mental substitutes for scientology

Discussion in 'Life After Scientology' started by TomKat, Sep 24, 2017.

View Users: View Users
  1. TomKat

    TomKat Patron Meritorious

    One of the things that keeps people in Scn (either in or out of the church) is that it's an encyclopedic word system, a virtual labryinth of definitions and cross-definitions, all supporting each other to create a "self-proving" world in itself (with occasional connection to the real world). The mind does not easily discard years of that kind of accumulated information. Perhaps what is needed is a similarly complex system to engage the mind? I found that in the mid 80s with personal computers and DOS. Today, Linux is even more comparable in depth and complexity to Scn. What other mental "universes" might one explore in order to let go of Hubbard's complex mental creation? Maybe higher math? Maybe World of Warcraft?
  2. Demented Hubbatd

    Demented Hubbatd Patron with Honors

    This Habbardian universe stands on 3 legs, so to speak -- Hubbard's definition of reality, Hubbard's claim that he cured himself from horrific wartime injuries, and the silly thetan idea. Once you knock out all three, you're free from the Scientology doctrine.

    Hubbard's definition of reality is so crazy that it cannot withstand even a small amount of criticism. As Hubbard's Navy file shows, he didn't sustain any injury during the World War II. The third leg is trickier because Judaism and Christianity have a similar concept of the soul, which is equally ridiculous. But for a person with a Christian or a Jewish upbringing it might be hard to let the thetan concept go.

    For me it was just one leg, the second one that kept me in CoS. I was an atheist at the time of my involvement with Scientology (I am no longer an atheist), so I didn't buy the thetan idea. I totally misinterpreted Hubbard's definition of reality, so it had no effect on me. However, I was a strong believer in Dianetics, and at that time Hubbard's Navy files were not available on the Internet.
  3. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    This as posted on the yesterday, is a good example of the gross and negligent errors and superficial dross of "Dr." Hubbs . . .

    Yesterday Morning, my Sweet Virginia, who was never in Scientology and had never learned its axioms verbatim as I had but only heard we old ex-Scn types make mention as we progressed, came to me with two questions. This after reading my post titled "YOU ARE ALWAYS DOING SOMETHING." V read the Codees' version, but non-Codees have it here:

    Her first part of her two-part question was: "What do you mean that 'You are always doing something'?" and the second part was regarding the Scn notion of "as-issing" some unwanted condition of existence. As part of her articulation of the questions, she gave me her then understanding of it all.

    I won't repeat what she gave me, you don't need it. You will have your own J but enough is to say that her understanding of it all was based on the human level education and understanding she was in the process of shedding and realigning.

    My first address was to her understanding of what I wrote as regards "you are always doing something." I had her clarify the words "involuntary" and "replication."

    In essence, I got her to inspect the fact that we are always doing/creating something, even if on an unknowing, involuntarily replicated/repetitive continuous basis. If this were not so, we would not have the mental/spiritual junk about us we are here currently addressing to deal with and, indeed, we would not have the physical universe as is and in the condition it is.

    Our job is to return our sourcing and causation to again being under our full knowing control so that we then have what we truly want in our presence.

    Then came V's understanding of "as-isness" and the act of "as-issing" as we do in ridding ourselves of encysted spirita and spiritual Life-Force.

    V related that what her understanding of it was and what she did was: "to view the thing 'as-is' and to leave it there and to move on."


    Oh, Boy . . . that worried me. This because, if this was truly what she was doing, I could see the potential liability of her merely separating from the thing she recognized as an unwanted to be experienced. It is left there, and merely separated from . . . and to be noted, that is one of the old wrong answer solution begun and practiced by us long, long ago in earlier universes.

    And hence it was I got to pointing out the superficiality of the Hubbard dross and the comparative exactitude of our Knowledgism tech.

    Here is what I related to her on the subject of "as-isness" as compared to our thoroughly permeating, viewing and perfectly "duplicating" the unwanted conditions we 'dissipate into free Life-Force."

    Basically, the original idea of "as-isness" was the proposition that: "the moment of creation is also the moment of its destruction because, if the thing created is either not continued to be created into the new unit of time or was not created encompassing an altering proposition that it will continue into the future, the thing will cease to exist.

    The other part of the proposition was that we altered things once they were created . . . tricks like, not liking what we saw, we opposed them, altered them in time and/or space, masked them, etc. Hence lots of stuff hung up and continued into our present and, this, often because we had our opposing solutions on automatic continual counter-create.

    But the thing that blew V's zorch was this articulation of what I and we advanced guys in Kn do.

    "The way to totally undo the existence of any unwanted thing is to thoroughly pervade the existence of the unwanted thing, totally permeate and know (perfectly duplicate) it's entire existence and causation, and the intent that preceded it, the perception that preceded the intent, and the Spiritual Life Force that was deployed to bring about the existence of the thing."

    Note here I highlight that to "as-is" and totally erase any unwanted condition of existence one MUST thoroughly view its causation and who sourced it from where and when!

    Also note that I specify that one must also address the spiritual Life-Force deployed . . . this because, in actuality, the thing "created" is indeed only the result of the forming of spiritual Life-Force . . . spiritual Life-Force is the "stuff or it"!

    V was blown away by this . . . reporting she actually experienced physical changes as she got the comprehension of it all . . . hence I invite you all to take a good long look at this also.

    V loved that word "deployed." She reacted and noted its importance and relevance when I used it, and also important was the notion that, unless one actually views as-is the actual causing and sourcing that deploys the Life-Force involved, well, you aren't totally viewing the fullness and completeness of the thing!

    You ex-Scn guys here will have noted that these notions I highlight here are totally missing in Hubbard's dross.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  4. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Why would you want a substitute for Scientology? Why not move on to something else? Or nothing else? Just enjoy your life without a crutch? Especially without a crutch that tells you it has all the answers and leaves you crippled?

  5. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    And equally valid, Mimsey, is the notion of endeavoring to live life to the fullest by exploring all options and possibilities for self enhancement and self betterment . . . and to then apply those that do indeed honestly afford the desired betterment.

    It is what champion athletes have been doing since ever . . .

    In my view, any such endeavor should not, indeed must not, be seen as or be considered to be a "substitute" for Scientology. Scientology is a destructive, ill thought out enterprise that was developed by a lying con-man fraud whose only endeavor was to line his own pocket with money and "stamp his name into history."

    Scientology is and never was what it is touted as . . . hence it is not worthy of mimicry or of being followed with any kind of substitute for it.

    What is worthy of being pursued is the valid endeavor of self betterment that Scientology fraudulently usurped as its bait to catch the people of good will who became its suckers.

    Indeed, what will utterly destroy the Scientology enterprise in the end is an honest body of knowledge and practice that actually truly accomplishes what Scientology falsely and fraudulently claims to be doing. This because, folks get and stay hooked in the fraud of Scientology because of its false claims . . . but when it is recognized, a) that Scientology is the practice of destructive falsehoods and b) a comparative truth exists that demonstrates accomplishment of the goals and wants folks are pursuing, then, those already in Scientology will leave and no new members will join.

  6. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    Emphasis mine ... and snipped.

    @RogerB ... Are you saying that knowledgism is an honest body of knowledge and practice ... and that it is producing "clears and OTs"?
  7. George Layton

    George Layton Silver Meritorious Patron

    Well lets see, scientology was set up to fraudulently rob people by confusing them with word salad. If knowledgism were to come out and admit that it is too that would at least take care of the honest part.
  8. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    For any of youse who think Knowledgism is or might be either another Scientology scam or knock-off . . . 1) I recommend you read the many posts of "Alan" here and, 2) observe that neither he, I or the subject of Knowlesgism mention or speak of the notions of "clear" or "OT." Indeed we very clearly state that Hubbard's assertions in that regard are erroneous bullshit, if not fraudulent.
  9. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    The big takeaway from Scientology is that no one man has all the answers.

    I see this everywhere, these beliefs that "our way or the highway" is the winning attitude. Science is a glaring example of this. You see scientists lining up behind a belief system wholeheartedly and ignoring data to the contrary. More than that, they refuse to look at other realms of science when they "come a cropper"

    For example: the sphinx. It was long believed to be only a few thousand years old. The uproar was astounding when a geologist proved the sphinx has water damage, and thus, was many thousands of years older than archeologists believed possible.

    Another example that science has yet to come to grips with: From Newton's day onwards it is assumed gravity is a constant - that it has always been the same on this planet.

    And yet, walk into any large natural history museum and you can see with your own eyes that gravity has changed greatly over the millennia - the large dinosaurs can not walk on land, let alone hold their heads up. When first discovered, the brontosaurus (sic) was thought to have an aquatic life, that wading in water would support their massive weight. Then they found they walked on land. Well, they must walk like a croc, dragging their bellies on the ground. Nope. examining the skellingtons showed that was wrong. They walked upright. How could they support their 100 ton weight?

    The most logical answer is that gravity was not as strong then.

    But it is professional suicide to suggest such a thing that gravity is not a constant, and was much weaker in the past. And worse, perhaps weaker in the recent past of 15k years ago when all the mega fauna existed, such as the Mammoth, giant bears, etc, thrived.

    So much for science having an open mind. It begs the question - why all this insistence on our answer is the only true answer?

    • Like Like x 1
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
    • List
  10. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    It may be that some scientists are ready to admit that the gravitational constant isn't as constant as it could be, but that is on the order of parts per million, not the massive difference your ludicrous statement about dinosaurs entails. If the force of gravity were to have changed over time as much as you are trying to portray it would have had monumental cosmological repercussions, i.e, stars would burn up much faster etc. etc.

    What you are saying is nothing short of ridiculous frankly, and I'm surprised by what you have written.

    BTW, I'll bet there's a few skellingtons in your cupboard eh?
  11. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    I don't think knowledgism is or might be a scientology knock off ... I know it is ... and if you hadn't tried to deny it (years ago) it would never have been an issue.

    It is what it is.

    I'm pleased to hear that you are not selling or promoting the notion of "clear and OT" though.
  12. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    First off, it's not my idea. Secondly, the weight and size of the dinos vs. gravity has never been solved. Third - thanks for proving my point about how closed minded science is.

    And you are right, if it is true, the consequences are monumental. Precisely why no one wants to open that Pandora's box.

    It took about 10 years after the idea of water erosion of the sphinx was first floated before a geologist had enough tenure etc. and was secure in his academic position, before he would look at it and do a paper.

    They are deathly afraid of censure.

    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  13. Wants2Talk

    Wants2Talk Silver Meritorious Patron

    I still like Rudolph Steiner - Philosophy of Freedom.
  14. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Who the hell escapes from a cult and looks for a "substitute" cult to replace it? No thanks!:gaah:

    I understand "no, no! THIS one isn't a cult"... But, whichever belief system someone is pushing -- NO THANKS.
  15. anonomog

    anonomog Gold Meritorious Patron

    Lessening gravity means more atmosphere lost into space. Until we find some dinosaur shaped oxygen apparatus, I'm going with the strength of bones and muscle.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  16. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    They converted some of the food they ate into Helium and filled cavities in their bodies with the stuff. Graceful as ballerinas they were! :)
    • LOL LOL x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  17. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Please don't lie and continue to spread your falsehoods . . . it is not what this Board is about.
    • Poop Poop x 2
    • Huh? Huh? x 1
    • List
  18. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Mimsey wrote:
    Yes . . . another example is that the Russians have carried out experiments that demonstrate Einstein's assertion, that all PC science accepts as gospel, that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, is false!

    • Poop Poop x 1
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
    • List
  19. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    Who the fuck are 'The Russians'? Don't you think we are entitled to something a little less generalised?
  20. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    If they are deathly afraid of censure - which is a bit over the top imo - maybe it is because they want to be absolutely sure they have got their facts right before they publish anything, unlike you, who will publish oceans of unverified pseudo-scientific twaddle and anecdotal 'evidence' of the laws of physics being broken at the drop of a hat.

    The irony of this is that in order to to take part in this conversation you are using the very science you are all too ready to attack.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Love Love x 1
    • List