I think I figured something out...

[Hanover Fist]

I have been thinking about something Fluffy posted (I know, I know) in the thread An Observation (http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=4337). The question posed (if I may paraphrase) was basically this: Why do critics get so worked up when a scientologist says that some (or all) of the tech 'works for them'? I think I may have figured it out.

I believe it is from the use of the word technology or 'tech'. Here is the definition I found for technology online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technology):

technology:1 a: the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area: engineering 2 <medical technology> b: a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology>
2: a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>
3: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>

From this definition it seems that the scientological use of the word technology is perfectly acceptable. However I think I have found two ways that usage of this word has stirred folks up.

First, for those that are more philosophically inclined (like myself) the usage of the word knowledge (as underlined in the above definition) proposes problems. In Philosophy, knowledge must be justified or it is mere opinion. The application of opinion (or belief) is properly the realm of faith. This is where I have seem some critics make a stand. If scientologists would admit that their system of practices is based on faith and belief as oppossed to fact there would be much less criticism on this point. I would also like to add that it does not seem that most critics have an issue with faith. I do not, even if I have the opinion that the object of one's faith is silly or wrongheaded. (For example I do not believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old or that the Universe is 4 quadrillion years old. If that is what you believe, fine. Just don't try to convince me that it is fact.)

Second is a more colloquial issue. Most people, in everyday usage, think of technology as the practical application of science. I know that is not the proper definition, but colloquially it is appropriate. Now take for example a television. A TV is the practical application of electronics knowledge. Anyone who walks into my house and pushes the power button on my TV can expect it to power up and allow the viewer to watch programming. If the TV fails to work in any way, it is the fault of the TV, not the viewer. A properly working TV will work for anyone all the time, or the tv is broken. If the TV does not work, it is broken. The problem is with the TV set not the viewer. This is how most (if not all) people view technology.

For scientology 'tech' to work sometimes, with some people, but not other times, or with other people, violates that view of what technology is. Therefore most people (especially critics who are looking for faults) tend to sense that something does not 'smell' right.

Therefore, may I suggest a change. If the word 'method' were substituted for 'technology' or 'tech' I believe there would be far less issues with scientologist claims. I know this seems like a small change, but it might be helpful. What say you?


Hanover Fist

[Kathy (ImOut)]

Why do we care if the word is changed? I'm out. I could care less what the CofS calls their "practices".

If I'm understanding your post - here's an analogy. Prescription drugs are a "technology". However that "technology" (prescription drugs) don't particularly work on me. If there is any chance of side effects - I'll have all of them. If there is any chance of a "bad reaction" - I'll have them exaggerated.

The same for the CofS technology - if it works, it works differently on different people. All thetans (people/spiritual beings) are different in my opinion. So it's not "one size fits all".

Maybe the critics are trying to point out that it shouldn't be called a "technology" and that it should be called "practices". Isn't there a reference somewhere that an auditor is a Scn Practitioner? No one calls an auditor a "technician".

Just my own viewpoint. Disregard if I'm totally not getting what you meant in your post.

[Tanstaafl]

I agree that "method" is probably a more appropriate term for what is practised in Scn.

Hubbard said on more than one occasion that Scn tech was as predictable in its outcomes as any aspect of science. Bollocks of course.

He seemed to have a button on acceptance from the mainstream scientific community. He played on this theme in Mission Earth, and while he does have a point generally speaking, I think it was is own "issues" that made him write about it.

As far as Fluffy's point is concerned, I think it's as simple as people wanting everything to be black and white, cut and dried. They don't want it to be complex. They mock-up the scenario and then have to jam square pegs into round holes when evidence or reports don't fit. And the longer they slag off Scn the more any reports of anything good coming out of it makes them
wrong.

Just my 2c.

[Zinjifar]

Those are some good thoughts, but here are some others.

First off, so called 'critics' (quite the generalization :) ) don't get so 'upset' when Scientologists say it worked for them. People new to the subject tend to look a bit askance, but, it's not an 'upset'. They often do try to find out what 'works' means, and may even argue the points. People used to discussing things with Scientologists either just ignore it or disagree or even look on pityingly, but, again, it's not 'upset' or 'all riled up' :) It's just the cost of doing business. A fact of life.

Fluffy especially likes to portray the reaction in an exaggerated way because it fits into her own 'ser-fac'. Failure to 'agree' must be irrational and 'low toned'.

For *me* it's just one of those tautological tail-biters so common in Hubbardism. When I respect and like a person, I will sometimes discuss the issue with them; even doing some poking and prodding to see if I can find the *basis* for 'it works' and even sometimes pull out a pickup stick and see if the stable datums can be destablilized, but, I'll usually not expect any actual result and I try to avoid triggering the 'I'm being attacked!' reaction, which can be problematical.

After all; it *is* a 'stable datum'.

However, there are times when it's a 'public' issue, in the sense of the Scientologist attempting to dominate the discussion of Scientology by demanding that the 'stable datum' of 'It Works!' become the basis of all discussion, as in 'Sure, Scientology's got some bad things, but, *some* of it works, so, now that we're all agreed on that, let's talk about something else'.

There's no reason for a non-Scientologist to 'agree' there, and it's perfectly rational and not 'upset' or 'riled up' to say so. It's just disagreement. Naturally, per Scientology, such a disagreement *is* an attack, a rejection, practically an insinuation that the 'It Works!' proponent is delusional, but, hey them's the breaks.

Zinj

[Tanstaafl]

Re Zinji's post: I've found it to be a very liberating experience to find I "like and respect" people with whom I may have fundamental disagreements or differing beliefs. This is they way forward, not the CoS "them or us" bullshit.
God save us from people who are trying to save us! :melodramatic:

It can get even better when you reach the stage of liking and respecting people regardless of whether they like or respect you. Then there like or respect for you is just a bonus.

This stuff is called "granting beingness" and it is "probably the highest of human virtues" - LRH. Is it practised in CoS? Is it f......................:no:

[Pierrot]

First, for those that are more philosophically inclined (like myself) the usage of the word knowledge (as underlined in the above definition) proposes problems. In Philosophy, knowledge must be justified or it is mere opinion. The application of opinion (or belief) is properly the realm of faith. This is where I have seem some critics make a stand. If scientologists would admit that their system of practices is based on faith and belief as oppossed to fact there would be much less criticism on this point. I would also like to add that it does not seem that most critics have an issue with faith. I do not, even if I have the opinion that the object of one's faith is silly or wrongheaded. (For example I do not believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old or that the Universe is 4 quadrillion years old. If that is what you believe, fine. Just don't try to convince me that it is fact.)

Hanover Fist

Hi HF,

not trying to add to the apparent complexity when trying to grasp the subject of Scn, let me quote what Hubbard says in 1953. The whole article is more than 20 pages long, so those are only fair use quotes for the sake of discussion -


THIS IS SCIENTOLOGY
"Scientology is the science of knowledge. It contains many parts. Its most fundamental division is Scientology itself and Para-Scientology. Under Scientology we group those things of which we can be certain and only those things of which we can be certain. Knowledge itself is certainty; knowledge is not data. Knowingness itself is certainty. Sanity is certainty, providing only that that certainty does not fall beyond the conviction of another when he views it. To obtain a certainty one must be able to observe. But what is the level of certainty we require? And what is the level of observation we require for a certainty or a knowledge to exist? If a man can stand before a tree and by sight, touch or other perception know that he is confronting a tree and be able to perceive its form and be quite sure he is confronting a tree, we have the level of certainty we require. If the man will not look at the tree or, although it is observably a tree to others, if he discovers it to be a blade of grass or a sun, then he is below the level of certainty required and would not be able to grasp Scientology. Some other person, helpfully inclined, would have to direct his perception to the tree until the man perceived without duress that it was indeed a tree he confronted. That is the only level of certainty we require in order to qualify knowledge. For knowledge is observation and is given to those who would look. Things about which there is observational difficulty, such as mirror mazes, items hidden in smoke, objects guessed at in the dark, are outside the boundaries of Scientology."

(...)

"Para-Scientology is that large bin which includes all greater or lesser uncertainties. Here are the questionable things, the things of which the common normal observer cannot be sure with a little study. Here are theories, here are groups of data, even groups commonly accepted as “known.” Some of the classified bodies of data which fall in Para-Scientology are: Dianetics, incidents on the “whole track,” the immortality of Man, the existence of God, engrams containing pain and unconsciousness and yet all perception, prenatals, clears, character, and many other things which, even when closely and minutely observed, still are not certain things to those who observe them. Such things have relative truth. They have to some a high degree of reality; they have to others non-existence. They require a highly specialized system in order to observe them at all."

(...)

"As one advances he discovers that what he first perceived as a certainty can be considerably improved. Thus we have certainty as a gradient scale. It is not an absolute, but it is defined as the certainty that one perceives or the certainty that one creates what one perceives or the certainty that there is perception. Sanity and perception, certainty and perception, knowledge and observation, are then all of a kind, and amongst them we have sanity."

Just food for thought, ok? Thus in a subject that deals with subjective and objective reality - there is a gradient scale. What is Scientology for one, can be Para-Scientology for another. The technology is that "highly specialised system" he writes about. If the shoe fits ...

Hope it somehow helps ;-)

[Hanover Fist]

Those are some good thoughts, but here are some others.

First off, so called 'critics' (quite the generalization :) ) don't get so 'upset' when Scientologists say it worked for them. People new to the subject tend to look a bit askance, but, it's not an 'upset'. They often do try to find out what 'works' means, and may even argue the points. People used to discussing things with Scientologists either just ignore it or disagree or even look on pityingly, but, again, it's not 'upset' or 'all riled up' :) It's just the cost of doing business. A fact of life.

Good point. I know I am being general (probably to a fault) and I am not reluctant to own the statements made above. I guess my main motivation for this is to try to understand my own reaction. I certainly do not want to come off as being unfair or histrionic when criticising scientology or the CoS.


Hanover Fist

[Hanover Fist]

Just food for thought, ok? Thus in a subject that deals with subjective and objective reality - there is a gradient scale. What is Scientology for one, can be Para-Scientology for another. The technology is that "highly specialised system" he writes about. If the shoe fits ...

Hope it somehow helps ;-)

Without getting into a point-by-point discussion (:catfight: :) ) I will say this. I think another problem crops up because of many of Hubbard's own statements. They can seem to be contradictory at times, and he tends to make absolute statements followed up by conditionals that leave plenty of 'escape routes', so to speak. (i.e. the title Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, yet he seems to class Dianetics as para-scientific in the quoted stetements)

Anyhow, I still think that if scientology were more widely admitted (and it is by some practitioners) to be a mystery religion that depends on faith, there would be much less to criticize. That would put it on par with most other religions that depend on the 'personal religious experience' for value.

Hanover Fist

[Pierrot]

Without getting into a point-by-point discussion (:catfight: :) ) I will say this. I think another problem crops up because of many of Hubbard's own statements. They can seem to be contradictory at times, and he tends to make absolute statements followed up by conditionals that leave plenty of 'escape routes', so to speak. (i.e. the title Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, yet he seems to class Dianetics as para-scientific in the quoted stetements)

Anyhow, I still think that if scientology were more widely admitted (and it is by some practitioners) to be a mystery religion that depends on faith, there would be much less to criticize. That would put it on par with most other religions that depend on the 'personal religious experience' for value.

Hanover Fist

;-)

Possibly, but you're talking about "acceptation" (I suppose) by a public? what kind of a problem would that solve? - I've met a lot of practitionners, auditors thus, who don't rely on faith. I wouldn't actually accept and never did accept to be audited or coached or whatever by someone who believes in what he's doing, and depends on faith, and that in any discipline, be it an auditor, a medical doctor or a car's repairman.

There are contradictions, some apparent and some real, in Hubbard teachings. One has to sort them out, and be able to accept and to reject those. There are senior data to be observed or tried, some of a lesser value. The only absolute Hubbard talks about is in his definition of "a static" - and I wouldn't accept anything else in his teachings as absolute truth. (Actually rejecting his definition of a static completely was much fun for a while)

[everfree]

Anyhow, I still think that if scientology were more widely admitted (and it is by some practitioners) to be a mystery religion that depends on faith, there would be much less to criticize. That would put it on par with most other religions that depend on the 'personal religious experience' for value.

That's a very sticky point for many Scnists. Any value in Scn does depend entirely on subjective, personal religious experience - or "faith". But Hubbard taught, and Scnists believe, that Scn does not require faith but is "scientific" so it's very difficult for some Scns to accept the idea.

[Terril park]

Great post.


If scientologists would admit that their system of practices is based on faith and belief as oppossed to fact there would be much less criticism on this point.

In practice that may often be true. However, those who are scientologists
would usually be so because they had a minor or major miracle in their lives
due to application of scientology tech. Read axioms 1&2 which straddles belief, tech and reality.





Second is a more colloquial issue. Most people, in everyday usage, think of technology as the practical application of science. I know that is not the proper definition, but colloquially it is appropriate. Now take for example a television. A TV is the practical application of electronics knowledge. Anyone who walks into my house and pushes the power button on my TV can expect it to power up and allow the viewer to watch programming. If the TV fails to work in any way, it is the fault of the TV, not the viewer. A properly working TV will work for anyone all the time, or the tv is broken. If the TV does not work, it is broken. The problem is with the TV set not the viewer. This is how most (if not all) people view technology.


Hmm. This is sophistry. Go to computers. Most problems are due to
individuals ignorance and inability to solve.

Then go to ... spiritual beings. The worlds scientific efforts barely even look there. Anons don't have on/off buttons. :)



For scientology 'tech' to work sometimes, with some people, but not other times, or with other people, violates that view of what technology is. Therefore most people (especially critics who are looking for faults) tend to sense that something does not 'smell' right.

Therefore, may I suggest a change. If the word 'method' were substituted for 'technology' or 'tech' I believe there would be far less issues with scientologist claims. I know this seems like a small change, but it might be helpful. What say you?

OK. You a closet Freezoner? :)

I must say I like this viewpoint.

May not really agree. Is psychology a method? There is I believe more variations in psychology " tech" than in the Freezone and even distantly related areas.

For the orthodox scn IS a tech. And works pretty well.

A scattergun approach on each level which should reach every individual where they are at. It claims workability not perfection.

I and a legion are witness that it works. :)

Hanover Fist[/QUOTE]

[Terril park]

I Just proved my point. :)

" Great post" is what I said not you.

Struggling to be a newbie and havn't even figured out how to sign on to deeper anon forums.

"Please lord, give me a mercedes benz. " ( JJ) and while your at it
a universal on/off button. :)

[Terril park]

;-)

(Actually rejecting his definition of a static completely was much fun for a while)

Hey wise beardless man ( an assumption) i'd love to hear more on that. :)

[Voltaire's Child]

Those are some good thoughts, but here are some others.

First off, so called 'critics' (quite the generalization :) ) don't get so 'upset' when Scientologists say it worked for them. People new to the subject tend to look a bit askance, but, it's not an 'upset'. They often do try to find out what 'works' means, and may even argue the points. People used to discussing things with Scientologists either just ignore it or disagree or even look on pityingly, but, again, it's not 'upset' or 'all riled up' :) It's just the cost of doing business. A fact of life.

Fluffy especially likes to portray the reaction in an exaggerated way because it fits into her own 'ser-fac'. Failure to 'agree' must be irrational and 'low toned'.


You might not get upset over it...though for me, the jury's out on that one, but as for anyone else, I can only go by the feedback I've received on forums. People have made a big deal about it on many occasions. I've seen them get pretty misemotional about it. I've seen them twist words, write all sorts of accusations based on that, I've seen post after post accusing non CofS Scn'ists of all sorts of things and posts indicating much dismay over the stance. I'd never have said what I did had I not seen it many many times.

[The Oracle]

I think you are both right.

Method is a better word.

Critics don't want to hear about any success.

The loyalists don't want to hear about any failures, or citicisms, either.

At any rate, failure to look and listen, missions to muzzle people up on both sides of the fence, are simply packaging the whole subject in some kid of enforce band.

The real issue is that there are plenty of people in the game who can only think with something when they are enforcing something or it is being enforced on them. It doesn't matter what they are talking about, Scientology or taxes or christianity or family or ethics or work or whatever, it falls down in to the same stone well: enforcment.

It has nothing to do with the subject , if it wasn't Scientology it would be something else being enforced or prohibited. Maybe even liquor gambling and prostitution. Or magick herbs and books in former time.

It has to do with character.

I have found people who live and die by the enforcment code approach all of life with the same force.

It is really the crack of the "must have / can't have" ass.

And I guess it's a nice tight "safe" space to view from if you can squeeze in there.

Fluffy, you have just refused to be squeezed in there by both sides trying to wedge you up there.

T.O.

[Voltaire's Child]

Yeah, that's true. Lotta people tryin' to reform da fluffball.

[The Oracle]

Yeah, that's true. Lotta people tryin' to reform da fluffball.

I got reformed by a shooting gallery in the East Villiage.

Some rich people came in one night, they had tons of money and tons of heroin and no needles. They were from Connecticut, rich kids.

They offered to split a pound of heroin between four of us there if we would give them some works.

Realizing we had something of value we agreed to loan them some.

We all got high and it was mid freezing winter and we were glad for the windfall.

Turned out they needed the works to stay high and recruited us all to go back to Connecticut with them and promised us a ride back. Which they provided.

We were all up there for the week end in some mansion and I thought, "How the hell did these people manage to get so desperate for needles?"

The guy who owned the shooting gallery had it all though and because of him we were sitting up there getting stoned with a bunch of rich people.

I went out on the patio and the owner of the shooting gallery came out and sat beside me.

"This is where you belong." He said. "Don't come back with us. You're going to die back in the East Villiage."

"You're wrong." I said.

"I may not belong in the East Villiage but I sure as hell don't belong here."

I got off from the freezing patio and feel asleep on a livingroom couch.

As the sun was coming up he was nudging me and I opened my eyes and he had records out all over the floor.

He had obviously explored their record collection.

"Just listen to this." He said.

Maybe it had an effect on me because I was high.

Maybe it was time to move on.

Maybe a gentle voice was one I could listen to, one that was not directed at me.

Maybe it was just the beautiful mind.

Maybe it was the line "The Curse has been cast" that blew me into a future.

Probably all of the above.

Whatever, I came to see that change is constant. No two days are the same, no person is the same from day to day, no group is the same day to day. No city is the same day to day. No method or store front is the same day to day.

But one thing is the same day to day.

If you don't keep swimming you'll sink like a stone.

I never returned to the shooting gallery on 4th street and second avenue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ_XwLSN45I



Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.


T.O.

[Voltaire's Child]

Wow, Oracle. That's really interesting. You've led an amazing life.

I think you should write your autobiography. I know I'd pay for a copy.

[The Oracle]

Lot's of people have lived my life.

Hopefully, my contributions to Science will be wholly unique.


T.O.

[The Oracle]

Besides, How would this sound:

I never returned to the shooting gallery on 4th street and second avenue.

I bought a phoney I.D. and got a job with Ringling Brothers Circus shoveling animal shit out of the cages off show time and I scammed the audience out of their money selling popcorn and coke during showtime .

I had a sleight of hand gift even as a child....................


:shrug:

T.O.

[Mark A. Baker]

From this definition it seems that the scientological use of the word technology is perfectly acceptable. However I think I have found two ways that usage of this word has stirred folks up.



First, for those that are more philosophically inclined (like myself) the usage of the word knowledge (as underlined in the above definition) proposes problems. In Philosophy, knowledge must be justified or it is mere opinion. The application of opinion (or belief) is properly the realm of faith.

The meaning of the word "knowledge" derives from its roots in greek: gignosko (or nearly, allowing for transcription). This root word has as its meaning: understanding derived from PERCEPTION (emphasis mine).

Hence "knowledge" is understood to be an INNATELY SUBJECTIVE construct.

It is not an objective phenomenom nor is it a simple result of the argumentive process.

It instead occurs as a result of an INDIVIDUAL'S DIRECT PERCEPTION., whether of an abstraction, or an observable phenomenon.

It is in fact a completely false distinction to refer to "facts" as being somehow objective or independent of personal observation.

Neither empirically nor epistemologically have "facts" ever been demonstrated to be other than based on subjective experience at their root.



This is where I have seem some critics make a stand.

No doubt. Critics of the subject of scientology make "stands" on many points. Usually demonstrating their own ignorance of the subject of scientology in the process.



If scientologists would admit that their system of practices is based on faith and belief as oppossed to fact there would be much less criticism on this point.

No doubt your conclusion is true nevertheless it is founded on a LIE.

Scientology is not based on faith or belief. Scientology is based on the FACTS associated with PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS.

What those facts are is for the individual making the observations to determine. It is no more appropriate for a "critic" to evaluate for a scientologist than it would be for that individual's auditor or C/S.




Second is a more colloquial issue. Most people, in everyday usage, think of technology as the practical application of science.

Which is an overly simplistic and thereby inaccurate view.



I know that is not the proper definition, but colloquially it is appropriate.

So, now you believe in the value of "reality"? :)




For scientology 'tech' to work sometimes, with some people, but not other times, or with other people, violates that view of what technology is.

A view which you have already admitted is faulty.



Therefore most people (especially critics who are looking for faults) tend to sense that something does not 'smell' right.

I suggest that bathing more frequently might be appropriate.

This is the sort of thing meant by the concept of an "hidden standard". Using some inapplicable standard or template to prejudge a question without actually bothering to go to the trouble of testing the hypothesis.




Therefore, may I suggest a change. If the word 'method' were substituted for 'technology' or 'tech' I believe there would be far less issues with scientologist claims.

You can believe it if you wish. I find it highly unlikely. Those individuals most apt to criticize scientology don't do so because scientologists choose to call the subject a "spiritual technology".



I know this seems like a small change, but it might be helpful. What say you?
Hanover Fist

A consignment of antiquarian shoe manufacturers.


Mark A. Baker

[Mojo]

Hence "knowledge" is understood to be an INNATELY SUBJECTIVE construct.

#1. That's a red herring Mark as everything 'experienceable' in life associated with human beingness is inherently an innately 'subjective' construct. Your prose is a subtle mis-direction. Directed toward yourself.


It is not an objective phenomenom nor is it a simple result of the argumentive process.

#2. To the contrary.


It instead occurs as a result of an INDIVIDUAL'S DIRECT PERCEPTION., whether of an abstraction, or an observable phenomenon.

#3. Knowledge is not a consequence of perception Mark. The awareness of knowledge is a consequence of perception. Think about that.


It is in fact a completely false distinction to refer to "facts" as being somehow objective or independent of personal observation.

#4. A re-definition of a fact does not render that fact null and void of it's original substance of meaning. It's merely a re-definition of a fact. To wit: you can say or profess (i.e. define) the moon as being made of blue cheese. But the fact remains the same. Do you know what the moon is composed of. It's not blue cheese.


Neither empirically nor epistemologically have "facts" ever been demonstrated to be other than based on subjective experience at their root.

See #1. above.

You have apparently bought into Mr. Hubbards definition of reality and agreed it's the definition of your own. So be it. But, as some folks in some territorys say: don't piss on our leg and tell us it's raining.

Mojo

[Mark A. Baker]

#1. That's a red herring Mark as everything 'experienceable' in life associated with human beingness is inherently an innately 'subjective' construct.

Which is to say you concede the point: all experience is innately subjective.




#3. Knowledge is not a consequence of perception Mark.

Interestingly enough Plato made a similar claim but even he failed to support it.


The awareness of knowledge is a consequence of perception. Think about that.


You posit a class of "unperceived knowledge"? :)

You claim, as did Plato, that "knowledge" is pre-existent and perception only brings about "awareness of knowledge"? :)

You're being circular. How do you differentiate between "awareness" & "perception"? :)

{All the above are rhetorical questions, let me assure you. I am genuinely uninterested in your responses.} :)

Knowledge is dependent on being aware, else there is no knowledge, only "instinct".

Awareness of what?: "perception".

But don't take it from me. That's what the word "know" means. Go trace the roots of gignosko (again, transliteration) in greek.



You have apparently bought into Mr. Hubbards definition of reality and agreed it's the definition of your own. So be it.

Not at all, you jump to foolish conclusions. You choose to lump me in with those who are LRH adherents because that is what you wish to believe to justify your own "faith".

My own studies in logic, mathematics, & philosophy predate my involvement with scientology by many years. My time spent in the church was "short & sweet".

I never had occasion to do anything stupid like join the Sea Org. I've been a freezone scientologist for 25 years and never felt any compulsion to the "group think" of the church of scientology.

LRH's philosophical musings are not of a sort I would characterize as fundamental.

What LRH did that was useful was to contribute to a practical technology of spiritual insight.

Even there I don't accept that he was any sort of "sole source", but then for the purposes of actually using the technology of scientology, that doesn't really matter.

Nor is it necessary that that technology be "complete" or "perfect". Workable suffices.

Scientology auditing technology is "workable". Knowledge of this can be obtained by an individual through his own experience of the technology.

Many Co$ scientologists have been denied the validity of their own experiences. Often they had views enforced on them that were not their own. Neither of these is a valid criticism of the tech as both are specifically abjured by the tech.

Still, all they can be said to know they know from their own perceptions and experiences.


Mark A. Baker

[The Oracle]

The meaning of the word "knowledge" derives from its roots in greek: gignosko (or nearly, allowing for transcription). This root word has as its meaning: understanding derived from PERCEPTION (emphasis mine).

Hence "knowledge" is understood to be an INNATELY SUBJECTIVE construct.

It is not an objective phenomenom nor is it a simple result of the argumentive process.

It instead occurs as a result of an INDIVIDUAL'S DIRECT PERCEPTION., whether of an abstraction, or an observable phenomenon.

It is in fact a completely false distinction to refer to "facts" as being somehow objective or independent of personal observation.

Neither empirically nor epistemologically have "facts" ever been demonstrated to be other than based on subjective experience at their root.




No doubt. Critics of the subject of scientology make "stands" on many points. Usually demonstrating their own ignorance of the subject of scientology in the process.




No doubt your conclusion is true nevertheless it is founded on a LIE.

Scientology is not based on faith or belief. Scientology is based on the FACTS associated with PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS.

What those facts are is for the individual making the observations to determine. It is no more appropriate for a "critic" to evaluate for a scientologist than it would be for that individual's auditor or C/S.




Which is an overly simplistic and thereby inaccurate view.




So, now you believe in the value of "reality"? :)




A view which you have already admitted is faulty.




I suggest that bathing more frequently might be appropriate.

This is the sort of thing meant by the concept of an "hidden standard". Using some inapplicable standard or template to prejudge a question without actually bothering to go to the trouble of testing the hypothesis.




You can believe it if you wish. I find it highly unlikely. Those individuals most apt to criticize scientology don't do so because scientologists choose to call the subject a "spiritual technology".




A consignment of antiquarian shoe manufacturers.


Mark A. Baker

Well said Mark! Quite reasonable.

T.O.

[The Oracle]

You have apparently bought into Mr. Hubbards definition of reality and agreed it's the definition of your own. So be it. But, as some folks in some territorys say: don't piss on our leg and tell us it's raining.

Mojo

And as some folks in some territory says: Don't post as if you want to engage in conversation and then throw a temper tantrum when someone responds.

You both have interesting understandings and I can see how you are both right.

You just have different understandings and views.

There is room here for good sportsmanship when some has a different view.

T.O.

[Mojo]

And as some folks in some territory says: Don't post as if you want to engage in conversation and then throw a temper tantrum when someone responds.

You both have interesting understandings and I can see how you are both right.

You just have different understandings and views.

There is room here for good sportsmanship when some has a different view.

T.O.

Well observed and well spoken T.O.

If my response to Mark appeared as a temper tantrum I apologize. It was not meant to be that way.

I have no problem with differing beliefs being held in equal esteem. What I have difficulty with is when a belief is re-defined as being a fact. Which re-definition anihilates the essential meaning of the word fact. For some reason that corruption of general semantics produces (or reveals) a charge in me that screams out for attention and recourse. Lol.

It strikes me as being a fraud, and fraud strikes me as being uncomely.

I recall when I first entered scientology (does one 'enter' scientology? lol) being told I should 'temporarily' suspend any 'other' spiritual disciplines so I would not confuse my wins from scientology with, well, those other spiritual disciplines or practices. The emphasis was on the word 'temporarily'.

That was a fraud. Which pissed me off. So to speak. Lol.

I realize intellectually my present position is spiritually defective. Which is to say: When I spiritually wake up I am unmovable (emotionally) by the honesty or dishonesty of others. Neither am I happy nor am I sad. I am just amused.

But I'm not there yet.

Damn it.

Mojo

[The Oracle]

Well observed and well spoken T.O.

If my response to Mark appeared as a temper tantrum I apologize. It was not meant to be that way.

I have no problem with differing beliefs being held in equal esteem. What I have difficulty with is when a belief is re-defined as being a fact. Which re-definition anihilates the essential meaning of the word fact. For some reason that corruption of general semantics produces (or reveals) a charge in me that screams out for attention and recourse. Lol.

It strikes me as being a fraud, and fraud strikes me as being uncomely.

I recall when I first entered scientology (does one 'enter' scientology? lol) being told I should 'temporarily' suspend any 'other' spiritual disciplines so I would not confuse my wins from scientology with, well, those other spiritual disciplines or practices. The emphasis was on the word 'temporarily'.

That was a fraud. Which pissed me off. So to speak. Lol.

I realize intellectually my present position is spiritually defective. Which is to say: When I spiritually wake up I am unmovable (emotionally) by the honesty or dishonesty of others. Neither am I happy nor am I sad. I am just amused.

But I'm not there yet.

Damn it.

Mojo

Well I can assure you there people involved with Scientology that hold it all as a "belief" system, most in fact. That's why you find people involved for years that have never read a book or trained or moved forward with auditing.

And then are people who only approach it with a scientific eye and read and observe for themselves what is true and what is not.

You really can't A=A everyone who walks that path.

You find fanatical loyalists over there that have never read the Dianetics book, go figure!

You'll find people on this forum that have read everything and are walking the middle road.

Part of the fun of this forum is being able to view through others people's eyes.

T.O.

[Voltaire's Child]

If scientologists would admit that their system of practices is based on faith and belief as oppossed to fact there would be much less criticism on this point.

What I get from this phrasing is a desire to get others to say something and possible frustration that those others will not. The internet discussion groups are full of people trying to change others, to mold them into things that others think they should be. Coincidentally, so is CofS. And I don't just mean the auditing. I mean toe-ing the company line. There's also a company line in critic-dom. Several, in fact, though, fortunately, not everyone touts it.

As far as Scn and belief go-- there are elements of Scn that have belief as a characteristic. Particularly in CofS where one is constantly told what to think. And Scn'ists often believe things they were told by Hubbard in his writings, by DM, by staff, etc. They believe things without fully examining them. But then again, Hubbard wrote about that phenomenon, too and described it really well.

The non CofS Scn'ists posting here who've harkened back to their experiences aren't describing belief when they do so. They are describing things they observed and which happened to them. So those things are not a matter of belief.

[Voltaire's Child]

Oracle,

You're right. It's not the same for everybody.

Just as with Christians- one will see many personal interpretations and personalized approaches to that person's religion and practice thereof- same with Scn. Some people believe in Scn, and some Scientologists do not "Believe", so much as experience. And then there are still others who fall in between.

A willing suspension of both belief and disbelief is probably the way to go.

Every Scn'ist is different. It is counterproductive for people to tell other contributors what they believe and are doing. There's way too much of that here and elsewhere. No one really knows how it is for that person except him or herself.

[Mojo]

Part of the fun of this forum is being able to view through others people's eyes.

T.O.

Ahhh! The Holy Grail of Applied-Mystical-Esoteric-Natural-Development (or AMEND), for me. Lol!

I've long since been convinced had I been born at the exact date, time, place and in the form (read that DNA) of another, I would, well, be them. Thus occupying anothers point of view is not so much a function of being tolerant of others as much as it is a function of being honest with myself. So to speak.

As to the question of belief vs. fact I realize it's an endless engagement that cannot be resolved at the level it's found upon (i.e. the literal level). But as you mentioned: Its part of the fun.....

Mojo

[Mark A. Baker]

I have no problem with differing beliefs being held in equal esteem. What I have difficulty with is when a belief is re-defined as being a fact. Which re-definition anihilates the essential meaning of the word fact.

Personally I share your attitude.

However, I also recognize that there is NO SUCH THING as an objective "fact". Such things are intimately tied to perception, mental states, awareness, & knowledge, all of which are innately subjective.

So it is just as ridiculous to expect that ANY subject be confined to "just the facts".

"Facts" to a very large extent do boil down to "agreement" ("reality" as a scientologist might say). This principle is recognized under law by the reliance on a jury system. It is also recognized in physics by the principle of relativity.

A "fact" in physics can only be what physical observers agree has taken place. Where the observations conflict, neither observation can be seen to be either MORE true or LESS so than the observation.

"Objective truth" is in short supply in this universe. :)



For some reason that corruption of general semantics produces (or reveals) a charge in me that screams out for attention and recourse. Lol.

Might be worth taking a look at in session on the theory "any topic with that much charge ....". :wink2:



It strikes me as being a fraud, and fraud strikes me as being uncomely.


Aesthetics!

Beauty is truth, truth beauty.
That is all ye know on Earth, or need to know. :thumbsup:


Mark A. Baker

[Voltaire's Child]

But what if someone chooses to refer to it as a fact as far as that person is concerned? Isn't that their choice?

[Bea Kiddo]

Lot's of people have lived my life.

Hopefully, my contributions to Science will be wholly unique.


T.O.

Thank you TO. I dont know if I ever said this, but: You make my life seem like a holiday. Love ya sis...

[Hanover Fist]

However, I also recognize that there is NO SUCH THING as an objective "fact". Such things are intimately tied to perception, mental states, awareness, & knowledge, all of which are innately subjective.

Triangles have three sides. How does that depend on awareness or perception?


Hanover Fist

[Mojo]

Personally I share your attitude.

However, I also recognize that there is NO SUCH THING as an objective "fact". Such things are intimately tied to perception, mental states, awareness, & knowledge, all of which are innately subjective.

Fair enough Mark. I would simply suggest where you and I disagree is where you believe objective facts don't exist, I believe objective facts do exist but are irrelevant in the absence of ones perception of them. For example you may be unaware of the fact that a body of a certain mass size and shape in space called pluto actually exists (in the MEST universe) but your absence of awareness of that fact does not make that fact disappear, it merely renders itself meaningless to you.


"Facts" to a very large extent do boil down to "agreement" ("reality" as a scientologist might say).

Only to scientologists Mark. In the other world (here on earth, lol) agreement is wholly unnecessary in regard to fact. In the venacular of one line of philosophical thought agreement is centered in the emotional part of being where as fact is centered in the intellecutal part of being.


This principle is recognized under law by the reliance on a jury system. It is also recognized in physics by the principle of relativity.

I would suggest a jury system's (approach to justice) rests squarely on the principle of opinion Mark. After all a jury does not define the facts, they do not create the facts, they do not produce the facts. They merely are made aware of the facts (or non-facts presented as facts) and then decide to agree or disagree with what they were made aware of.

If what you say about facts is true, do you suppose facts, like opinions are whimsical? subject to change with the mood of the perceiver? Like an innocent man convicted of a crime and then absolved of that crime was actually guilty of it at first and then innocent of it later? Nay. The facts were facts all along Mark. It was the human-opinions (via collective agreement) that was in error.


A "fact" in physics can only be what physical observers agree has taken place. Where the observations conflict, neither observation can be seen to be either MORE true or LESS so than the observation.

Ok, let me ask you this, suppose you have a trained scientist and a 5 year old child observe an experiment and the results of it. Are you saying because the 5 year old child observes (read that concludes) something different than the trained scientist that what the scientist reports was not a fact (for the simple reason he/she didn't get the kids agreement? Lol!

I do admire you chutzpah (and tenacity) Mark.


"Objective truth" is in short supply in this universe. :)

Here the heart of the matter is exposed with the introduction of a new word, Truth. Up till now the converstation has been one about facts, agreements, awareness, perception, opinions, etc. And know you go and muddy it all up with the word Truth. Lol.

Well, at the risk of offending the sensibilities of a large population of the planet I will concede that Mr. Hubbard was correct in asserting: What's true for you is true for you. There, I said it. Lol.

The problem with this assertion was that Mr. Hubbard (like so often) did not deepen his one liner with sufficient elaboration to prevent his future adherents from appearing sillly if not deluded in regard to mimicking it.

Left as it stands the following statement might be made with a straight face by a group of sincere scientologists: MEST doesn't exist because we decided to agree that it doesn't exist. Period. The absurdity of which statement would be lost on the group that just agreed MEST out of existance (whilst not noticing in still existed). Lol.


Might be worth taking a look at in session on the theory "any topic with that much charge ....". :wink2:

Point well taken. And agreed with to boot. For me anything that evokes a charge is material to be looked at, inspected, considered, and dealt with. I have no problem with basic dianetic sessions. To the contrary I believe such an event is overwhelmingly healthy and positive.


Aesthetics!

Beauty is truth, truth beauty.
That is all ye know on Earth, or need to know. :thumbsup:


Mark A. Baker

We're close here Mark. I would say Love is Truth and Truth is Love and together they produce that child called Beauty.

Lastly thanks for the interaction. It's forced me to consider and re-consider my positions. If I started off a bit tart please forgive. I'm working on that.

Thanks,
Mojo

[Mark A. Baker]

Fair enough Mark. I would simply suggest where you and I disagree is where you believe objective facts don't exist, I believe objective facts do exist but are irrelevant in the absence of ones perception of them.

Which perception is indeed subjective.

But really we're arguing terminology here. To me, you are confusing two different concepts under the single word of "fact".

First: "fact" - which is a mental consideration about the truth of a state of being or non-being.

Second: "phenomena" - those actions or characteristics of the physical universe which lend themselves to "observation".

Additionally, there arises what is meant by the term observation. This also has two very different but common usages.

The primary usage implies the existence of an intellect or mind (subjective phenomenon) which "perceives" in order to perform an "observation". This clearly is subjective in nature.

The secondary usage of observation is as applies in the realm of the physical sciences. Here, an "observation" merely implies the existence of a "physical interaction which is subject to the laws of the physical universe.

No "mind" or "intellect" is considered implicit in the resulting "physical interaction". It MAY be there, but for the purposes of the natural sciences it is considered irrelevant.

Unfortunately for the physical sciences, it is not so easy to dismiss the subjective aspect of "observation" since all forms of intellectual (subjective) knowledge of such "observations" are themselves subjective.

Thus the physical sciences definition of "observation" is implicitly dependent on the former definition when mind or intellect are included and is also, indirectly, subjective.

Since these two uses of "observation" are NOT equivalent and both are valid it is ESSENTIAL to keep in mind which is meant in any given discussion.

I see you as using the word "fact" in both the obvious subjective sense as well as in the sense of a physical observation (indirectly subjective) without distinction. Hence our arguing past each other.

You of course may see it differently.

By the way, the above discussion of terminology isn't my construct. I cribbed it from various philosophical discussions of science. ;-)





For example you may be unaware of the fact that a body of a certain mass size and shape in space called pluto actually exists (in the MEST universe) but your absence of awareness of that fact does not make that fact disappear, it merely renders itself meaningless to you.

Or, by the above distinction, it IS an "observable phemomenon" in the physical universe but it is not a "fact" until it becomes KNOWN by some intellectual agency.



In the venacular of one line of philosophical thought agreement is centered in the emotional part of being where as fact is centered in the intellecutal part of being.

But the intellect is itself a "subjective" phenomenon. Thus you claim that objective "facts" are based on a subjective phenomenon.

A "bit" inconsistent. :)


I would suggest a jury system's (approach to justice) rests squarely on the principle of opinion Mark. After all a jury does not define the facts, they do not create the facts, they do not produce the facts. They merely are made aware of the facts (or non-facts presented as facts) and then decide to agree or disagree with what they were made aware of.

Under the u.s. & british legal systems the role of the jury, or the judge in cases not relying on jury trial, is to determine the "facts". Competing versions are put forth by opposing counsels & juries have the responsibility of determining the "facts". Whether those "facts" represent the truth of the underlying "phenomena" is indeed another story, but for the purposes of law they are "fact". ;-)

Although, I admit that is playing around a bit. Nevertheless it is a "fact". :wink2:



If what you say about facts is true, do you suppose facts, like opinions are whimsical?

"Facts", as subjective, exist solely in minds. Whether they are "whimsical" depends upon the mind which holds them.



Ok, let me ask you this, suppose you have a trained scientist and a 5 year old child observe an experiment and the results of it. Are you saying because the 5 year old child observes (read that concludes) something different than the trained scientist that what the scientist reports was not a fact (for the simple reason he/she didn't get the kids agreement? Lol!

Not at all.

Experiments do not record "facts". They record "observations". "Facts" (considerations of truth) are conclusions reached by intellects which have examined "observations" (records of events).

Basically, differing concepts are all at play here under your casual use of the word "fact".



I do admire you chutzpah (and tenacity) Mark.

Umm ... errrhh ... thanks? :coolwink:




Left as it stands the following statement might be made with a straight face by a group of sincere scientologists: MEST doesn't exist because we decided to agree that it doesn't exist. Period.


This is firstly a consideration of a great deal of the philosophical world, from Vedanta to Descartes. It is a perspective which increasingly includes the realm of the modern physical sciences. For example, in the realm of physics neither the exact nature of "mass" nor "energy" is well understood by modern scientists. Although a great deal is "known" about their interrelationship.

More central to your point, the philosophical concept of the "universe as a world of illusion" (aka "maya") is clearly regarding how a MIND experiences "reality". It is a mistake to understand such traditional beliefs as "objective truths". Nor is that a mistake I make, as I have already demonstrated, such "objective truths" are apparently non-existent. :-)




Beauty is truth, truth beauty.
That is all ye know on Earth, or need to know.



We're close here Mark. I would say Love is Truth and Truth is Love and together they produce that child called Beauty.

I'd like to be able to take credit here, but actually it was Keats.




Lastly thanks for the interaction. It's forced me to consider and re-consider my positions. If I started off a bit tart please forgive. I'm working on that.

I enjoy a good wrassle.


Mark A. Baker

[Mojo]

I enjoy a good wrassle.


Mark A. Baker

On the third reading of your response I conceded (to myself) I have been, well, pinned. So to speak. Lol.

But do not get too happy with your victory just yet Mark as I am going back to the gym and getting more training to prepare myself should we meet again.

And that's a fact (of the uh, er, um, metaphorical variety). Lol.

Mojo

[Mark A. Baker]

But do not get too happy with your victory just yet Mark as I am going back to the gym and getting more training to prepare myself should we meet again.

For the last few years I've been content if I could follow the argument much less score a point or two.

"The loons! The loons!" :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

[Zinjifar]

The protection of a single stable datum is better than Ron's 'Church' usually manages.

Thank you Ron!

Zinj

[Escalus]

Triangles have three sides. How does that depend on awareness or perception?


Hanover Fist

The ability to see four sides on a triangle is OTXX. Higher level stuff.

I love people who argue that the argument is just about terminology and then release their own terminology to top it.

"no such thing as objective facts." Is that as objective fact?

[Snuffy]

That's a very sticky point for many Scnists. Any value in Scn does depend entirely on subjective, personal religious experience - or "faith". But Hubbard taught, and Scnists believe, that Scn does not require faith but is "scientific" so it's very difficult for some Scns to accept the idea.

I can remember taking up someone who referred to $cn as my "faith" by telling him it wasn't my faith, but certainty.

God, how insufferably indoctrinated I was!

[everfree]

God, how insufferably indoctrinated I was!

You and me both. But at least we were bright or lucky enough to figure it out eventually.