![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Scientology Stops Insanity?
There’s a hilarious comment left by a die-hard Scientologist over at Jeremy’s post wherein he looked with a critical eye towards what Scientology is (and isn’t) doing to help Hurricane Katrina survivors. Jeremy’s moving in a compelling direction on his own, but this person’s enormous diatribe is also really worth checking out. My favorite section, by far, goes:
Society needs your help. Insanity is contagious, its called contagion of aberation [sic]. If you stop Scientology or slow it down, you will become the effect of That insanity I assure you.
After a lot of research into Scientology from both official and unofficial sources, I’m honestly willing to believe there are a lot of good people trying to do good in the organization. And I’m even open to the possibility that there may be something worthwhile to be extracted from their teachings (although I highly suspect the hierarchical organization that dispenses them). Let’s get serious though: making bold warnings about not getting in Scientology’s way just makes it look like some kind of super-evil James Bond style organization. “You’ll be sorry! You meddling kids!”
It’s also confusing to me this person wrote in their message:
All The happiness you will ever find lies in you.
If that’s the case, why do we need Scientology? Let’s just go straight to the source, and look into ourselves! We don’t even have to join an organization or pay anything to do it! Thanks! You’ve just saved all of us thousands of dollars and hours. And none of us even went insane in the process. Or did we?
September 9th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Tim, have you looked into the Freebird movement? It’s not a Lynard Skinnard-inspired meth dealer lobbyist group, it’s actually Scientologists who continue to practice Scientology but have left the auspices of the Church(tm). Here’s my small collection of links at my low-rent weblog.
I think Scientology doesn’t get the critical look it deserves. A man as cranky as William S. Burroughs thought that they had a lot of valuable techniques–particularly the “clearing” procedure with the e-meter–but also acknowledged that they were charging a ridiculous amount. Likewise, their corporate power structure is ridiculous, and it appears that the CoS has murdered a number of people.
September 10th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Yeah, I’ve looked at them, but I’ve only heard them called Freezoners.
In any event, I spend a few months looking really critically at Scientology and did a slew of articles about it. A sampling of them is available here, but you’ll have to dig through
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/index.php?s=scientology
September 10th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Inspired by Jeremy’s scientology posts, I actually did a bit of research on Scientology. Turns out, as far as I can tell, that the problem with scientology is not that its crazy, but that its far crazier than anyone realizes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Be sure to read up on Xenu, and “Space opera.”
September 11th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Well, I’ve looked into this a great deal actually, and tend to disagree. As far as Xenu goes, I have a decent piece I wrote about that. Here’s an excerpt which I think explains a lot about Scientology’s misunderstood essence:
I’ve not really seen any investigators of Scientology look at it from this perspective, because everybody’s getting all caught up in what the Scientologists are saying, rather than in what they are doing. The words are a smokescreen to confuse outsiders, and to culturally differentiate those who are within the reality tunnel. It’s not necessarily nefarious - it’s just a technique which can be used effectively, I think.
September 11th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Here’s my question, then… WHY all the aburd myth and story? Why the Xenu, the space opera, the implants? Why claim mankind is descended from a clam-like creature? What purpose does it serve? If these things represent other more real things, why not refer to them as such?
Their psychology is basically Platonic, meaning essentially a Gnostic psychology. There is Body, Mind, and “theta”, or spirit. The workings of these layers seem to be basically Gnostic in theory. “Theta” however does not mean Spirit in Greek, like their webpages widely claim, but was widely used to mean “death.” I haven’t been able to find a lexicon that says otherwise. If this sort of psychology is what they’re trying to get at, why hide it in layers of clam-people, volcanoes, and spacefaring airliner jets? If the purpose is to confuse outsiders, consider me downright confused.
Is it, like the ancient gnostics, simply a mythological method of subliminally teaching you religious truth? I’ve considered this, but if you visit some of their websites (official and non), a lot of Scientologists dismiss the assertion that their myths are not literal in much the same way that fundies of a more familiar stripe do. Is this the case, and they do consider these myths to be more function than literal truth?
Most of all, if it can be used as a genuine spiritual discipline, why the focus on piles of MOOLAH? Why are you able to buy secrets and ranks in scientology? Wouldn’t an initiatory system such as the Gnostics or Masons utilize make a little more sense?
Not trying to start a flamewar. I am also not trying to bash someone’s belief system, as I myself am I heretic of sorts, I stand up to a good deal of bashing myself and know it is obnoxious. But I am personally very perplexed by Scientology’s goals and methods, and need someone (preferably a scientologist) to explain it to me.
Especially the clams thing.
September 11th, 2005 at 6:07 pm
Well, you’re answering your own question. The way I see it is that you simply can’t look at their stated beliefs of theology. It’s inconsequential. Robert Anton Wilson talks somewhere about setting up semantic structures to confuse the rational mind. This is obviously an extremely potent one.
I don’t think you can get an accurate picture from these sources. These people don’t know or care why or how it works. They can only feel its effects in their lives. The organization isn’t going to reveal it’s real techniques - it’s a close initiatory system.
You’re as biased as them, but in the opposite direction. Why shouldn’t you be able to make money off spiritual disciplines? Why shouldn’t you be able to buy ranks and secrets? Who cares if they are making money though, really? Why shouldn’t people be allowed to make money off of a good system of stories and rituals? If people want to give them money, then they continue as an enterprise. If they don’t, then they fail. Obviously they are doing something right.
More importantly, even if you don’t agree with what they are doing, it doesn’t matter less. Your agreement or disagreement does not impact their actions. Your confusion over their beliefs and theology only help to sustain their mastery over the material, because it shows that if people want to understand it, they have no choice but to join the organization.
I think if you really want to have an impact then you need to really study and understand what they are doing and *how* their techniques work. And then liberate them from the context of a hierarchical organization. Or else put them into an organization which funnels money towards you instead of them!
September 11th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
As a scholar this is frustrating for me because I’d have to join up and pay for a good deal of ranks to get the understanding of their system that I’d need to evaluate their teachings fairly enough to “liberate them from the context of a hierarchical organization.”
My objection for the money = ranks thing is not as much personal bias as an actual systemic problem. Any jerk with a billion bucks can seemingly be the scientologist Pope (or equivalent). I’m just wondering where SPIRITUAL authority fits into the picture. Monetary superiority does not connote spiritual authority.
As for “an organization which funnels money towards you instead of them!”, no thanks!
I really want to talk to an actual scientologist about this. With no inside information (which their religion depends greatly on), all of our discussion is merely conjecture. You get a zillion more hits than me, maybe you can wrangle a scientologist into a friendly debate here on Pop Occulture? I promise to be open minded and friendly, but can’t speak for everyone else…
September 11th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
Seems like an easy solution - do it, or stop worrying about what they are doing. If you want scholarly knowledge of them, get it.
Your best bet is going to be the Freezoners, because they are doing just that - taking the principles behind Scientology and liberating them from the structure of the church. They are protestants, I guess.
There are many other routes available though. All the documents are out there. Tons of books as well. As far as talking to a Scientologist, just go talk to one! Simple!