridge" and so will contracept (?) its way to extinction.

    Some "bits" have morphed their way into popular culture and I expect any workable bits left will do just that, but I think the subject itself and the bulk of the work will sink into well-deserved obscurity within a generation. There will be those who will be doing their utmost to "Clear the Planet" until they die, but I think their efforts will get the recognition they deserve - none.

    Substitute "psychs" or "SPs" for Romans" and you get the idea - the cult's dwindling membership in five years time. And about the same number of active members too. :D
  17. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    A few of them have, or had politicians using them for various reasons, and that helped a few who would have bitten the dust otherwise.
  18. Student of Trinity

    Student of Trinity Silver Meritorious Patron

    That's a good point. Most if not all of the major religions found some way to hitch a ride on some faltering pre-modern government that was looking for cultural cohesion, and thereby boosted themselves from vigorous minority social movement to keystone of an entire culture.

    Maybe Scientology could have done the same, if it had come along a thousand years ago. Maybe it's not lacking anything crucial in itself, but only in its circumstances.

    Maybe the time for new religions to ascend with empire is simply past, now. The myths have been made, the tapestries woven. Politics isn't looking for any new spiritual partners; there are enough firms already in the market.

    So if you really want to reshape religion on a global scale today, maybe your only chance is to launch a major new movement within one of the existing world faiths. That would seem to be perfectly possible. They've all proven themselves flexible enough to change significantly without abandoning their fundamental identities.

    Or maybe you just need a new enough product, as in any saturated market. Communism fits the pattern of a state-launched religion, at least to some extent. It seems to have crashed and burned after only a couple of generations, but perhaps that's always a risk, and the point is that launch is still possible.
  19. Did you think seasoned conman like Hubbard did not try that? It failed just like everything else Scientology tries which does not involve scamming Scientologists.

Share This Page