LRH was a genius and some of the tech is great

[Dulloldfart]

Boo-Hoo I only got 195 hits!

Wonder how many tries it will take Alanzo to get zero hits.

Paul

 

[Björkist]

Physically touched. It is implied that the touching is done by a human since we are the only ones capable of writing about it.

This is how Bjorkist says "Thou hast parsed my words too much"!

Actually, the use of

was my way of saying that Poofy's assumption is incorrect. Simply because we can write about something is no reason that the "touching" was done via a human body.

If someone's words are in need of parsing, yours are.

 

[Dulloldfart]

If someone's words are in need of parsing, yours are.

It's just Alanzo being a parsehole.

Paul

 

[Björkist]

It's just Alanzo being a parsehole.

Paul

 

[Terril park]

My car with the audio up. Yum Mark Levinson. Right now I have Pirates II and III in there.

Cool! A hi-fi geek. I got 8 channels of amplification, active crossover and two fifteen inch sub woofers to get fitted.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Well, I'm recently out and haven't had much time to cool off from being on that pole-trap (that's an inside joke ) I'm not sure that I will continue on in the freezone. I do know that I am looking for workable tech.

Welcome.

If you DO think you might want to continue on, be sure to check out some of the freezone tech groups, e.g. IFA, ICAUSE, Ron's Orgs, etc..

There's a lot of good people delivering both training & processing out & about. Everything up to a Class XII.

There are also numerous "offshoots", derivatives, etc.... available if that is your preference.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

It does mean someone who defends something...and a little bit more.

His use of "apologist" is perfectly legitimate.

His usage is much closer to the root meaning of the word. The concept of "placation" which is often associated with the word in common usage currently is a much more recent corruption of the root meaning.

We are "apologists" for scientology tech, just as Plato was an "apologist" for reason.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Björkist]

Mark, when Alanzo makes a statement regarding me being an apologist for something and suggests that I not run from myself or be ashamed (giving the false impression that I am)...he is certainly, imho, attempting to make a disparaging remark.

Perhaps Alanzo should have clarified which definition of apologist he was using. :confused2:

 

[Mark A. Baker]

That is why I asked. I will freely admit that I am just beginning in my research of D&S. If I don't ask questions, how will I learn; no need to be melodramatic.

Melodrama that is "needful" is lacking in fun. :wink2:

This is a pretty strong and general statement and I wouldn't agree. What about soeone who is tragically uncoordinated? What about someone with Parkinson's? Or someone with Lou Gehrig's disease, like Stephen Hawking? He would be incapable of modeling anything in clay, yet I don't think anyone would contest the assertion that he understands the concepts he studies pretty darn well.

Actually Stephen Hawking has made his living (and his reputation) because of his ability at "model building". He builds mathematical models. His models have revolutionized modern cosmology.

You took my comments in too limited a fashion. I used the term "model" where I was describing the process of constructing a "likeness", tangible or conceptual, to illustrate some concept or behavior. This is the sense in which one builds an "economic model", or "computer model", or even an "aircraft model".

I used the term "clay demo" when referring to that form of modeling specifically used in scientology training practices and in which a student uses plasticine & signage to illustrate scientology concepts he is studying.

Also, clay demos aren't the ONLY form of modeling that scientology study tech relies on, but for various reasons having to do with their effectiveness they are one of the most signifcant.

"Clay demo" is the form of scientology modeling practice which requires that a student create a model in clay of concepts encountered in studying scientology.

As stated, similar methods have also been adopted by educators & psychologists in teaching other subjects, although I believe scientology pioneered in the widespread use of the technique.

So what are the criteria for deciding whether the student has done it correctly or not? Are those criteria objective or subjective?

The criteria is actually quite simple: "does the clay demo illustrate the concept requested?".

This "simplicity" can be quite difficult to achieve because NO EXPLANATION is permitted. The concept has to be clear to anyone looking at the clay demo. Signs are ONLY permitted to label parts, not explain their purpose or function.

As I said before, doing clay demos can be both tremendously FRUSTRATING as well as tremendously REWARDING.

In my experience with education, yes this may be used, but not outside of elementary school. There are IMHO much more effective and higher-level methods of evaluating a student's understanding than using modeling clay in this fashion.

I know several educators who would disagree vehemently with your conclusion.

ALL forms of modeling are useful techniques to enhance education.

Ever draw a sketch or diagram to illustrate a complex mechanism? How about flow-charting a process for programming? Ever see an architectural model or design model?

Many of the above are often done in clay as a "proof of concept".

There is a great deal of "modeler's clay" sold to businesses, universitys, research facilities, & design institutes every year. It's not all being taken home for the tots.

You really have a very limited way of thinking about the applicability of such things.

What do you mean here by "case"? I'm not sure I am getting your drift.

In view of your question about "clay demos" and your admission of a general lack of knowledge about scientology I'm not actually surprised by this question.

People do not always act rationally. Why not (rhetorical)? Largely because of "case".

"Case" is described as being the total of all the "upsets" a person has ever experienced. Like all the time they were picked on as a child, or they were humiliated, or they felt a deep overwhelming grief or loss.

Many scientologists (& psychologists) believe such "upsets" are not necessarily limited to "this life".

Such events & emotions may contribute to a person behaving agressively when aggression isn't warranted. Or conversely, they might be come shy & withdrawn although no one is seeking to "threaten" or "overwhelm" them. Such things are forms of "case".

In short, the upsets which represent "case" may have effects on a person's life of which the person may not be completely aware. To the extent these effects are either unwanted or deleterious to the well-being of the individual they are manifestations of "case".

The concept of "case" is not unique to scientology. The phenomena is described variably by most therapies and many other spiritual practices. In scientology we refer to it as "case".

Auditing is a way of reducing the impact of these effects (aka "case").

For a more complete general descriptor of case you might try reading "Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health".

I do not claim that dianetics is a science. Neither do I claim that the book "Dianetics" is either a complete discussion of mental phenomena or a wholly accurate one. It is however good enough for "getting on with".

The book describes a workable "model" (although not in clay :wink2: ) of some key aspects of the mind (not the brain ). More importantly it discusses some useful techniques for dealing with "case" phenomena.

If you can understand it it will give you some conception, although not a complete one, of what it is that scientologists do.

And by all means, take 50 minutes and watch the Hardeep Singh Kohli video about scientology. It is a fair & independent treatment as well as an amusing tv show:"The Beginner's Guide to L.Ron Hubbard".

If you watch it you'll get a chance to see "real" scientology in action and you won't have to join a cult or pay a fortune because it's all there on google video.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Scientific Laws are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world.

Not by ANY scientist I've ever known, and I've known a fair few especially in the "hard sciences".

That is a view more commonly held by non-scientists.

Scientists, being conversant with the scientific method, are aware that that which passes for science are the "best hypotheses" which fit a certain number of specific criteria of logic and which also conform to known existing physical phenomena.


Mark A. Baker

 

[shader]

Scientific Laws are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world.

Not by ANY scientist I've ever known, and I've known a fair few especially in the "hard sciences".

That is a view more commonly held by non-scientists.

Scientists, being conversant with the scientific method, are aware that that which passes for science are the "best hypotheses" which fit a certain number of specific criteria of logic and which also conform to known existing physical phenomena.


Mark A. Baker

Mark is totally right.

A "scientific law" is theory that has avoided being proved wrong for long enough that people have grown a bit fond of it.

All scientific laws are tentative, and the best thing that can happen in science is for a long-standing "law" to be proven wrong.

The physical processes or principles the law describes may be universal and invariable, but the scientific theories about them are just models.

 

[Poofy]

Mark is totally right.

A "scientific law" is theory that has avoided being proved wrong for long enough that people have grown a bit fond of it.

All scientific laws are tentative, and the best thing that can happen in science is for a long-standing "law" to be proven wrong.

The physical processes or principles the law describes may be universal and invariable, but the scientific theories about them are just models.

That's not quite correct. A law is a description of observed phenomena. That is all. You describe what you see. That is why it is a Scientific Law. The Law of Gravity has not changed, only its scope was clarified.

Theory is a description of why you observe what you do. Theories change as we learn more. The Theory of Gravity is under flux since we do not know what information causes gravity.

 

[Poofy]

Here's a better definition that clarifies the stance:

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

A Law is a statement that is demonstrated by repeated testing.

 

[Alanzo]

Mark, when Alanzo makes a statement regarding me being an apologist for something and suggests that I not run from myself or be ashamed (giving the false impression that I am)...he is certainly, imho, attempting to make a disparaging remark.

Perhaps Alanzo should have clarified which definition of apologist he was using. :confused2:

Perhaps.

But where's the fun in that?

 

[Holly]

Genius and delusional are not mutually exclusive. There've been a lot of destructive geniuses. The pitty is followers not seeing it until the damage is done.

 

[thefiredragon]

Just my opinion.

Hip hip...

I don't know about the first part but some tech works and creates good results if a person uses it the right way.Just an opinion...

 

[paul.spiritualquest]

Data Series

I definitely like the Data Series, and it added to existing logic. I think that´s a very useful piece of tech.

Does anyone know if it´s fully LRH original? Not based on some concrete former pre-existing knowledge?

If so, my respect.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I definitely experienced some benefits from Scn. I don't think it's the only thing that produces results or can help a person and I do think Hubbard needlessly and incorrectly denigrated other ologies and isms, however.

 

[Gadfly]

I definitely like the Data Series, and it added to existing logic. I think that´s a very useful piece of tech.

Does anyone know if it´s fully LRH original? Not based on some concrete former pre-existing knowledge?

If so, my respect.

No, it is not at all an LRH "original".

Pick up a copy of "Science & Sanity" by Alfred Korzybski. The theories of General Semantics form the basis of the Data Series and MUCH MORE of Scientology. Korzybski's book is not without its faults though, being written within a view that the "brain" and "nervous system" are doing it all. When I read it, I simply understood that Korzybski was confusing "function" with "structure". My only interest in examining a "mind" is from a purely "functional" level. I am not concerned with any thoughts of "structure".

General Semantics involves a theory of "non-Aristotelian logic", where Aristotelian logic is understood as "two-valued logic". In other words, it is exactly where Hubbard got these notions from:

gradient scales
Data Series
identities
similarities
differences
sanity as beng able to differntiate among the above three
absolutes don't exist
infinite-valued logic
identity thinking A=A=A
generalities
importance of reporting on specifics

It is probably doubtful that Scientology would exist in the form that it does, if Hubbard hadn't lifted so many of Korzybski's ideas.

Additionally, Hubbard misassigns proper value and importances to various ideas from the field of General Semantics. It can be an amazing tool to bring "sanity" to the realm of conceptual thinking, reasoning and abstract thought. But, Hubbard rarely used it with THOSE goals in mind.

One of the best books I ever read was, Language In Thought and Action, by Hiyakawa. He followed in Korzybski's footsteps, and made the subject easier to understand and applicable to a wider range of people.

Free download of many books here:

http://www.scribd.com/