A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

[Mark A. Baker]

But if you want to independently and objectively study a subject, and reach some conclusion and judgments, you have to define the scope of the subject. This is equally true of a religion. What does it entail? What does it include? Perhaps more precisely, what are (and are not) included in its scriptures? And for that purpose I think it only fair to include the currently recognized books, tapes, HCOBs, HCOPLs, etc. And for that purpose, I think it unfair to not include them.

I think it is quite beneficial to include them for purposes of study. That does not imply acceptance of them as a scriptural "given". That runs contrary to the stated fundamental principles of the subject.

Your point about defining the subject is a good one. For me it constitutes a methodical approach to the general subject of spirituality with a focus of practicing and extending the methods & principles originally laid out in the book DMSMH. This does not assume or require "faith" or "belief" in any individual or teaching. Instead the focus is on the study of a variety of principles & techniques (many though not all originating in Hubbard's writiings) with the intention of applying for the spiritual benefit of self & others.

I'm not a proponent of the "religion" angle. I do maintain the subject has value with regard to spirituality. The culture I live in does not generally recognize the distinction, particularly as regards laws & customs.

And as I've now repeatedly said, I find it less than honest, and indeed troubling, when Freezoners and Independent Scientologists consistently and conveniently define as being outside the religion of Scientology anything that is morally reprehensible or objectionable.

Well I don't speak for other scientologists. Individuals have different views on what constitutes the subject of scientology (as distinct from the church) just as they have different understandings of what constitutes christianity or other religions.

If you are "troubled" by this, then perhaps you are still too accepting of LRH's & the Co$'s monopolistic view of their own control of the subject of scientology. They like to maintain that anything they don't approve of is not scientology. Doesn't make it so.

With regard to religion, the situation is very much: it's true if it's true for you.


Mark A. Baker

[Alanzo]

Hubbard was himself inconsistent. Further, although the church he created regards him as "Founder" and an unchallengeable source, that does not mean it is true. It is in fact inconsistent with the subject of scientology as LRH himself chose to define it.

And yet LRH himself assumed it.

Your argument is that LRH himself was inconsistent, but the subject he created was not inconsistent.

Yet the subject of Scientology is made up of LRH's words, and ONLY LRH's words.

So what - exactly - in the subject of Scientology is not inconsistent, even though LRH himself was inconsistent?

A. Belief in Hubbard is not the same thing as the subject of scientology.

Show the difference with enough evidence to support your point in A above.

B. What LRH may have thought is only useful as advisory data. What use any individual chooses to make of those advices are his own responsibility.

Give a specific example where what LRH may have thought is only useful as advisory data, and does not actually affect or even relate to the accuracy of the Scientology data.

C. Hubbard is dead and has been so for over 20 years.

Absolutely. And thank fucking God.

All are free to practice scientology in accordance with their own understanding, or not as they may choose. What any individual or group says is only of significance to the degree their authority is respected. The "authority" of both LRH & the Co$ have been compromised. They themselves are responsible for the lack of respect they have engendered for themselves.

Scientology has been compromised by its own inconsistencies.

For example:

Scientology says that THE ONLY REASON A STUDENT GIVES UP A STUDY OR BECOMES CONFUSED, OR UNABLE TO LEARN, IS BECAUSE HE OR SHE HAS PASSED A WORD THAT THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND.

I gave up a study of comedy writing for television because I made an ass out of myself in the class. I was too embarrassed to continue. I actually embarrassed myself out of the class.

Even if you found a word I did not understand in the materials I had read, it would not be the causative factor in my quitting the course.

The reason I quit was because I was too embarrassed to continue.

Students have quit courses because they did not have the money to continue, because they wanted a different career, because they got sick and could no longer go to class. I know one guy who got his penis stuck in his own zipper and after that he quit college altogether.

Scientology's statement above is FALSE.

It's statements like the above ALL THROUGHOUT Scientology which makes Scientology completely ridiculous.

L Ron Hubbard's inconsistencies and cons that he runs on people throughout the creation, build up, and maintenance of the history of the Church of Scientology - which you fully recognize - do not help to make Scientology consistent or even valuable.

But Scientology itself is a colossal mess of inconsistencies and falsehoods.

And you're right: That's why Scientology is bullshit.

Not just because L Ron Hubbard himself was a major liar, a con man, and a predatory, narcissistic parasite on the most vulnerable people he could get his hands on.

[Mark A. Baker]

And yet LRH himself assumed it.

Your argument is that LRH himself was inconsistent, but the subject he created was not inconsistent.

False assumption. You confuse your beliefs with my words.

The subject of scientology is the development of mental/spiritual technology for the purpose of promoting the spiritual welfare of self & others. The works of LRH were developed as guides BUT they are not the same thing as the subject. Hubbard's words are secondary to the underlying subject just as Newton's words are secondary to the subject of real analysis.

With regard to Hubbard's writings, etc., those words which promote benefit to self & others as determined by the individual may be regarded as consistent with scientology. What doesn't, isn't.

You're just stuck in identifying Hubbard with the subject of scientology. That has never been my attitude. LRH considered himself "Source". That doesn't mean you or anyone else needs to do so also. Although the Co$ promotes that view as do some others.


Mark A. Baker

[Mark A. Baker]

Give a specific example where what LRH may have thought is only useful as advisory data, and does not actually affect or even relate to the accuracy of the Scientology data.

2 1/2%


Mark A. Baker

[Alanzo]

False assumption. You confuse your beliefs with my words.

The subject of scientology is the development of mental/spiritual technology for the purpose of promoting the spiritual welfare of self & others.

Who said that?

Hubbard? I thought he was inconsistent.

The subject of Scientology is the use of socially coercive and hypnotic techniques to instill thoughts, emotions and behaviors in people which are consistent with the goals of the Church of Scientology, to the detriment of the goals of the individual.

If you survey the objective results of Scientology from almost 60 years of its application to individuals all over the world, you will find that my definition is way more prevelant than yours.

And so if L Ron Hubbard is inconsistent and therefore not able to define Scientology, then my definition, and its supporting evidence, is much more valid than yours.

The works of LRH were developed as guides BUT they are not the same thing as the subject.

I still don't see a specific example here.

Could you please provide one?

Hubbard's words are secondary to the underlying subject just as Newton's words are secondary to the subject of real analysis.

I'm bolding your statement above so that we might look at it more closely:

Hubbard's words are secondary to the underlying subject just as Newton's words are secondary to the subject of real analysis.

"just as Newton's words are secondary to the subject of real analysis?"

What does this mean? How could this be a simile of Hubbard and Scientology?

Newton was not even the founder of physics, let alone "real analysis".

What are you talking about? How does this relate to L Ron Hubbard and his subject of Scientology?

Specific, real, and direct examples please.

With regard to Hubbard's writings, etc., those words which promote benefit to self & others as determined by the individual may be regarded as consistent with scientology. What doesn't, isn't.

According to what definition of the subject of Scientology which do not use the "inconsistencies" of L Ron Hubbard's words, but the "consistencies" of the subject of Scientology?

Can you see the twists and wigglies here?

You're just stuck in identifying Hubbard with the subject of scientology. That has never been my attitude. LRH considered himself "Source". That doesn't mean you or anyone else needs to do so also. Although the Co$ promotes that view as do some others.

Mark A. Baker

No. You are just stuck in Scientology.

Something in Scientology helped you once, and it still helps you in some way.

But that does not mean that the bullshit you are spewing here is objectively true.

Your statements are very inconsistent with the objective record of L Ron Hubbard's own words - as they relate to the subject of Scientology, and with Scientology itself as a subject.

It helped you.

All right.

But these statements by you are simply your continued attempt to justify the overall existence of a completely failed and factually inconsistent subject.

At least you have come to see what an inconsistent idiot Hubbard was.

That's half the battle.

Keep going. You'll get the other half some day.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Only by extraordinarily tortured logic can Scientology be assessed on the basis of adroitly tiptoeing around and picking out the positive elements as "true Scientology"....and disqualifying the vast number of remaining destructive elements as "not Scientology."

Under such ill conceived protocols, I am inspired to start a group of Holocaust survivors who revel in all the "workable" aspects of Hitler's Third Reich. After all,provably, the unemployment rate of German minorities was reduced to zero because such sane and workable "tech" was developed.

Who can fault the Nazi's promotion of such pro-survival and ethical policies extolling the virtues of "WORK" and "FREEDOM?" Hey, if some bad things happened to some low toned victims, perhaps they should take some responsibility for themselves.

Certainly, such anomalous events as the gas chambers cannot be included in any intelligent discussion of Nazi philosophy. Since Nazi doctrine defined itself as the "greatest good" anything that is not good is, ipso facto, not any part of the Nazism I know and love.

[Veda]

It has been awhile, but I've read all of the books. Many more than once.

And yes, I take your point. I'm sure I could find a generalized definition of Scientology in the books (knowing how to know, etc.) that does not necessarily include HCOBs, HCOPLs or conveniently, anything objectionable. [Except, of course, the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics itself.]

But I don't think a definition of Scientology that conveniently excludes the HCOBs and HCOPLs as scriptures or valid "tech" would be acceptable to Hubbard, who after all was the Founder, the Church, or Scientologists generally.

The point remains. Many Freezoners and "independent" Scientologists adopt the practice of defining as being outside the "religion" of Scientology anything that is morally reprehensible or objectionable. "But that's not Scientology!" they say, convincing maybe themselves, but no one else.

Unfortunately, Scientology's founder was a devious fellow - a manipulator - and this trait resonates throughout Scientology. Hubbard told rank and file Scientologists that there was no "hidden data line" when, of course, there was. Hubbard told Scientologists to tell outsiders (and new 'raw meat') that "We have all out data readily available to anyone who desires it," when, of course, that was a lie.

IMO, Scientology is a mixture of truths, some innovative (potentially beneficial) counseling procedures, half-truths, lies, gimmicks, ploys, and tricks.

Scientology PR types will present a "truth," or a sampling of a (potentially) beneficial counseling procedure, and when questioned further, will "explain" that the subject is *so* vast that it cannot be described or fathomed by the inquiring person, or that the subject is really very simple and that "all the rest" is not Scientology at all, or... in short, anything that "handles" the person.

It might even be asserted (depending on the situation and the 'public') that one can't really disagree with Scientology since the subject - being so vast - contains contradictions. Yet, upon closer examination, many of these seeming contradictions are an expression of a well-planned "overt/covert" design by Scientology's founder.

Hubbard's fingerprints are all over Scientology, while Scientology (particularly Freeezone) PR persons will sometimes insist that Hubbard has little or nothing to do with the Scientology.

The manipulation, or attempted manipulation, is pervasive - interrupted only by interludes of occasional brilliant truths that dazzle the mind.

Scientology can be discussed with Scientologists - who are a combination of manipulatees (those manipulated) and manipulators (those who attempt to manipulate) - but it can be frustrating.

Scientology's "PR tech" provides some clues as to the nature of the problem, and is, itself, a seeming mass of contradictions. Yet, it is not. As with the rest of Scientology, it's deviously layered and compartmentalized.

The following thread looks at this area, and in post number three is a link to a post that has a link to a document called 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels'. A glance at the Table of Contents of 'Parallels' provides a quick over-view of the actual subject of Scientology.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1911

Maybe this will help the reduce the confusion of "What is Scientology?"

[lkwdblds]

Mark - I only meant to compare BWG to Sarah Palin as to looks, having above average intelligence and having some verbal skill or something verbally which set each apart from the crowd. I don't know much about BWG. The only knowledge comes mainly from her posts which I have found to be worth reading and well thought out and to a very secondary extent the picture which appears in her title block. I have no idea if their politics have anything in common, I very much doubt it. Also, both women appear to "shoot straight" and are not afraid to state their views directly. That, plus both seeming to be physically attractive are all that they have in common. Their politics, morals, values, level of sophistication, etc. are probably not similar, I do not know one way or the other. The point was that with just the looks, smarts and a good facility with words, a woman can sometimes be catapulted into the limelight. Also, I agree with your later comments on Margaret Thatcher.

On your ongoing disupute with Alanzo, I joined the fray only less than an hour ago, when I began reading your back and forth sparring match. I believe the topic you are arguing over is a very complex issue. I want to stick in my two cents but I need a little more time to mull this dispute over and might say more later.

I think the key to the dispute is in the definition of terms. Mark is trying to define the term Scientology as he sees it and Alanzo is going with a more conventional use of the term. There is nothing logically to stop Mark from defining Scientology his way and building a logical edifice around this definition. The problem he will face is one of agreement. The rank and file Scientologist and ex Scientologist is more likely to use Alanzo's definition and thus Mark will find and should expect to find that many Scientologists and ex Scientologists do not agree with him. The two sides can continue to try to persuade the opposing side to adopt their definition while each will continue using their different definitions as the battle is going on.

I was looking at Nazism as an alternate subject to apply this arguement to. I would say that it would be easier to consider Nazism as a subject in its own right, with Hitler merely being a contributor to its theories and a user of its principles than to try and separate Scientology from Hubbard. BY THE WAY, I AM NOT IN ANY WAY TRYING TO LIKEN HUBBARD TO HITLER OR SCIENTOLOGY TO NAZISM.

Something similar to Nazism but initially without the antisemitism, was used in Italy under the name of Facism. Besides Hitler, there were earlier major contributors to Nazism who were anti semites in England and Europe whom Hitler read and received inspiration from. Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbles, also contributed heavily to Nazism.

The key point is that if Hitler had not lived, Nazism definitely would not have arisen to be a powerful movement and probably the terms Nazi and Nazism would not be in existence. In the case of Scientology, Nordenholz in Germany wrote a book entitled "Scientolgie" in German in 1934 which addressed some of the same subject matter of Hubbard's work on Scientology. The 1934 German book did not circulate widely and was quite obscure with no follow up effort by its author. The term did come into existence, however, before Hubbard got involved, and this fact does aid Mark's argument. Still if Hubbard had not lived, I believe Nordholz's work would have become totally obscured and no one alive today would know of the term Scientology. Besides, there is another term which means almost the same thing as Scientology and that is "Epistomology" which is a branch of the study of Philosophy. Epistomology does definitely exist as its own subject and can be spoken of easily with Hubbard totally out of the equation.

If Hitler had not lived, Nazism would have never existed and the word today would probably not be known, this would also apply for all practical purposes to Hubbard and Scientology, with the 1934 German book as small exception. Is it enough for a subject, a religion or a field of study to be so closely associated with its developer and earliest practitioner that the subject has no independent existence, separate from this person or does the subject once developed, have a life of its own without its developer which is independent of the developer's own writings?
I throw this question open to other members of the Board. Maybe this could be a new thread which Mark should start.
Lkwdblds

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

At the time it was originated and for decades after, it was a remarkable innovation as well as arguably, for many purposes, the best spiritual technology available. Much of it STILL has tremendous value when used in accordance with the Auditor's Code, as it is supposed to be.


Mark A. Baker

lol @ "spiritual technology" , actually using either of those words to describe Hubbard's work is hilarious in itself.

[alex]

And yet LRH himself assumed it.

Your argument is that LRH himself was inconsistent, but the subject he created was not inconsistent.

Yet the subject of Scientology is made up of LRH's words, and ONLY LRH's words.

So what - exactly - in the subject of Scientology is not inconsistent, even though LRH himself was inconsistent?


Show the difference with enough evidence to support your point in A above.

Give a specific example where what LRH may have thought is only useful as advisory data, and does not actually affect or even relate to the accuracy of the Scientology data.

Absolutely. And thank fucking God.

Scientology has been compromised by its own inconsistencies.

For example:

Scientology says that THE ONLY REASON A STUDENT GIVES UP A STUDY OR BECOMES CONFUSED, OR UNABLE TO LEARN, IS BECAUSE HE OR SHE HAS PASSED A WORD THAT THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND.

I gave up a study of comedy writing for television because I made an ass out of myself in the class. I was too embarrassed to continue. I actually embarrassed myself out of the class.

Even if you found a word I did not understand in the materials I had read, it would not be the causative factor in my quitting the course.

The reason I quit was because I was too embarrassed to continue.

Students have quit courses because they did not have the money to continue, because they wanted a different career, because they got sick and could no longer go to class. I know one guy who got his penis stuck in his own zipper and after that he quit college altogether.

Scientology's statement above is FALSE.

It's statements like the above ALL THROUGHOUT Scientology which makes Scientology completely ridiculous.

L Ron Hubbard's inconsistencies and cons that he runs on people throughout the creation, build up, and maintenance of the history of the Church of Scientology - which you fully recognize - do not help to make Scientology consistent or even valuable.

But Scientology itself is a colossal mess of inconsistencies and falsehoods.

And you're right: That's why Scientology is bullshit.

Not just because L Ron Hubbard himself was a major liar, a con man, and a predatory, narcissistic parasite on the most vulnerable people he could get his hands on.

I find consistency in Hubbard. The trick is to put it all into a large enough context. If you break it into little pieces, and then compare pieces with out the other elements of the whole, sure it is easy to crow "this and that make no sense together".

An oily crankshaft and leather seat are inconsistent without the context of a car. Yet a car is inconsistent in the context of the ocean.

You can understand, or protest. Both valid choices.