the timboucher experience

Whatever negative opinions people may have about Scientology, I’m finding it very fascination to learn about - albeit in a second-hand fashion. I think the best thing about it, in terms of studying it, is that it’s a very recently formed religion. With Christianity or Buddhism or something, we can try to go back and study it’s origins and influences. But it happened so long ago that the information has been controlled and filtered into a very particular form, and it can be very difficult to untangle the inner workings of what makes it all tick. In regards to Scientology, the religion is something close to about fifty years old, and all the documentation about it’s origins and influences is readily available (with some digging). Admittedly, the Church of Scientology has been known to be rather aggressive in controlling information about it and within it. So a certain amount has likely been lost or modified over time. But for that very reason, it’s interesting to study. Simply because you can see firsthand just what goes into founding and maintaining a religious tradition - regardless of your opinion of it’s worth or validity.

In any event, reading about it has really lead me back to a lot of ideas I was exploring in terms of “story-systems” and looking at how much of a challenge it is for groups to maintain the “purity” of their system as it grows and expands and incorporates new generations of adherents and leaders. One of the most interesting aspects I’ve uncovered about it so far comes to us from Wikipedia’s page about Scientology beliefs and practices. In Scientology, they play around with words a lot. L. Ron Hubbard’s teachings are generally referred to as “Tech” which is short for “Training and Auditing Technology.” In an effort to preserve the “Tech” they have a prohibition against what they call “Verbal Tech,” which I’ll let Wikipedia describe:

In Scientology teachings, the Tech can only be delivered to Scientologists in its original written form. The act of discussing Scientology processes in a spoken manner is called “verbal tech,” and this is believed to be a blemish upon the working of the Tech. Because the actual discussion of the Tech is not coming from Source (Hubbard himself), it is being diluted and it is no longer 100% pure. As a result, engaging in “verbal tech” is forbidden within Scientology. This disallowing of “verbal tech” prevents Scientologists from discussing or explaining the actual workings of what Scientology is and how “it works,” in any form other than the actual study of Source (namely Hubbard’s original writings).

Scientology contends that this policy of forbidding “verbal tech” is in order to keep the Tech pure and unadulterated, and to prevent students from passing on their misunderstandings of Hubbard’s instructions to others.

You could easily make all kinds of arguments against this practice, but I think it actually is a fairly common one in religious traditions. Think, for example, of all the people who when you try to get them into a conversation about their beliefs, they inevitably end up quoting a Bible passage - usually without being able to explain it in their own terms. If they can’t remember the passage, the next line of defense is usually repeating something an intermediary religious figure taught them. Many people in this mold tend to hesitate from allowing their own personal interpretations into the mix. While this orthodox style of religion doesn’t work for me, I don’t necessarily think this is an invalid approach to religion, as some people seem quite happy with it.

Anyway, I’ve written a little in the past about how religious texts and stories tend to get modified, and how people enact different types of version control against that natural phenomenon. Might make for some interesting further reading in this direction.

• Two Quick Scientology Bits
• Katie Holmes “Digs” Scientology
• Scientology Stops Insanity?
• Hubbard on Language
• Holmes Converting to Scientology