“The New Word” by Allen Upward – Scientology (c) 1908

“In 1938 I codified certain axioms and phenomena into what I called ‘Scientology.’  said L Ron Hubbard in  the pre-1978 Red “Tech” Volumes on page 3.


1908-scientology

“This is not science, but only scientology. It is language. It is the magic lullabye in which the shapes of things melt and reshape themselves forever”

“And unhappily, Scientology is often mistaken for science as theology is for worship”

“We distinguished between science and scientology”

In 2008 an anon sent me this link from an ebay book sale:

This text ran on ebay to sell this book item #130089204681
Feb 1 2008
First use of the word 'Scientology' in Print Anywhere!

The New Word
by Allen Upward

(corresponding memeber of the Parnassus Philological Society, Athens)

1908 London - Second Edition (First Edition was published 
anonymously - this listed edition was the first one published under Allen Upward's name)

320 pages

Aside from being a very fascinating book in its own rite, 
this book contains the first coining of the word 'Scientology' 
in print.  Allen Upward was quite the wordsmith and if 
you read him you will see that he is always creatively 
coining words to fit his meaning.  That L. Ron Hubbard 
used the word 'Scientology' for his practical religious 
philosophy in 1952 is what really makes this book 
interesting.  L. Ron Hubbard was always coining a word 
or two himself to make his work easier to understand.  
 There are three usages of 
'Scientology' in this book and they occur on pages 139, 149 & 156.

Contents:

   1. The Riddle
   2. Psychology: The Personal Equation
   3. Etymology: The Castle in the Air
   4. Lexicography: The Play upon words
   5. Metaphysics: The house of cards
   6. Altruism: The Face in the looking-glass
   7. Materialism: the shape
   8. Physics: the knot
   9. Dynamics: the demon in the stone
  10. Chemistry: the man in the crumb
  11. Mathematics: the conjuring trick
  12. Logic: the cipher
  13. Ontology: the end
  14. Metastrophe: the magic crystal
  15. Biology: the elf
  16. Theology: the painted window
  17. Exegetics: the forbidden fruit
  18. Pathology: the pyramid
  19. Astrology: the eclipse
  20. Ethics: the book of etiquette
  21. The Heir
Please see picture - this is my only copy of this rare 1908  
second edition from England 
- I have never run across another copy of this edition.


Images of the use of the word Scientology with means pseudoscience!

Here are pages from the book that the sellor was gracious enough to send to this writer when i explain I owned “Lermanet.com Exposing the CON since 1993”

Page 139
newword0139

Page 149
page149-thenewwor

Page 156

page156-thenewword

================

The first use of the word scientology, as used in 1908, is to have the meaning of pseudo-science.

If you believe in Hubbard, here is one more proof that man never had an original idea in his life.

On Dec 5th 1995, in RTC vs Lerma, scientology lost it’s trade secret claims in US Federal Court.  I wish we had this book back then. The good thing is that those coming after we early warriors, now have it.

Perhaps it is time to learn the definition of fraud from Black’s Law Dictionary:

Fraud: An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words ot conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal inquiry; anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture; fraud comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a branch of legal or equitable duty and resulting in damage to another.

Sidebar: In his book Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age, Christopher Kutz suggests that marginally effective participants in a collective harm are accountable for the victim’s suffering, “not because of the individual differences they make, but because their intentional participation in a collective endeavour directly links them to the consequences of that endeavour.”