A Hubbardless Scientology Philosophy?

  • Post author:
  • Reading time:2 mins read

Two recent blog posts (one; two) have whittled down my continuing interest in Scientology. Abandoned components of Scientology now include its Church; its ‘Bridge’, ‘Tech’, and space opera; and its policy (‘Admin’); none of these hold my interest beyond nostalgia. My formal interest lies solely in Scientology philosophy, by which I mean such things as metaphysics, etc.

Recently I started a YouTube channel where I reviewed some of Hubbard’s writings as practice for speaking in front of a camera. Those videos, though now defunct (practice makes perfect!), pushed me over a precipice regarding L. Ron Hubbard.

Eighteen months ago I resigned from the Church of Scientology over its application of Scientology theory as contained in the writings and lectures of Hubbard. I cited a passage from 1950 which was alarming but not unavoidably fatal. Reading Hubbard anew has revealed to me not a few isolated instances of such passages, but a consistency.

Hubbard perpetually denigrates other people, cultures, systems of thought—anything unaligned to his ideas, or sometimes just analogical fodder. I cannot defend his person. And the arrogant persona assigned to Scientologists cannot be mere caricature.

I find this post difficult to write. I suppose it is a component of Scientology philosophy which is difficult to untangle: Hubbard himself (not to mention the personal loss of friendships). Indeed, some hold that a philosophy cannot be separated from its speaker. I disagree. A speaker is context, not the philosophy itself.

What remains of Scientology for me? Very little. But that ‘very little’ is, I believe, a core component. The fruit may be rotten; is the pip nourishing? Can I even call my intended study ‘Scientology philosophy’, or is it now post-scientology philosophy?