[Moderator Comment: Thanks to all for the great response on contributing articles. We will publishing them pretty much in the order they are sent to us. Please be patient, if we told you we are publishing we will but we want to give each article a chance to be viewed and discussed. keep them coming!]
As I’ve made my way through the various blogs and forums around the world one sees how fractured Scientology actually is. Relative to most other things in the world the entire community is pretty small but intensely fractured nonetheless.
The various broad categories have been discussed on this and the others blogs: From those who want to be as close to KSW as possible to the other extreme of the haters and the nothing-good-has-ever-come-out-of-any-this crowd.
But for those who are still Scientologists and are practising is some form or another there is a new question which I’d like to address. This is in particular for those who are seeking a version of Scientology that is “exactly as Ron intended” or “that hasn’t been altered”.
A few days ago The Oracle posted a comment which is what finally prompted me to write this article which I’d been thinking about for some time. The comment reads, in part:
I am an X Sea Org Member and I think using the word “Scientology” to assess how people should or shouldn’t feel about it, is a leap into the unknown. “Scientology” is not the same for all people. It is not like using the word “water”.
The comment goes on to clarify this in more detail but the essence of this is very true. Whether it’s “Scientology” as a religion or organisation or as a philosophical subject everyone has a different interpretation that is filtered through their personal experience, viewpoint and so on. I have heard people describe the the Tone Scale as hypnotic, others describe it has mildly useful and still others as the best thing to come out of Scientology.
With this in mind I do not believe it is even possible to know what “Ron intended”. There has been so much obfuscation about his history, about his apparent intent and, 30 years after the fact, his entire life.
Add to this that a particular piece of writing may have been based on a bad day or an incorrect observation and I believe it is impossible to define what “standard” Scientology is. When someone has a win in auditing they believe it to be the result of standard auditing. Yet people have wins where the auditing was not 100% standard yet the individual will believe it was because they got the desired result.
When we discuss the technical aspect of Scientology we are talking about a fairly large volume of data. This isn’t a cake recipe. This means variables or opportunities for different interpretation at so many intersections.
That’s my one point. The other is this: At the moment that a piece of writing becomes “religious scripture” you have at that moment retarded that subject irretrievably. At that instant the writing becomes divine and not subject to further discussion. This has happened with most religious texts. No further development is possible because it has come from an entity greater than ourselves. The next natural consequence is that devotees of the religious scripture must now solve all the problems around them within the narrowing confines of their bible. Such people no longer see problems as they truly are but rather as they defined and described by the text. As the world changes this becomes harder and harder to do and eventually science has to be distorted so that the text continues to be right. Witness the bizarre Christian museum somewhere in the US that has displays showing humans riding dinosaurs. This has to be true, otherwise the bible is wrong.
2000 years ago it was no problem to have a religious scripture that encouraged the beating or killing of slaves as contained in the bible. The fact of slave ownership is just assumed as the natural order of things. The world of this millenium simply cannot be solved or answered by that text. Yet devotees come up with all manner of justifications and unusual solutions to do just that.
Official Scientology suffers from this terribly: Trying to solve their problems with a 1950s, 60s and 70s worldview and philosophy. Cold War, find an enemy, obliterate, quash dissent, restrict access to information. Just. Doesn’t. Work.
Where does this leave us with Scientology technology? How is it possible to apply a technology that’s 50 years old to a world that is so radically different? Right up to the end it seems that Hubbard was fine tuning, revising, updating. Surely if he had lived a further 30 years this would have continued. I cannot believe for a moment that he would have got to 1990 or somewhere and said “no more development, ever. It’s done”.
What is the difference then between alteration & evolution?
I believe that If Scientology is to be a “technology” then by it’s very practice it must constantly challenge and update according to new observations and a changing world. The world is technological today and every advance is almost immediately surpassed, yet official Scientology still wants to use an analogue e-meter that looks like a 1960s Star Trek prop. This is what they thought a meter might look in the 2000s.
Speaking of meters what prompted my thinking on this is the video found at this link: http://psychemeter.com/ A “digital” meter utilising modern technology. When I left corporate Scientology a couple years ago this would have made my skin crawl with its obvious deviation from “standard tech”. Yet, isn’t it the most natural thing in the world to take an observation or a technology and seek to improve it? This is how we have evolved world technology to the point where we are seeing the universe and beginning to travel beyond our celestial neighbourhood.
I would be curious to get views on this from people trying to pursue a standard Bridge. To clarify my position: After years of decompression and separation from practising Scientology I have made a few tentative steps toward taking it up again. Not because I believe it to be the only answer but because I desire greater spiritual awareness and knowledge of myself and the structure of auditing makes sense to me and I understand it. But I want it to incorporate my progress with a millenial worldview and hopefully the technology to go with it.