PDA

View Full Version : Real life Type III in Scientology?



Greglf333
24th July 2011, 07:58 AM
I really think Tom Cruise is a Type III. He acted crazy on Oprah and on Matt Laurer. Plus, he is just plain weird. What would Hubbard say?
4332

Jachs
24th July 2011, 08:32 AM
What would Hubbard say?

Show me the money.

Gadfly
24th July 2011, 02:39 PM
I really think Tom Cruise is a Type III. He acted crazy on Oprah and on Matt Laurer. Plus, he is just plain weird. What would Hubbard say?
4332

Who cares what Hubbard might say.

Why bother trying to understand any person or ANYTHING from the framework of Hubbard's nutty notions on SPs, "stuck in some long past incident", "overwhelm from winning viewpoints", and the various PTS types (I, II and III)?

I mean I suppose I could try to understand how some 14th century priest of the Spanish Inquisition might interpret Cruise's behavior, but WHY BOTHER? Such frameworks of understanding are ludicrous. As it Hubbard's.

Infinite
24th July 2011, 03:27 PM
I really think Tom Cruise is a Type III. He acted crazy on Oprah and on Matt Laurer. Plus, he is just plain weird. What would Hubbard say?

I really think Tom Cruise is the victim of an organised crime designed to disintegrate his cognitive functioning so as to extract as much of his cash as possible, even without regard for potential future earnings.

What would Hubbard say? Yep: "show me the money".

AngeloV
24th July 2011, 03:33 PM
There is no such thing as a 'type III', a meaningless hubbard-ism. End of discussion.

Gadfly
24th July 2011, 03:45 PM
There is no such thing as a 'type III', a meaningless hubbard-ism. End of discussion.

So true.

Doing a very quick look at this, here is how I see it.

Crazy people of any sort, whether in a mental institution or in a hit blockbuster movie like Mission Impossible, exist and live IN THEIR MINDS more than out in the world of the shared physical universe. Such people have markedly divorced calm and honest observations of the world "out there", with their "IDEAS about the world out there". Now, ALL people, any person, does most surely exist to some degree in BOTH. I have my universe of ideas and thoughts, and I also have my dealings with the world "out there". A person is saner to the degree that he or she is 1) AWARE of these two distinct "realities", and 2) notices and understands how and how well various IDEAS relate to the situations and things the ideas claim to define and describe. This is a much better model for explaining "problems with a mind".

What places a person in the nutty zone is that he or she 1) places undo importance on his or her own IDEAS and SIGNIFICANCES, and 2) confuses self-created ideas about out there with actual events and situations of "out there", and 3) in extreme cases supplants this inner world of ideas and concepts with "out there".

The babbling drolling inmate of some mental institution exists MORE in this "inner delusional world" of meanings, signficances and agreements. But, also so does the devoted Scientologist, fanatical Muslim, or over-the-top Christian planning to bomb an abortion clinic.

They all have allowed their own IDEAS to take seniority over all else. It is simply a matter of degree.

If you are going to accept ANY idea and have it take precedence over ALL ELSE, realizing that ANY IDEA is fundamentally ARBITRARY and entirely of the nature of an ASSUMPTION when it comes to "defining the way things REALLY ARE", here are a few that I suggest:

Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You

Forgive Them For They Know Not What They Do

It is quite strange really, because I am in no way a Christian, and those two ideas exist in Christianity (though they most likely have earlier roots), yet I find the above two maxims just about the BEST for modeling behavior, and possibly as a way of action that will result in legitimate spiritual growth. Where legitimate spiritual growth may be an IDEA of Scientology, it is NOT an actual outcome of participation in the subject and practices of Scientology (just observe the people who are dedicated followers).

Hubbard's model/theory of SPs and PTSes is NOT a valid explanation of "psychosis" or of ANY "mental problem". It is a fictional make-believe mock-up odf a model (theory) that some people accept as true and treat as far more than just a "theory".

Dean Blair
24th July 2011, 06:44 PM
So true.

Doing a very quick look at this, here is how I see it.

Crazy people of any sort, whether in a mental institution or in a hit blockbuster movie like Mission Impossible, exist and live IN THEIR MINDS more than out in the world of the shared physical universe. Such people have markedly divorced calm and honest observations of the world "out there", with their "IDEAS about the world out there". Now, ALL people, any person, does most surely exist to some degree in BOTH. I have my universe of ideas and thoughts, and I also have my dealings with the world "out there". A person is saner to the degree that he or she is 1) AWARE of these two distinct "realities", and 2) notices and understands how and how well various IDEAS relate to the situations and things the ideas claim to define and describe. This is a much better model for explaining "problems with a mind".

What places a person in the nutty zone is that he or she 1) places undo importance on his or her own IDEAS and SIGNIFICANCES, and 2) confuses self-created ideas about out there with actual events and situations of "out there", and 3) in extreme cases supplants this inner world of ideas and concepts with "out there".

The babbling drolling inmate of some mental institution exists MORE in this "inner delusional world" of meanings, signficiances and agreements. But, also so does the devoted Scientologist, fanatical Muslim, or over-the-top Christian planning to bomb an abortion clinic.

They all have allowed their own IDEAS to take seniority over all else. It is simply a matter of degree.

If you are going to accept ANY idea and have it take precedence over ALL ELSE, here are a few that I suggest:

Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You

Forgive Them For They Know Not What They Do

It is quite strange really, because I am in no way a Christian, and those two ideas exist in Christianity (though they most likely have earlier roots), yet I find the above two maxims just about the BEST for modeling behavior, and possibly as a way of action that will result in legitimate spiritual growth. Where legitimate spiritual growth may be an IDEA of Scientology, it is NOT an actual outcome of participation in the subject and practices of Scientology (just observe the people who are dedicated followers).

Hubbard's model/theory of SPs and PTSes is NOT a valid explanation of "psychosis" or of ANY "mental problem". It is a fictional make-believe mock-up that some people accept as true.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The terms and concepts in Scientology have very little to do with reality outside of Scientology.

From the accounts of others who worked with L Ron Hubbard that I have read, he would have been declared type III himself and acted quite loco even in his early days to say nothing of the final years after his stroke.

IMO your suggestion about accepting the two maxims (Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You and Forgive Them For They Know Not What They Do) is good advice and would be helpful to anyone in life.

Voltaire's Child
24th July 2011, 11:07 PM
I really think Tom Cruise is a Type III. He acted crazy on Oprah and on Matt Laurer. Plus, he is just plain weird. What would Hubbard say?
4332

Hubbard would say that he's PTS to an SP (Miscavige).

The more they hang out together, the weirder Cruise gets.

degraded being
24th July 2011, 11:18 PM
If TC were not a celeb he would have been delared and disconnected and blackmailed to hell and back for being the "Why" and the "Who" on global
trashing of scientology PR. As a celeb I guess they have a quiet slowly moving
ride to oblivion in progress for him. Not much further to go.