12-15-2016, 01:08 PM
(12-15-2016, 12:41 PM)xxlt Wrote: I am trying to figure out if I agree with your distinction.
The organization does not exist without members, right? I get what you are saying, I think. The ideology is deeply disturbing. So was the Jim Jones ideology, but now that there are no adherents to it, it isn't so concerning. This is not to diminish the tragedy of the mass suicide in Guyana, but just to point out that the ideology effectively died with the members of the cult. Nothing in any of Hubbard's books or any of the Scientology centers would be frightening if it weren't for the people who act out the bizarre ideas such as "fair game." To put it another way, when Adolf was sitting in a room somewhere brooding and practicing speeches and drafting Mein Kampf, we had a sick man developing a sick ideology. But the organization of "the third Reich" doesn't come to pass because he wrote bylaws for a party and conceived the organization. It came to pass because members bought in. So, I still think I would say it was the members that were more frightening than the organization of the Nazi Party or the organization of Scientology.
I guess at some level the two - members and organization - are inseparable. But I am still not sure if I think your distinction is correct.
I see what you're getting at. In essence the members and the organization are synonymous. To put a finer point on it, the established members, the leadership, make up the organization with newer members being the cause of my distinction. Once fully indoctrinated, and yes I realize that sounds overly dramatic, you could include them in "the organization". Additionally, you are also correct that the writings of Hubbard, which aside from bad sci-fi consists of ham fisted self help texts, do not inherently lend themselves to the unsavory practices of modern scientology. Those are largely creations of "the organization".
