Scientology Study Tech In The Real World

[loose cannon]

Well, since we know what Scientology is NOT, maybe we can come up with some revised definitions that say what it is.

Well in fact, I think that finding a real good definition and then looking at what people who consider themselves scientologists or who are called so by others do would be at least amusing.

But I find the idea of "open source gnosis" much more interesting. I think Clearbird or websites like FreezoneAmerica are good examples of such an approach and that that should be promoted as a real alternative to doing scientology in the Co$, with much more freedom and possibilities. (I don't think that doing almost the same crap like Marty does is not a real alternative.)

[Dulloldfart]

But I find the idea of "open source gnosis" much more interesting. I think Clearbird or websites like FreezoneAmerica are good examples of such an approach and that that should be promoted as a real alternative to doing scientology in the Co$, with much more freedom and possibilities. (I don't think that doing almost the same crap like Marty does is not a real alternative.)

Clearbird is pretty much straight Scientology. There's no technical innovation in it. Nor any open source.

PaulsRobot and similar Rub & Yawn sites are innovative, but aren't really open source either. I'm open to suggestions, but I have no intention of "crowd-sourcing" them. Why, willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic. Ahem.

Paul

[loose cannon]

Clearbird is pretty much straight Scientology. There's no technical innovation in it.

Not the tech, but as I quoted out earlier in this thread viewpoints of other authors were incorporated.

Nor any open source.

So what are then publicly available materials? Closed source?

PaulsRobot and similar Rub & Yawn sites are innovative, but aren't really open source either. I'm open to suggestions, but I have no intention of "crowd-sourcing" them.

Well, your instructions are openly available. No need for you to crowd-source them, but anyone else can actually create his or her own fork and further develop the ideas you have brought.

[Veda]

Towards the bottom of the first link, note that Clearbird leads to the Advanced Ability levels (With a Clear depicted, sitting at a table, with an e-meter, a dark cloud labelled "case" hovering over his head): http://www.freezoneearth.org/Clearbi...2004/index.htm

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometh...adechartCB.htm

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometh...v_levelsCB.htm

Once you're "Clear" you're, ominously, "at risk."

"Anyone who is Clear but not OT III had better be pushed up to OT 3 first because otherwise he is at risk." 'HCOB' 23 Dec 1971.

I like the Clearbird material. However, Clearbird and Prometheus Reports do seem to have a symbiotic relationship.

This is from the author of the Clearbird materials, under 'KSW and Clearbird':

"We respect Ron's tech for what it is, a complete system that has been tested and adjusted, re-tested and adjusted again, and now existed more or less in its final form for over 30 years." http://the-scientologist.com/clearbird.shtml

And that "complete system" does not end at "Clear."

Onward to Xenu!

If you went ga ga over Clearbird, you'll swoon over Filbert, but it's still re-cycled Hubbard/Xenu Bridge. And there's a market for the Hubbard/Xenu Bridge, not a big market, but a market. Disoriented people, recently out of the Cof$, still want their Hubbard/Xenu Bridge.

Those who toss aside the Hubbard/Xenu Bridge no longer have that market to draw upon.

And, Loose Cannon, if you still believe in "Clear," and have that as a goal, and are still interacting with Scientologists, once you become "Clear," you'll find that you're being advised to continue with your Hubbard/Xenu Bridge. Soon you'll start noticing how people in the supermarket are dramatizing various Implants, then you'll start noticing Body Thetans, lots of them, and then...

[loose cannon]

Nothing new to me. But thanks for your effort ;-)

[Mark A. Baker]

... From your other statements, Mark, it would seem that you are well aware of the arbitrary nature of terminology. So I cannot understand your current naive appeal to your "tech dictionary" as being somehow authoritative. ...

It's not MY tech dictionary, SoT.

It's the SCIENTOLOGY tech dictionary. At the onset of developing a body of work for exploration and discussion, terminology IS largely arbitrary. However, once the terms have been fixed then from that point on arbitrary RE-definition serves to confuse dialog not clarify.

Shall we re-define the term 'electron' to be a reference to the particle theorized to transmit the force of gravitation because YOU might like that? Is 'momentum' a good choice of word to use for the smallest unit of measurable time?

Word meanings are at root somewhat arbitrary. For meaningful discussion to occur it requires that participants understand the common meanings assigned to words. The words associated with the subject of scientology are defined in the Scientology Technical Dictionary and the Scientology Management Dictionary. These aren't necessarily 'good' definitions, but they ARE the definitions which persons who are FAMILIAR with the subject of scientology have studied and understand. These are the definitions which in fact DEFINE the subject.

Anyone who has made a formal study of the subject of scientology is familiar with these sources. Those who aren't familiar with them are those who have NOT made a study of the subject. It makes no sense for those who are relatively ignorant of a subject to determine the nature and scope of discourse on the topic. You wouldn't tolerate that sort of arrogance from the rankest freshman in one of your physics courses. You should realize that same hubristic intent is what you are proposing here.



Your participation on a message board for ex-scientologists DOES NOT MEAN you are knowledgeable about the subject of scientology, anymore than an individual hanging out on a message board created for popular discussion of topics relating to sciences is thereby knowledgeable about quantum electro-dynamic theory. You have yet to undertake anything like a 'serious study' of scientology. Such exposure as you have had to the subject is both limited and decidedly partisan. Accordingly you are in no position to suggest substantive changes to terminology which impact on differing aspects of the subject.

What you know is physics. Indirectly you have learned something about scientology. Don't confuse your knowledge of physics as thereby imparting special knowledge of the subject of scientology. Your re-definition of defined terms serves no useful purpose in facilitating ongoing discussions of the subject of scientology, the practices of scientology, the church of scientology, or related matters.

I recognize that many of the definitions used in scientology are arbitrary. Such an arbitrary character is an innate aspect of language. However, over a period of six decades the meanings of scientology words have already developed standard usage among scientologists & ex-scientologists. They are well-established and understood broadly among ALL who have actual experience with scientology. Arbitrary re-definition as proposed by a partisan members of a singular minority community who has no actual experience studying the subject is NOT a reasonable proposal. A bit less hubris please.

... Insisting on the tech dictionary definition helps the cult. ...

No, it does not 'help the cult'. No more than reference to a dictionary of christian symbols helps christianity. What it helps is understanding.
Understanding the way that scientology has been taught is an essential part of understanding the cult. Arguably the cult can not be understood except in respect of the terms in which it defines itself. Anything else is a simple appeal to partisanship.


Mark A. Baker

[Dulloldfart]

Not the tech, but as I quoted out earlier in this thread viewpoints of other authors were incorporated.

They were? I thought it was just the Prometheus Reports that quoted others.

So what are then publicly available materials? Closed source?

Well, your instructions are openly available. No need for you to crowd-source them, but anyone else can actually create his or her own fork and further develop the ideas you have brought.

I was looking on "Open Source" as stuff that many had collaborated on. But yes, by its very nature none of my (released) work is hidden.

If we're being picky, I haven't released my work under an "open source"-type license, and don't plan on doing so. PaulsRobot3 is available under a Creative Commons license so people can download and use it at home and even host it (unchanged) on their own websites, but the license does not extend to making derivative works from it.

EDIT: The specific license is a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Paul

[Mark A. Baker]

Clearbird is pretty much straight Scientology. There's no technical innovation in it. Nor any open source. ...

Correction, Paul, Clearbird IS open source; effectively it is an attempt to open source the subject of scientology. CB is free to distribute and invites further development and adaptation of new tech. Just as with the gpl, CB is intended to be itself republished in an unaltered form so as to preserve the original content, but NOTHING in CB precludes others adding their own technical developments to the subject of auditing and passing them on to others.

Open source is about preservation as much as it is about innovation and distribution. Hence the use of existing copyright in an innovative way to protect the rights of users. CB is, for all intents & purposes, Open Source Scientology, in contrast to the strictly closed source version controlled by the Co$.


Mark A. Baker

[Veda]

-snip-

A bit less hubris please.

-snip-

To a Scientologist, there are few things worse than an uppity "wog," which, incidentally, is a term found in the Scientology 'Technical Dictionary'.

[Veda]

They were? I thought it was just the Prometheus Reports that quoted others.

-snip-

I dimly remember Filbert being mentioned, is that correct? Do you happen to recall any of the others? (This saves me from having to re-read the stuff myself.) Thanks.