Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 190

Thread: A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

  1. #101
    Fool on the Hill Voltaire's Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    In censorship-land ..but not for long
    Posts
    16,511
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kha Khan View Post
    I was trying to make a point regarding this and failed to make myself sufficiently clear.

    The "cultic structure" you refer to is result, and indeed the inevitable result, of the written policies -- the HCOPLs, the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, the HCOBs, etc. Particularly in a religion where the policy re: policy is that "if it isn't written it isn't true," the writings make a big difference. And the written scriptures of Scientology are as autocratic, rigidly hierarchical, "top down" and "cultic" as possible.
    Yes, many of them are. You're not saying anything I haven't said in the past.



    Even if a given HCOPL is on its face purely procedural and does not by itself mandate a substantive form of abuse, the entire structure of HCOPLs, HCOBs, books, tapes, etc. create the "cultic structure" you have correctly identified and rightfully complain about. And those HCOPLs, HCOBs, books, tapes, etc. are Scientology. Scientology isn't anything but them.
    'Cept that the majority of those things contain Hubbard's theories about spirituality,communication, and other things. Easy enough to isolate the toxic stuff from that.
    I am truly into myself, yes. And I'm just as interested in other people. When I'm not thinking of one, I'm thinking of the other.

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alanzo View Post
    "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?

    Analysis is the general area of mathematics which constitutes what is commonly called the calculus. Real analysis constitutes the subject of analysis limited to the field of real numbers. Newton was one of the originators of the field along with Leibniz. Neither one is wholly & unequivocally the "source" of real analysis. Their original references are relatively rarely directly referenced in the study of the subject by contemporary mathematicians. That does not invalidate either the subject or the real contributions [pun ] of these gentlemen.

    It is necessary to separate the subject matter from the way it is described or the people involved, just as serious students who concentrate on other disciplines do.


    Mark A. Baker

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alanzo View Post
    Who said that?

    Hubbard? I thought he was inconsistent.

    The fact of inconsistency does not mean that all statements are false. It means that some statements are mutually contradictory. The trick lies in learning to weed out the conflicting, erroneous, or non-beneficial bits.


    Mark A. Baker

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alanzo View Post
    But that does not mean that the bullshit you are spewing here is objectively true.
    A. It's not bullshit. :D

    B. No, it's SUBJECTIVELY true.

    Subjective truth is all that is possible with regard to spiritual insights. Requiring a different standard of truth for what is an innately intense personal experience is indicative of a fundamental lack of wisdom.


    Mark A. Baker

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkwdblds View Post
    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 didn't take your remarks too seriously. I took your remarks as an opportunity to illustrate a few of her major defects in contrast to a few of the obvious virtues of Ms. BWG. Palin, like W, is a figure tremendously out of her depth.


    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 prefer to think it is less of an argument and more of a discussion. I'm not terribly bothered about agreement with others. I do like to encourage others in considering different perspectives. I also enjoy when others can point out new perspectives which I have not previously encountered.

    There are few definitive answers for the majority of issues that ex-scientologists are faced with about scientology, LRH, & the Co$. I tend to think there is more benefit to be had from seeing these events from a variety of perspectives than from one fixed set of hardened beliefs.

    Beliefs of any character are of little service beyond defining the limits of expectations. This is not an "unalloyed positive".


    Mark A. Baker
    Last edited by Mark A. Baker; 17th August 2009 at 09:07 PM.

  6. #106
    Crusader lkwdblds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Orange Country, CA
    Posts
    5,298

    Default I'm good with everything you say here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker View Post
    I prefer to think it is less of an argument and more of a discussion. I'm not terribly bothered about agreement with others. I do like to encourage others in considering different perspectives. I also enjoy when others can point out new perspectives which I have not been previously encountered.

    There are few definitive answers for the majority of issues that ex-scientologists are faced with about scientology, LRH, & the Co$. I tend to think there is more benefit to be had from seeing these events from a variety of perspectives than from one fixed set of hardened beliefs.

    Beliefs of any character are of little service beyond defining the limits of expectations. This is not an "unalloyed positive".


    Mark A. Baker
    I am fine with what you say here. If the discussion is to continue, I guess the ball is in Alanzo's court. I guess my remarks were not relevant in this discussion. Perhaps if I want to discuss that matter I should start a new thread myself...............................Lkwdblds

  7. #107
    Patron Meritorious Kha Khan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Marcab Confederacy
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker View Post
    B. No, it's SUBJECTIVELY true.

    Subjective truth is all that is possible with regard to spiritual insights. Requiring a different standard of truth for what is an innately intense personal experience is indicative of a fundamental lack of wisdom.
    This is one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about Scientologists, Independent Scientologists, and Freezoners.

    When they want to avoid all rational analysis, objective inquiry, and scientific or statistical scrutiny, it (i.e., Scientology, Independent Scientology, or the Freezone) is purely a religious and/or spiritual pursuit completely beyond rational or objective analysis, where subjective, spiritual truth is the only relevant criteria.

    But they market it (again, Scientology, Independent Scientology, or the Freezone) as a form of therapy with results (although not methods) akin, and indeed superior, to those obtained by psychiatry, psychoanalysis, psychology, marriage and family counselors, and other mental health professionals who actually have recognized education, training and credentials, and are licensed and regulated by the state.

    In other words, what I'm trying to say in the nicest possible way is that one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about Scientologists as well as many Independent Scientologists and Freezoners is that they are they are, and continue to be, deceptive and manipulative. That they hide behind shield of religion and spirituality, and when necessary the First Amendment, to avoid all scrutiny or objective analysis, but promise and represent they will obtain secular psychological and emotional results.

    I saw the same thing (and indeed practiced the same thing) all of the time in Scientology, so I shouldn't be surprised to see it in "Independent" Scientology and the Freezone.

    I must admit, it seems like a good gig. If one becomes a clinical psychologist, for example, one must go to and graduate from a credentialed college, go to and graduate from a credentialed graduate school, take an internship at a credentialed hospital or mental health facility, take and pass a licensing exam, be regulated by the state, and then take credentialed continuing education courses for the rest of one's life.

    If, on the other hand, one becomes an "Auditor" one can be a high school drop out who learned the "tech" of a paranoid, delusional and psychopathic cult leader, avoid any regulation or scrutiny by the state, avoid any requirement for continuing education, and hide behind the mantle of "religion" and "spirituality" to avoid any and all objective scrutiny. To assert, with a straight face, that no, something is not actually objectively true (like anything in Scientology has been proven to be objectively true, lol), but it is subjectively true, it is "true for you," and that is all that is ever required. Yes, nice work if you can get it.
    -- Reading Marty's blog since 2009 so you don't have to.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -- Hunter S. Thompson.

  8. #108
    Gold Meritorious Patron alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,955

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kha Khan View Post
    This is one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about Scientologists, Independent Scientologists, and Freezoners.

    When they want to avoid all rational analysis, objective inquiry, and scientific or statistical scrutiny, it (i.e., Scientology, Independent Scientology, or the Freezone) is purely a religious and/or spiritual pursuit completely beyond rational or objective analysis, where subjective, spiritual truth is the only relevant criteria.

    But they market it (again, Scientology, Independent Scientology, or the Freezone) as a form of therapy with results (although not methods) akin, and indeed superior, to those obtained by psychiatry, psychoanalysis, psychology, marriage and family counselors, and other mental health professionals who actually have recognized education, training and credentials, and are licensed and regulated by the state.

    In other words, what I'm trying to say in the nicest possible way is that one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about Scientologists as well as many Independent Scientologists and Freezoners is that they are they are, and continue to be, deceptive and manipulative. That they hide behind shield of religion and spirituality, and when necessary the First Amendment, to avoid all scrutiny or objective analysis, but promise and represent they will obtain secular psychological and emotional results.

    I saw the same thing (and indeed practiced the same thing) all of the time in Scientology, so I shouldn't be surprised to see it in "Independent" Scientology and the Freezone.

    I must admit, it seems like a good gig. If one becomes a clinical psychologist, for example, one must go to and graduate from a credentialed college, go to and graduate from a credentialed graduate school, take an internship at a credentialed hospital or mental health facility, take and pass a licensing exam, be regulated by the state, and then take credentialed continuing education courses for the rest of one's life.

    If, on the other hand, one becomes an "Auditor" one can be a high school drop out who learned the "tech" of a paranoid, delusional and psychopathic cult leader, avoid any regulation or scrutiny by the state, avoid any requirement for continuing education, and hide behind the mantle of "religion" and "spirituality" to avoid any and all objective scrutiny. To assert, with a straight face, that no, something is not actually objectively true (like anything in Scientology has been proven to be objectively true, lol), but it is subjectively true, it is "true for you," and that is all that is ever required. Yes, nice work if you can get it.
    Interestingly, one CAN become a licensed psychologist and practice the technology that is used in scientology and dianetics, and even be educated in it in the sort of academic environment you feel is objectively relevant.

    It just isnt CALLED scientology and dianetics but MetaPsychology, and was developed by former scientologists, the psychiatrist Dr Gerbode, and the famous or infamous former senior C/S international of the Church of Scientology and NOTS expert, David Mayo.

    YOU are free to apply all the "objective" analysis you want to scientology, but it is silly to think that we should pay for it to satisfy your desires.

    Meanwhile the church and other scientologists are free to do what clergy have done for centuries and perhaps millenia, counsel.
    thoughts are real, its the things you think that are the illusion

  9. #109
    Patron Meritorious Kha Khan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Marcab Confederacy
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fluffy View Post
    'Cept that the majority of those things contain Hubbard's theories about spirituality,communication, and other things. Easy enough to isolate the toxic stuff from that.
    I'm going to make the same presumptuous suggestion directly to you that I made earlier. I really think "Independent Scientologists" might want to consider referring to themselves, and thinking of themselves, as "Reform Scientologists." It would signal to the knowledgeable public (including me) that they recognize that the body of work that the vast majority of people consider to make up the subject matter of Scientology (e.g., all of the currently extant books, tapes, HCOPLs and HCOBs) are indeed in need of reform, and that some of the material is morally or otherwise objectionable and needs to be excised.

    Since, as I understand it, that is your technique anyways (and I very much respect the effort, though I'm not convinced that in the end it will be possible or practical), I see no harm, and some benefit, in adopting a label that more accurately represents your intent.

    I also think it would be useful to distinguish yourself and your like minded compatriots from those who blame everything on DM, and think everything will be OK once things are returned to the "Golden Age" of pure Hubbard tech.
    Last edited by Kha Khan; 16th August 2009 at 11:29 PM.
    -- Reading Marty's blog since 2009 so you don't have to.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -- Hunter S. Thompson.

  10. #110
    Silver Meritorious Sponsor
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    17,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fluffy View Post
    'Cept that the majority of those things contain Hubbard's theories about spirituality,communication, and other things. Easy enough to isolate the toxic stuff from that.
    Famous 2nd-to-last words.

    Zinj

Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. HUBBARD ADMITS DIANETICS BOOK IS A FRAUD.
    By HelluvaHoax! in forum Evaluating/criticising Scientology
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 27th August 2012, 03:08 PM
  2. Failures of Dianetics and Scientology
    By uniquemand in forum General discussion
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 21st November 2010, 06:31 PM
  3. Dianetics R3R(A) Theory - What's Right and What's Wrong and Why?
    By Dulloldfart in forum Scientology technology
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 20th May 2009, 08:49 AM
  4. Dianetics/Scientology Clear and OT Benefits
    By Nash Rambler in forum Evaluating/criticising Scientology
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 15th March 2008, 10:31 AM
  5. Scientology - Theory vs. Practice
    By Little Bear Victor in forum Scientology technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2nd September 2007, 12:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •