> >KMO wrote:
> >If you look at the number of people infected , Scientology isn't doing as
> >well as Islam or political correctness...
>
> I am offered a free 6 hour "Dianetics Work Shop" on Sunday, Oct 27. My
> knwledge of Scientology is close to none. What kind of dangerous memes are
> there to watch for?
>
> ---------------
> Tad Niwinski from TeTa where people grow
> 3.141592653589
> There is no Absolute Truth, although we are getting closer and closer to IT.
Having been to Scientology orgs myself, I'd say that you could
expect the following:
(1). A review of basic Dianetics procedure (with very little
actual Scientology; that involves something they call New Era
Dianetics... the old stuff is referred to as "Book One Dianetics"),
focusing mainly on the understanding of term definitions.
(2). A "dynamics test" which purports to show how you function
on the levels of personal, sexual/family, group, and species survival
(the first of the eight dynamics; the last four are included in
Scientology proper but not in Book One practice).
(3). The assignment of a partner to practice auditing on, and
who will in turn audit you. The process is somewhat painful when
first carried out (psychologically), but can provide benefits; when I
was exploring the system, I used the procedure on five people who
were not familiar with it (a small sample, I know), and it went
_textbook_.
(4). Exposure to literature detailing L. R. H.'s life and
exploits. THESE ARE FICTION, but do not mention that to Church
personnel. Hubbard's writings compose the body of Church scripture.
(5). The viewing of a film about Scientology -- probably
"Orientation" -- which covers the same points as the above point,
with the addition of testimonials about how beneficial the system has
been.
Bear two things in mind: first , that L. R. H. was a science
fiction writer and a master storyteller. The procedures seem to work,
but the research that he supposedly did before writing Dianetics: The
Modern Science of Mental Health never occurred. Second, bear in mind
that much of the literature against Scientology comes from people who
claim they exorcise demons, &c. or from people who ridicule the
procedures without testing the results (this comes from a review of
over one hundred pro- and anti-Scientology articles in high school,
that were collected by an instructor who taught a course in cults and
modern religion).
Don't get me wrong: if you screw the organization, they will
hit you HARD. However, many of the abuses that occurred in the 70's
and 80's were tied to a part of the Church called the Guardian's
Office, which no longer exists. All personnel that used to be
affiliated with it were excommunicated (many of the anti-Scientology
articles I came across were written by some of these individuals).
Something you might find interesting: Hubbard wrote Dianetics
in basically one sitting after performing as a seer in Jack Parsons'
(I think that was his name; Hubbard was living with him at the time)
attempt to perform, with Aliester Crowley's help, the moonchild
ritual. It was otherwise an abysmal failure, and Crowley denounced
both of them afterwards as crackpots and denied any participation
in the endeavor....
Again, don't mention this to Church personnel; it contradicts
their scripture.
Take Dianetics with a grain of salt 10 miles wide, but also
give the practice a try. I still use it, even though I'm not
affiliated with the Church, and I wouldn't use it if I didn't find it
effective.
Toward the accumulation of useful information,
Noctem