Print

[ethercat]

http://www.borisbj21.com/Page20/page20a.html

This page doesn't mention the words scientology, Hubbard, or dianetics anywhere on it, yet it encompasses a number of ideas that sound like scientology to me.  Is it scientology?  Or is it a mismash of different philosophies?

The guy is offering some tapes for sale, is he repackaging scientology, or scientology and "other practices," and selling it for his own profit, or is he secretly promoting scientology without mentioning it?

I'm curious what others think.

[mefree]

Although the mention of "knowingness" got my attention, this statement did not seem to fit:

I'm gonna say that almost everything you think you know is an assumption. You know that Monty Python line, "Everything you know is wrong!" Well, there's a lot of truth to that. Because it's everything that you think you know. There's a difference between what you think you know and what you ACTUALLY know.

It seems quite different from, scientology's, "If it is true for you, it is true for you."

Also, these rules don't seem Scientological to me at all, but more like common sense and courtesy.

Fifteen Rules for a Planet that Works.

And then I've added several more. Here's the first fifteen:

1.If you open it, close it.

2.If you turn it on, turn it off.

3.If you unlock it, lock it.

4.If you break it, fix it.

5.If you can't fix it, make sure someone who can fix it, does.

6.If it's not broken, don't try to fix it.

7.If it belongs to someone else, ask before you use it.

8.If you borrow it, return it.

9.If you use it, take care of it.

10.If you use it all up, replenish it.

11.If you make a mess, clean it.

12.If you move it, put it back.

13.If you don't know how to operate it, leave it alone.

14.If it doesn't concern you, don't mess with it.

And ,

15.Leave it looking better than you found it.

To which, I've added:

16.If you commence it, conclude it.

17.If you can't use it, give it to someone who can.

18.If you want to get it done, just do it. Don't yap about it.

19.If you don't know how to do it, learn how.

20.If you don't know what to do, ask.

21.If you like it, support it.

22.If you don't like it, too bad. Do it anyway.

23.If it's valuable, share it.

Just some initial impressions.

[ethercat]

I have no knowingness of anyone who uses the word "knowingness" other than scientologists.   

It would be interesting to hear what an ex-member would say, if we have any around.

[mefree]

I have no knowingness of anyone who uses the word "knowingness" other than scientologists.   

It would be interesting to hear what an ex-member would say, if we have any around.

  You have me there. I don't either.

[Sarcasm Pirate]

I have no knowingness of anyone who uses the word "knowingness" other than scientologists.   

It would be interesting to hear what an ex-member would say, if we have any around.

Could be piecing together bits and pieces from different teachings.  I know a good number of people who pick and choose bits of religions to follow especially in metaphysical type of ideals.  I wouldn't put it past someone to find things in scientology that they like and want to repackage and sell it.  I mean, look at Narconon. :-P

[ethercat]

I have no knowingness of anyone who uses the word "knowingness" other than scientologists.   

It would be interesting to hear what an ex-member would say, if we have any around.

Could be piecing together bits and pieces from different teachings.  I know a good number of people who pick and choose bits of religions to follow especially in metaphysical type of ideals.  I wouldn't put it past someone to find things in scientology that they like and want to repackage and sell it.  I mean, look at Narconon. :-P

I suspect they are.  They mention "the Church of the Final Judgement" so I looked that up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Process_Church_of_The_Final_Judgment

The Process, or in full, The Process Church of the Final Judgment, commonly known by non-members as the Process Church, was a religious group that flourished in the 1960s and 1970s, founded by the Englishman Robert DeGrimston (originally, Robert Moor) and Mary Anne MacLean. It originally developed as a splinter client cult group from Scientology,[1] so that they were declared "suppressive persons" by L. Ron Hubbard in December 1965.

[Lorelei]

Many of those numbered rules, especially the first fourteen, have been around since the 60s or 70s as an unattributed "House Rules" plaque available to be bought through "junky stuff" retailers like Lillian Vernon.

The "Leave it better than you found it" is a common sign in national parks and along hiking trails, and it, too, is OLD. I saw really old, weatherbeaten, signs with the same sentiment when I was a child.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22If+you+open+it,+close+it.%22+rules+house

Some variations:

http://www.fridgedoor.com/horumaset.html

http://barbfeick.com/household/House%20Rules/HR2.htm

HOUSE RULES

1. If you open it, close it.
2. If you turn it on, turn it off.
3. If you unlock it, lock it.
4. If you break it, fix it.
5. If you can't fix it, report it to the boss.
6. If you borrow it, return it.
7. If you use it, don't abuse it.
8. If you make a mess, clean it up.
9. If you move it, put it back.
10. If you don't know how to operate it, leave it alone.
11. If it belongs to somebody else, ask permission to use it.
12. If it doesn't concern you, don't mess with it.

AUTHOR UNKNOWN

Reproduced from Humane Health Care International Vol. 12 No. 3, 1996 p. 112

Pictures:

Is this scientology?

Is this scientology?

Is this scientology?

Harder to see, but same "poem" is on the left:

Is this scientology?

It's like the "weather rock," "If Momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy," "Pobody's Nerfect," "P L A N   A H EAd," "Welcome to our OOL, please notice that it has no "P" in it!" and "Kissin' don't last, cookin' do" and so on.

Of course, SOME houses have different rules:

Is this scientology?

[RedShieldwolf]

Of course, SOME houses have different rules:

Is this scientology?

Classy.

[ethercat]

There was a bit more on the page than the "rules" that reminded me of scientology. 

Part of it had to do with the wordiness, and a somewhat superior attitude, as if the author had some "truth" to impart, but it's something that we aren't ready to hear yet.  Part of it was the example from Alice in Wonderland, which is used in the TRs (http://www.lermanet.com/exit/confusion-technique.htm), along with his focus on the question, "Who are you?"  The discussion of the many layers of "who" one is reminds me of the past lives that Hubbard says drive our existence in this life.

And then there's the way he gives us a "revelation" which is apparently part of "The Process Church of the Final Judgment":

It doesn't work. So as long as you deny Who you really are, then you will continue to be trapped in the world of petty gain, and everybody else's drama. And it'll simply be your dramatizing your drama to topple everybody else's drama, and they're dramatizing their drama to topple yours. And it's just one hopeless, confused mess.

Well, I tell you what. The reason why we're in this mess is a simple word that's been with us since time immemorial. The word is Fear. I want to read you a little piece that I found, of all places, in the middle of an old rock album. And the album is called Maggot Brain, by the group Funkadelic (later Parliament Funkadelic];. a pretty weird name for an album. Listen to this statement on Fear.

Fear is at the root of man's destruction of himself.

...more about "Fear" snipped...

As long as human beings fail to see their fear reflected in these and a hundred other manifestations of fear, then they will fail to see their part in the relentless tide of hatred and violence, destruction and devastation that sweeps the earth.

And the tide will not ebb until all is destroyed.

Fits in well with the scientology view of the world as a scary and dangerous place.  It starts to sound even more like scientology when he says:

Talk to psychologists and psychiatrists, and most of them interchangeably use the words "brain" and "mind." The same with the neurologists. Big confusion in there. The word, "psychology" originally meant "psyche," meaning "spirit," and "ology," meaning "study of." It originally meant the study of the human spirit. But they haven't been doing that almost since day one.

So then a lesser definition of "psyche" is "mind". Then, of course, psychology becomes "study of the mind." But these people don't know the difference between brain and mind. See? Out of all this fear, and not knowing who they you are, those people have collapsed brain, mind, body and spirit. They don't know the difference.

And then he hits us with this:

Well, also, recognize three aspects of a healthy relationship between people. Relationships are at their peak when there's a high amount of affinity, a strong reality, and lots of communication. When you meet somebody for the first time, that you find there seems to be something that clicks, I'm willing to bet that you have at least two or more of the three aspects present--affinity, reality, and communication.

ARC.  There's plenty more.

The way I found the page was that I read the "Scientology Logic by "JustBill" and he discusses the "Obnosis Drill."  I had never heard of it specifically, so I did a search and the page came up.  If you read JustBill's description of the Obnosis Drill, you will see that it sounds like the same thing.  This is the context on the page I'm discussing:

And I know, people say, "What do you think about?" I don't think about anything. There's no thinking going on. There's nothing to figure out. Meditation is not something -- you know, you don't just go into an intense thinking. That's why I don't like it when people say, "Oh, meditation is intense concentration." No, it's not. It's exactly the opposite of that. It's a complete letting go. Now, when you completely let go, you will find yourself concentrated on the entire cosmos, but you're not forcing it. As soon as you try to force concentration, boom! You're not meditating any more, it's gone. So, go into a state of observing what is. It's called "obnosis," observing the obvious, without adding your own stuff to it.

I do an exercise in workshops a lot, an obnosis drill, and I'll put somebody up in front of the room, and sit them at a 90 degree angle, and have someone else look at them, look at their profile, and I will say, "Based on your observation, tell me everything that you know about this person." And they'll get into some stuff, and then they'll say, "Well, I can see that he's happy." And I'll say, "How do you know that he's happy?" "Well, he has a smile on his face." "Oh, OK." The truth is, he has a smile on his face. We don't know if he's happy or not. There was a teacher at the school I used to go to, who had this perpetual frown wired into her face. I used to think she was a terrible, mean person. Then one day I found out that the real thing was that she had a stroke. You know, the face muscles turned down. She was quite a happy women, you know. Now she's a priest. That's how happy she is. See? Well, I didn't understand that, because I kept adding to what I obnosed. Just obnose.

OMG, I hope the Lillian Vernon company doesn't sue us for saying it's a "junky stuff" retailer! 

[Lorelei]

Can you be sued for someone expressing an opinion here about LV? That would suck.

I think there's some Sci flavour to it, definitely, quite a big helping of it, but the guy sounds more like a guru wannabe with some personality disorder / grandiosity rather than solely pushing Scientology in its "pure" form (e.g., getting pressure to "be one of us" or being regged directly for books / classes / vitamins / whatever from an Org or Mission or front group).

Remember, Scientology appeals not just to people who think it is all about helping others and not MAKE MONEY MAKE MORE MONEY but also to people who want to BECOME God and have superpowers (control over MAtter, Energy, Space and Time!) Among some of those people, you are likely to have some personality disordered folks who eat that idea up with a spoon. You may even have another budding LRH- or DM-like sociopath who sees Sci succeed at suckering people out of their autonomy and money and who wants to draw people in for their own selfish, grandiose reasons.

The thought-stopping technique mentioned in the last paragraph you quote is a central concept to almost every cult mentioned in that book, Snapping, that I recommended earlier. It seriously damages people to mess with their normal mental processes. It also makes people much more susceptible to persuasion and manipulation.

[ethercat]

Remember, Scientology appeals not just to people who think it is all about helping others and not MAKE MONEY MAKE MORE MONEY but also to people who want to BECOME God and have superpowers (control over MAtter, Energy, Space and Time!) Among some of those people, you are likely to have some personality disordered folks who eat that idea up with a spoon. You may even have another budding LRH- or DM-like sociopath who sees Sci succeed at suckering people out of their autonomy and money and who wants to draw people in for their own selfish, grandiose reasons.

That is a frightening thought, but you're probably right about that.

The thought-stopping technique mentioned in the last paragraph you quote is a central concept to almost every cult mentioned in that book, Snapping, that I recommended earlier. It seriously damages people to mess with their normal mental processes. It also makes people much more susceptible to persuasion and manipulation.

Here is the version of the "Obnosis Drill" that JustBill gives:

    Supervisor: What do you see?
    Student: I see an old man.
    Supervisor: Flunk! Do you see "old"?  Do you see "man"?  What do you see?
    Student: I see a person with wrinkles and short grey hair.
    Supervisor: Where do you see wrinkles and grey hair?
    Student: I see a person with wrinkles on this side of its face and on the one hand I can see, and grey hair on this side of its head.

Do you see?  Students are drilled not to think, not to draw obvious conclusions, not to assume the self-evident fact that there is an old man there.  As ridiculous as you may think my example is, it is essentially a verbatim quote from a real course room drill I witnessed.

[Lorelei]

Just another way to train people not to think independently and, well, not draw their own obvious conclusions.