Lately I have been reading this biography of LRH called A Piece of Blue Sky, studying the life of LRH and the dissemination of his ideas. I find it to be quite remarkable.

Tell me please, does anybody here know about LRH, Dianetics, and any connection that they may have to Charles E. Dederich and the creation of Synanon?

I can certainly see certain parallels between LRH and CED philosophy, and how CED could have been influenced by Dianetics-inspired thinking. Insofar as both are anti-psychiatry, and both claim to be an extension of Freudian psychotherapy. In both systems, (Dianetics and the Synanon method) the basic idea is that by re-experiencing unconfronted traumas it is supposedly possible to unravel and eventually resolve deep-seated neuroses. LRH in this respect was apparently a progenator of "attack therpy."

Both systems depart from Freudian thinking in that they both deny that sexual repressions are basic to psychological aberration. Both LRH and CED promised a new and imporved mental state through the application of Dianetics/Synanon.

Both LRH and CED were apparently obsessed with the idea of abortion. I see many similarities. LRH was a tall-tale teller, plagarist, and pathological liar. So was CED.

Sure, there are differences too; CED didn't come up with some system paralleling LRH's Reactive/Analytical/Somatic division of the human mind, for staters.

I think Dederich's approach was a natural result of removing the restraints from AA groups (such as no cross talk). Dederich's meetings, as I understand it, basically started off as customized AA meetings with some confrontation that gradually became more harsh as time went on. I'm not so sure he designed the system as much as he profited off the effect that he stumbled across.

Synanon is based off AA and holds a powerlessness doctrine (you are powerless over bla bla bla without us) while Dianetics/Scientology holds that you are all powerful over everything that happens to you and you can more or less write your own ticket if you reach your full human potential. (two extremes... the truth is somewhere in the middle).

Can anybody tell me anything about Charles E. Dederich and his involvement with, or his connection to, Dianetics and Scientology?

This post was written by a true Scientologist.

NOBODY except a Scientologist calls Hubbrd "LRH".

"Dissemination" is an oft used word in Scientology, almost a battle cry.

Nobody now calls Hubbard's swindling gibberish "philosophy", except Scientologists.

" (two extremes... the truth is somewhere in the middle)." Actually, I know little about Dederich but your comment regarding the truth is lobsided... as there is no truth on Hubbard's side, leaving only one end.

Dederich, by the way, pleaded no contest to charges of being a party to placing a rattlesnake
in the mailbox of a lawyer who had recently sued and won a case against Dederich. Dederich's philosophy you say, is what?

Quote
TheUndeniableMaster
This post was written by a true Scientologist.

NOBODY except a Scientologist calls Hubbrd "LRH".

"Dissemination" is an oft used word in Scientology, almost a battle cry.

Nobody now calls Hubbard's swindling gibberish "philosophy", except Scientologists.

" (two extremes... the truth is somewhere in the middle)." Actually, I know little about Dederich but your comment regarding the truth is lobsided... as there is no truth on Hubbard's side, leaving only one end.

Dederich, by the way, pleaded no contest to charges of being a party to placing a rattlesnake
in the mailbox of a lawyer who had recently sued and won a case against Dederich. Dederich's philosophy you say, is what?

That is a nice response. I approve.


Onto my question:

I've only been on this board a short while. My "cult" experience was very real, but 10 years removed, so I have a much more objective viewpoint of it now, but I have memories and experiences of being what some might call brainwashed.

I like the Rick Ross site a lot, but it does seem to invite a good bit of favorable reviews of scientology, while the reviews of other "cults" is much more universally harsh.

am I wrong about that or is Scientology more warming regarded by Mr. Ross than most of the others?



I'm curious about scientology, but at the same time very wary of it. I did the Landmark training recently and I had a good experience with it, though I fully understand why many view it negatively. I think it has both positive and negative aspects to it. As a rule, I'm open to the good as well as the bad in these so called "trainings". I think, if they didn't have any attractive elements to them, they wouldn't sell and they'd go out of business.

Amhebera:

See [www.culteducation.com]

The Ross Institute maintains one of the largest archives of critical information about Scientology available through the Internet.

Please be advised that this thread is not about Landmark, it's about Scientology.

If you want to discuss Landmark go to one of the many threads about that company within the message board.

I don't know too much about Scientology. All I know is that Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. I also heard that they try to destroy people who are against them, through a policy known as "fair game". What are some good web links about Scientology?

--eaglecage

See [www.culteducation.com]

And also see [www.culteducation.com]

Quote
rrmoderator
Amhebera:

See [www.culteducation.com]

The Ross Institute maintains one of the largest archives of critical information about Scientology available through the Internet.

Please be advised that this thread is not about Landmark, it's about Scientology.

If you want to discuss Landmark go to one of the many threads about that company within the message board.

Ouch.


OK, then. I'll remember to stick to one question at a time.


But, that link that you provided was the very link that formulated my observation that RickRoss seems somewhat scientology friendly. Overall, that page is quite fair, with scientology's website being the first link, and then 2 somewhat charitable scientology related organizations, then a box below, with celebreties, and then criminal investigations, followed by history and background.

Maybe I got the wrong idea and there is a lot there to read. It could just be an accidental representation via search engine. I was just wondering if this website is more friendly towards scientology than other organizations.


and I'm associated with no groups and I'm really quite open to answers both critical and favorable.

Amhebera:

Scientology has unsuccessfully had attorneys attempt to have the Ross Institute Web site subsection about their organization shut down over the years.

Apparently they don't agree with your assessment.

In one attack Web site run by Scientology, the Ross Institute is compared to the former "Cult Awareness Network,' an avowed enemy of Scientology, which they sued out of existence.

Providing links through a a subsection to a group Web site when available online, is the standard format of all subsections within the Ross Insitute archives.

This format provides the option of checking out what the group has to say, what the group is doing, where its is located and active, etc.

Just to get things straight: I am not presently, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, affliliated with the COS or any of its front groups or Orgs in any way, shape, or form. I used an abbreviation, some initials, so what?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2009 09:41AM by Oerlikon.

Dear Amhebera,



Your suggestion that the Scientologists are treated "too favourably" by Mr Ross is an "interesting" allegation....

......it appears though (as Mr Ross himself notes) that the Scientologists themselves do not exactly concur with you

(...having boorishly, well and truly scratched Mr Ross's name off their "Christmas Card" list, some decades ago....)


To quote from no more an illustrious source than the very James Bond himself (Daniel Craig vintage)....

....."...they say you are judged by the strength of your enemies"....

The good Mr Ross would appear to stand in very noble company by that measure......