Is any ex truly out?

[Gottabrain]

Remember, the comments about the book were by Walter Kaufman, not by Nietzsche.

Understanding what he meant by "the will to power", IMO, is an endeavor. He wasn't talking about a desire for godlike superpowers. Instead, he was talking about the capacity to form intentions, IMO, and to then execute your will, rather than suffering Hamlet-itis..

Okay.

Misunderstanding is common of him, both by his translators and by the editors, and by the public.

Zarathustra, the "Overman", wasn't supposed to be some sort of inhuman killing machine, or incapable of warmth. Instead, he was supposed to see the truth of things, not be affected by appeals to emotion (in the logical fallacy sense, not in the sense of being insensate to emotion). You don't have to like Nietzsche, and I can understand that, though I have liked a lot of what he wrote, I certainly objected to things, also. Been a while, so it's hard to be more specific, but if you ARE going to comment on him, please do so with the same erudition you'd give to commentary on psychology or scientology.

With Psychology, Sociology and Scientology, I formally studied the entire subjects in detail. Also some of my favourite philosophers and psychologists. Hard to catch me out on these, but some people have - I'm not perfect and there is a wealth of experiences others have had that I don't.

My early introduction to Nietszche was an incredible turnoff so I am not as well read in this area, but I like your interpretation.

Where and how did you get the idea that Nietszche has any use or respect for human traits and emotions like compassion, though? I haven't found that yet.

And yes, I can see how reading from someone's interpretation can affect one's ability to understand the depth of a philosophy. Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was hideously corrupted and chopped when someone came up with the idea of marketing and used it as the cornerstone psychology of marketing. But it never had anything to do with that in the first place and Maslow's original books are extremely deep - about peak experiences that change one's life, human traits (in extraordinary detail)... all kinds of things, with solid, detailed research.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

No dispute with the quotes cited, TAJ, But there is more than one way to understand them. I don't share your views. I see Nietzsche as essentially an advocate of personal transformation through recognition, development, and assertion of one's own will. That does not imply a targeting and overwhelming of others, although it does suggest a growth beyond the standards commonly taken as applicable to 'societal norms'.

My own belief is that your views of Nietzsche are too strongly influenced by the grossly misguided interpretations & distortions promoted by the nationalist socialist movement. Your own interest in european politics and previous expressions relating Nietzsche to political history suggests that. My initial exposure to Nietzsche came from a different, non-fascist, and more contemporaneous to Nietzsche sources. When not viewed through the filters of nazi propaganda, his work appears quite differently.

Nor is the issue at heart one of 'self-esteem'. That was really a stretch.




No, TAJ. I'm aware of the destructive aspects of hubbard's thought. They simply don't interest me. That is why I left the church 30 years ago. No interest in such viewpoints. As a topic which has no interest for me why would you expect me to waste time on it?

Isn't there enough time wasting going on on the board as it is?

There are plenty of others who are fascinated with the destructive aspects of hubbard's writing. For myself, I prefer to look at how scientology practices can be used to benefit myself and others. That is what interested me in the topic originally. Moreover, I have no personal interest in seeking to destroy others. And unlike some, I am not and have never been on any type of crusade. Not my thing.


Mark A. Baker

And you are completely wrong. I don't have an interest in European pollitics. although I would say nowadays beware of Greek bearing bonds (or beware of Greek bearer bonds).

My ideas about Nietzsche comes from reading Nietzsche.

Mark, it is clear to me that you have a blind spot on Nietzsche.

To see Nietzsche as essentially an advocate of personal transformation through recognition, development, and assertion of one's own will that does not imply domination (I used domination of others not overwhelming of others, though the first implies the second) is the clearest example i can give to this blind-spot.

You've got to be kidding yourself.

You must know of his Dionysian views and his contempt for Plato.

As far as the Nazis go, that they espoused him as an inspiration is irrelevant.

But as far Nietzsche's philosophy goes the Nazi philosophy can easily be derived from Nietzsche's views, just as Miscavige's acts are a consequence derived from Hubbard's views.

I think you are using your passion to defend Nietzsche rather than your reason.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

snip
What lesser minds made of a great mind's work is not Nietzsche's problem.
snip

And I suppose lesser minds like myself are imagining things when we see Nietzsche's influence in that statement.

Nietzsche was a great mind because Nietzsche said he was a great mind and he should know because he was Nietzsche and said he had a great mind.

And if anyone doesn't see that they are a lesser mind.

This is sad and pathetic.

You guys can't see the forest for the trees.

What is interesting is that the Nietzsche supporters on this board are the ones who brought up the Nazis.

I didn't even mention Heidegger.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... I think you are using your passion to defend Nietzsche rather than your reason.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Hardly. I'm not particularly passionate about Nietzsche. Nor does his philosophy require any defense from me. It is what it is. What it isn't is some form of proto-nazism. His views were not at all sympathetic to such a view. It is however a misrepresentation which I've seen you make several times on this board. As such, I'm not inclined to let that pass unremarked.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gottabrain]

To see Nietzsche as essentially an advocate of personal transformation through recognition, development, and assertion of one's own will that does not imply domination (I used domination of others not overwhelming of others, though the first implies the second) is the clearest example i can give to this blind-spot.

But as far Nietzsche's philosophy goes the Nazi philosophy can easily be derived from Nietzsche's views, just as Miscavige's acts are a consequence derived from Hubbard's views.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Yeh TAJ. I've been reading Nietzsche for hours now. I see the domination for survival (Darwinian Theory) (with no compassion for the victims or those dominated) laced and intertwined throughout. Darwin was the big news of that time, so that's not surprising.

Although Nietzsche might have been big news in his day and he presents a different psychological view, he's pretty hard to stomach. So negative, cynical. The many, many quotes about women are all awful. Looking at things through his eyes presents a world that is very gray.

Taken as a whole, I see his philosophy as an effort to rid or discredit anything one considers important or enjoyable, to cut one off from these things and simply pursue one's personal goals, go forward and dominate, without fear of consequence or hurting others, without fear of breaking the rules of culture or ethics - because many, many times he says that the pain is good for others, that there are no victims, really, as pain is the best teacher. So it's all okay. That's how you get super.

Sorry, Nietzsche supporters, but that's what I see so far. If there is something good or different in Nietzsche that I missed, please provide the quotes or give me the reference, because it just isn't there. Here and there I can find something positive or useful, but it really takes a lot of searching and it's a bit of a rarity. His whole point is live for yourself, don't worry about others, let the shit fly, it's good for them anyway and you'll achieve greatness. Is that the point? What's so special about that? Seriously.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Hardly. I'm not particularly passionate about Nietzsche. Nor does his philosophy require any defense from me. It is what it is. What it isn't is some form of proto-nazism. His views were not at all sympathetic to such a view. It is however a misrepresentation which I've seen you make several times on this board. As such, I'm not inclined to let that pass unremarked.


Mark A. Baker

You are so sadly mistake. Nietzsche is clear and uniquivocal about dominating others. There is nothing ambiguous about his writings. You don't seem to want to admit the obvious.

And to say he did not have an influence on the events of the 29th century is naive, Mark.

And again--you keep bringing up the Nazis.

I believe my only references to him earlier on this board was that his views when applied to politic and government leads to fascism and his views when applied to religion is Scientological.

And that ethical or moral reasoning outside of the context of human values leads to a society based on Nietzschean ideas.

I am sure you are convinced that you are right. Nothing is going to change that.

But this is precisely what you criticize so many others on this board for doing.

And, of course, you will never see it.

You are not using reason here. You are atomizing words in order to make what you think is true a truth.

This is what comes from Study Tech.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

Yes, I am TRULY "out".

Unequivocally.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... And to say he did not have an influence on the events of the 29th century is naive, Mark. ...

????

Jumping the shark much?


Mark A. Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

????

Jumping the shark much?


Mark A. Baker

I always respected your intellectual integrity, but now you seem to have abandoned that.

Interpret this however you want; there is no purpose resaoning with you.

But it is clear you don't have a clue.

So go ahead and keep criticizing others for the faults that you have.

I'm done with you.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Lone Star]

Originally Posted by The Anabaptist Jacques
... And to say he did not have an influence on the events of the 29th century is naive, Mark. ...

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker
????

Jumping the shark much?


Mark A. Baker

I always respected your intellectual integrity, but now you seem to have abandoned that.


Interpret this however you want; there is no purpose resaoning with you.

But it is clear you don't have a clue.

So go ahead and keep criticizing others for the faults that you have.

I'm done with you.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I have been enjoying this discussion on Nietzche because I only have a very rudimentary knowledge of his works. I'm learning a lot from this thread about him.

TAJ I think Mark asked if you've been "jumping the shark" much because you accidentally said "29th century" instead of "19th century" in your earlier post.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Originally Posted by The Anabaptist Jacques
... And to say he did not have an influence on the events of the 29th century is naive, Mark. ...

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker
????

Jumping the shark much?


Mark A. Baker


I have been enjoying this discussion on Nietzche because I only have a very rudimentary knowledge of his works. I'm learning a lot from this thread about him.

TAJ I think Mark asked if you've been "jumping the shark" much because you accidentally said "29th century" instead of "19th century" in your earlier post.

in the daily strip "Zippy" bill griffith suggests wittgenstein rocks. personally i don't really know spinoza from schopenauer, if you ask me "can you tell me the author of 'The Critique of Pure Reason'?" i'm going to say "I. Kant" and i suspect my survey of this thread has left me knowing less of nietsche than i did when i began. tom landry's philosophy of a shotgun offense and a doomday defense won the cold war against the warsaw pact but what's new?

 

[Gottabrain]

[COLOR]

i suspect my survey of this thread has left me knowing less of nietsche than i did when i began. tom landry's philosophy of a shotgun offense and a doomday defense won the cold war against the warsaw pact but what's new?

True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! —

- Edward Bulwar-Lytton, 1839, from his play, "Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy"


Then came the Internet.

 

[lkwdblds]

If a person defends any part of LRH's work, as far as I am concerned, they are not completely out. This includes Indies & Squirrels.

I agree

I was also recently thinking about the involvment on ESMB, and thought that as long as I am still here then I'm not completly done with the Scn stuff...but it's part of the healing process ( talking with people that can understand and use critical/analytical thinking..)[/QUOTE]

Phenix's quote is extremely interesting! Phenix is defining for his/her own use what it means for a former Scientologist to be completely out. If that's what "being out" means to Phenix then that's that and there isn't anymore to be said.

If Phenix intended that definition to become universally accepted, it gets a little more complex.

Mark Baker, in his comment on Phenix's post brought up the most obvious but also the strongest argument against the definition. For the definition to apply, it seems as if every concept in Hubbard's work must be false. It would be difficult to write such a body of work.

Phenix's words suggest that if, even by accident, Hubbard states a truth in the body of his work, we can't defend that truth or we are still "in". If that were the case, then all those who are completely out would have to renounce certain truths just because Hubbard happened to utter them.

Maybe I'm being too literal. I don't think that is what Phenix actually mean but technically, to make the definition stand up, wouldn't he/she have to alter the definition a bit? Maybe instead of saying "any part" he/she could say "any major portion" or "any original major concept created by Hubbard himself and not taken from the works of others?"

If if was tweaked just a bit, I would agree with the definition. It could be useful to have an agreed on definition which decides who is still in and who is completely out.
Lakey (My comments are in blue)

 

[DoneDeal]

I believe we need to spread the chicken little story.

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

Something I've been seeing some people say is "but is he/she truly out?". Every now and again someone says it and it got me to thinking. Now, we've already discussed what does and does not maketh a Scientologist and, by extension, an ex Scientologist. Emma created a very good very long running thread on it. It's a good topic, IMO.

I wanted to look at this issue from the vantage point of is any given person (who says they're out) truly out?

I think it's one thing to be out of CofS and another to be done with the whole entire thing.

Perhaps it's best to make it simple. If they are out of CofS, they're out of CofS. If they have no interest in doing any FZ or Indie or self study of Scn, then they're out of Scn as well.

How do we know? Because they've said so. They'll tell you so.

Yes, people are still coming to terms with this stuff and that's why they come and lurk and post. The way they work it out for themselves varies greatly. It can make it difficult to see where they're coming from, so my proposed solution is to just take their word for it, should they answer that question.

Pretty much what it is all about eh, I agree!

 

[DagwoodGum]

And I suppose lesser minds like myself are imagining things when we see Nietzsche's influence in that statement.

Nietzsche was a great mind because Nietzsche said he was a great mind and he should know because he was Nietzsche and said he had a great mind.

And if anyone doesn't see that they are a lesser mind.

This is sad and pathetic.

You guys can't see the forest for the trees...


The Anabaptist Jacques

So true, many of us fixate on the little nuts that dingle & dangle from the trees till they drop to the forest floor below..... Then we exit the forest for good.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

I agree

I was also recently thinking about the involvment on ESMB, and thought that as long as I am still here then I'm not completly done with the Scn stuff...but it's part of the healing process ( talking with people that can understand and use critical/analytical thinking..)

Phenix's quote is extremely interesting! Phenix is defining for his/her own use what it means for a former Scientologist to be completely out. If that's what "being out" means to Phenix then that's that and there isn't anymore to be said.

If Phenix intended that definition to become universally accepted, it gets a little more complex.

Mark Baker, in his comment on Phenix's post brought up the most obvious but also the strongest argument against the definition. For the definition to apply, it seems as if every concept in Hubbard's work must be false. It would be difficult to write such a body of work.

Phenix's words suggest that if, even by accident, Hubbard states a truth in the body of his work, we can't defend that truth or we are still "in". If that were the case, then all those who are completely out would have to renounce certain truths just because Hubbard happened to utter them.

Maybe I'm being too literal. I don't think that is what Phenix actually mean but technically, to make the definition stand up, wouldn't he/she have to alter the definition a bit? Maybe instead of saying "any part" he/she could say "any major portion" or "any original major concept created by Hubbard himself and not taken from the works of others?"

If if was tweaked just a bit, I would agree with the definition. It could be useful to have an agreed on definition which decides who is still in and who is completely out.
Lakey (My comments are in blue) [/QUOTE]

what defend any part? i audit. to audit is good.

if dianetics is the zen of neo-gnostic judeochristian universalism are you not only in if you're out? can gas escape from a klein flask? would you go to a burlesque house to see a mobius strip?

 

[phénix]

First of all, I of course speak for myself, I don't necesseraly hold the ultimate truth!


To me being out is just rejecting the whole entire system, and if you're still looking for bits of truth in it then you're not really out...but everyone is free to do as he wishes..

I think anyone and everyone can make true observations about life, like "communication solves things"...OK great!! But even so, what other truths is there to be found in what Hubbard said? Common sense stuff? Maybe...and I don't even belive so

But anyways, scn works as a whole, it's a system, and when you really get into it you have to embrace the entire thing, that's how it is.

So when you realize something wrong in there, the whole thing should be put into doubt, at least for me...

A way I succeded in doing so whas to look at the facts about Hubbard, I made some research and found out from someone who was on his lines the when he died he had several strokes overa period of time, not just the last one. So that meant he didn't control that, was the "effect">so he didn't have the powers he was supposed to as OT 15>so the bridge is BS>so the whole thing is BS...

It was enough hard work for me to get that shit out of my head, it fucked me up, so it's not to try to seeif Hubbard mighthave said somehting thatwas right.
The entire thing is BS to me, but no offense this is for me, you do as you wish

 

[Claire Swazey]

I am a former Catholic. Used to be pretty into it. I left that church due to two things: my involvement with Scn and my intense disagreement with the RCC's stance on birth control, abortion and other sexual/reproductive issues. Yet, I still value a number of things I was taught as a Catholic. I assure you, that doesn't make me a Catholic.

There is a distinct difference between being an Indie or FZ or Independant Scn'ist- where a term alluding to holding at least SOME of the creed of a Scn'ist is still in use by that person- and being someone who doesn't do or call himself such but who does have maybe a few of the beliefs and tenets.

I am out of the Catholic Church for good. I am out of the Church of Scientology for good. For a while, I was still really into the idea of continuing to be some sort of Scn'ist on my own terms and that's no longer the case. So I'm out of the non CofS Scn scene. But I still value a number of ideas I encountered in my past Scn journey. I assure you, that doesn't make me any the less "out" any more than I'm a Catholic.

We have our own roads and journeys. Phenix' road is one where all the Scn set of ideas is out, it's not part of Phenix' life- the journey has gone down a different road. That's great. I know and am personal friends with others who have opted similarly. So they, and Phenix, can determine what makes them truly "out", individually. But they cannot ascertain that for others.

The preceding paragraph is not a judgment on what people should do. It's just meant to say that, hey, we can't fully assess someone else's path and how it is. We can get a partial concept, at best. But our judgments of others are apt to be limited because we are not those other people.

For some reason, I'm reminded of identical twins brought up the same way who yet take very different paths. It's just the way my scattershot mind tends to work. Stream of consciousness.

 

[phénix]

Of course, we all speak for ourselves