A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

[Mark A. Baker]

Third, isn't much, if not all, of the perverted justice system -- which has no right to a jury, no independent judiciary or decision makers, has never worked or been just, and which has always been perverted by utilitarian, Kha Khan, "greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics" calculations that favor those (including alleged rapists and and child molesters) who contribute large amounts of money to the Church -- set forth in the book Introduction to Ethics? Isn't the ends justifies the means, "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" rationalization for any action that benefits the Church, no matter how it effects others, or how immoral it is per mere "wog" morality -- set forth in the book Introduction to Ethics?

Absolutely no argument there, but then I never put any faith in the system myself.


Mark A. Baker

[Kha Khan]

You might try reading the books.

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.

[Mark A. Baker]

You have a point there uniquemand. The combination of a good body, some smarts and an ability to speak well can lead one very far in a short period of time. Case in point - Sarah Palin, and Palin answers direct questions to her very directly without sidesteping them and going round and round in circles. In any case, from what I have seen of BWG, both in her little picture and from what she has written on the board, you are right, she can do anything she wants.
lkwdblds

I really hope you aren't comparing BWG to Palin.


Mark A. Baker

[Kha Khan]

Yes actually. There is quite a bit of useful information directly related to "how to audit" in the basic books along with MANY useful auditing processes.

Yes, there is, if one is willing to define and limit the religion and "tech" of Scientology as it stood in, what, 1960 at the latest? When was the last book originally published?

Again, I don't think Hubbard (you know, the Founder), the Church of Scientology, or Scientologists generally would accept a definition of Scientology, and the scriptures thereof, that is limited, and set in stone, at the original publication date of the last book.

[Kha Khan]

Not to hijack my own thread, but....

I really hope you aren't comparing BWG to Palin.

The best question I've heard asked about Palin is whether anyone would be paying this much attention to her if she looked like Margaret Thatcher. I suspect the answer might be no.

It is interesting to note that people paid attention to Margaret Thatcher despite the fact that she looked like, well, Margaret Thatcher.

Would people pay attention to BWG if she didn't look like BWG? Of course they would. Would certain males pay as much attention to BWG if she didn't look like she does? I would (breaking my arm patting myself on the back), but I can't speak for others. I'm not so sure.

Now you know why I have the Avatar that I do.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....

[Mark A. Baker]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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


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.


Mark A. Baker

[Mark A. Baker]

Not to hijack my own thread, but....The best question I've heard asked about Palin is whether anyone would be paying this much attention to her if she looked like Margaret Thatcher. I suspect the answer might be no.

It is interesting to note that people paid attention to Margaret Thatcher despite the fact that she looked like, well, Margaret Thatcher.

Would people pay attention to BWG if she didn't look like BWG? Of course they would. Would certain males pay as much attention to BWG if she didn't look like she does? I would (breaking my arm patting myself on the back), but I can't speak for others. I'm not so sure.

Now you know why I have the Avatar that I do.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming....

That comparison is arguably even worse.

Maggie Thatcher was a HIGHLY intelligent woman and extremely capable politician, unlike Palin. Whatever your view of her ideology, MT earned her way to the top of British Politics. And she achieved it all much to the chagrin of many old tories as well as the entirety of Labour.

Palin is an ignorant arrogant manipulative nothing.

BWG is intelligent, beautiful, principled, and utterly charming. However, as of yet, she's demonstrated little interest in seizing the reins of state in the face of defiance from her adversaries and remake the political economy of her nation state. Still, she's young and things change.


Mark A. Baker

[Kha Khan]

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.

I actually have a great deal of respect for this position, and understand it is most useful for your purposes, and the purpose of people who wish to continue their spiritual path.

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.

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.

I have a wonderfully presumptuous suggestion for "Independent Scientologists." You might want to refer to yourself as "Reform Scientologists" -- perhaps to indicate to other people that yes, there is some crap in the scriptures that is in need of reform. Just a thought.

[Mark A. Baker]

I think the real question is whether it's the right tool, not whether it is a self-improvement/mental manipulation tool in the first place.

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

[Kha Khan]

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.

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