I was involved with Scientology for years. Primarily as a staff member. Not a fan at all of the movement ("Clearing Earth") or the management. Also the way that it was marketed.
But, I very much like a lot of the tech.
Pertinent to discussion here is that I believe the management of Scientology, and Ron's own ideas about how to promulgate it, choked off a lot of its potential use. A metaphor I have is to imagine Euclid codifying geometry and deciding that it was potentially dangerous in the wrong hands, and determining that it had to be policed in its use. He then figured out Greek architecture and said "these are the approved uses - anything else is squirrel and I'll have your head if you do anything else with it" - if that were to happen, we'd have greek architecture everywhere. A nice "look", but we'd have missed out on many nice creations if that were to have been the case.
I was only a "public" Scientology for a short time. Most of my time I was on post. As crew, we were not encouraged to "talk tech" at all, other than, perhaps, to a word clearer. Due to that, I think we were sort of stuck on doric columns in a way, and we never really explored the subject.
I was heartened to hear a talk by Pam Kemp years ago, where she said that Ron had told her that he wanted her to know the tech so well that she (or any other student) could invent their own processes. I remember thinking while listening to that, "Where did that Ron Hubbard go?"
I understand "Standard Tech". I don't oppose Greek Architecture. I am fond of both. But, I don't think that's the farthest reach of the tech by a long shot.
One more thing - I think that conversation and discussion are amazing tools for living. I thing Scientologists should talk more and look more and discover more and experiment more and look at life and the tech as an opportunity for some adventure with experimentation.
What's all this add up to? I'd like to find more people who are still capable of looking at Scientology appreciatively rather than with a steely-eyed glare, and analytically rather than skeptically. I think that there's value yet to be discovered in its application. I'd like to find other people to discuss the subject with, in an attitude of curiosity.
Takers?
But, I very much like a lot of the tech.
Pertinent to discussion here is that I believe the management of Scientology, and Ron's own ideas about how to promulgate it, choked off a lot of its potential use. A metaphor I have is to imagine Euclid codifying geometry and deciding that it was potentially dangerous in the wrong hands, and determining that it had to be policed in its use. He then figured out Greek architecture and said "these are the approved uses - anything else is squirrel and I'll have your head if you do anything else with it" - if that were to happen, we'd have greek architecture everywhere. A nice "look", but we'd have missed out on many nice creations if that were to have been the case.
I was only a "public" Scientology for a short time. Most of my time I was on post. As crew, we were not encouraged to "talk tech" at all, other than, perhaps, to a word clearer. Due to that, I think we were sort of stuck on doric columns in a way, and we never really explored the subject.
I was heartened to hear a talk by Pam Kemp years ago, where she said that Ron had told her that he wanted her to know the tech so well that she (or any other student) could invent their own processes. I remember thinking while listening to that, "Where did that Ron Hubbard go?"
I understand "Standard Tech". I don't oppose Greek Architecture. I am fond of both. But, I don't think that's the farthest reach of the tech by a long shot.
One more thing - I think that conversation and discussion are amazing tools for living. I thing Scientologists should talk more and look more and discover more and experiment more and look at life and the tech as an opportunity for some adventure with experimentation.
What's all this add up to? I'd like to find more people who are still capable of looking at Scientology appreciatively rather than with a steely-eyed glare, and analytically rather than skeptically. I think that there's value yet to be discovered in its application. I'd like to find other people to discuss the subject with, in an attitude of curiosity.
Takers?
)
