Context in Scientology

[Mark A. Baker]

... And you edited away the most important part of Jach's post. ...

I don't agree. Nor do I respond to posts in order to please your sense of aesthetics.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Jachs]

That's nice.




The organization gradually evolved over a time period of around 30 years in response to a continuous process of alterations made by an obsessive, impulsive, & emotionally unstable individual. That hardly represents deliberation or planning.

The Co$ evolved to match the peculiarities of hubbard's own mental framework, i.e. his 'case'. It continues because in its irrationality it aligns with those who choose to remain as members.


Mark A. Baker

I get what your saying.

Your view is it was no-intent to be erratic, i think its intentionally erratic.


When i look at Dianetics, Scn & compare them with what Hubbard says in the brainwashing manual. I see his style, they S&D are written in complex verbiage , Dianetics may be out in public domain, but it is written in a style that renders it mostly incomprehensible, prompting readers who "accidently" get in trouble to contact home base, where security can be imposed.

Brainwashing manual,page 61
'All actual literature on the subject of insanity [sanity] and its treatment should be suppressed, first by actual security, and second by complex verbiage which renders it incomprehensible.'

IMO scn & dia are intentionally loaded with button pushing(reverse semantic euphemisms) to introvert &/or overstimulate the reader, gives half concepts with a set of terms in one section and the other half of the concept in another section with different terms to render obscure.

I didnt notice Rons emotions, his consistent stable datum was no emotion computations, thats why he had to act concerned when talking about blowing babies heads ,and almost weeping, but beyond the eyes of his public he displayed no trouble at all locking young bodies up in chain lockers & hypnotizing his own in their sleep.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I get what your saying.

Your view is it was no-intent to be erratic, i think its intentionally erratic. ...

He was tremendously erratic in all aspects of his life. Nonetheless, he never publicly admitted to being even the least bit erratic. This was readily apparent to all of his associates, his wives, literary colleagues, commanding officers, friends, etc..

It's not the least bit surprising it shows up as a principle characteristic in his writing & lectures.

... I didnt notice Rons emotions, his consistent stable datum was no emotion computations, ...

That may well have been his 'stable datum'. It wasn't him. He was clever & could be quite cunning. But his history as reported here on esmb & elsewhere on the internet and by those who knew him well is quite clear. Throughout his life he was always subject to emotional outbursts, bursts of manic energy & enthusiasm, and which gave way to subsequent fear, feelings of persecution, disenchantment with half-completed projects or plans, and depression.

Hubbard wasn't a Commander Data.

He was a mixed-up emotional misfit masquerading as The Man in Control.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Auditor's Toad]

IMO, if that covered it, we probably wouldn't be here. It's more complicated and sneakier than that. It would be more accurate, if a Bazooka bubblegum wrapper sized description were needed, to describe it as enlightenment-coated mind fuck.

Well, we got MAB here to explain the significance of scientology and the importance of it's workings.

And you think I missed the boat ?

 

[Veda]

This is an outline of the Scientology operation, circa 1960s, with finishing touches added in the early 1970s. It was developed from the already existing doctrine and patterns of the 1950s, 1940s, and 1930s. It is remarkably consistent.


'Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology', a.k.a. 'Revisiting the Textbook on Psycho-politics' http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/ambry1.html

Contents

Examining the 'Brainwashing Manual' http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg with the purpose of better understanding Scientology 4

Introduction: A Brief Outline of Scientology Doctrine, Public and Confidential 6

"White Scientology" - The Battle Tactics Doctrine - Brainwashing Manual Tech - Scientology is Multi-layered - Exploiting the Positives: the Cheese in the Trap -

Background 9

Origin of the word "brainwashing." and of the "Russian Brainwashing Manual"
L. Ron Hubbard writing to Scientologists on the subject of the Brainwashing Manual
Departing briefly from the Manual: A look at private tactics later shared with insiders
A publicized statement
A private explanation
Hubbard vs. the "Asiatic Hordes"
Back to the Brainwashing Manual: Excerpts from Hubbard's third public statement on it
Kenneth Goff's 1956 version of the Manual
Scientology's "No-answer answers."

Excerpts from the Brainwashing Manual/Textbook on Psycho-politics 14

"Editorial Note": Hubbard. assuming the guise of the phantasmal "Charles Stickley"
"An Address by Beria": Hubbard, pretending to be Lavrenti Beria, chief of the Russian Secret Police
The Main Text of the Manual: Hubbard, masquerading as an arrogant Russain Brainwashing expert
"Pain-Drug-Hypnosis"

The Layers of The "Scientological Onion" http://exscn.net/content/view/178/105 17

Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Modern Scientology 19

Correspondences between the Brainwashing Manual and the Battle Tactics policy
On “Survival”
On Surviving the Atomic Bomb
On an individual Scientologist influencing leaders
Scientology is devious by design

Front Groups - Layer Zero of the “Scientological Onion” 20

“It is not necessary that the term ‘Communism’ [Scientology] be applied at first…”

Layer One - The publicized portion of Scientology 23

“White Scientology”
Scenario: (An application of “White Scientology”)
“By reason alone”
Auditing

Descending into Layer Two of the “Onion”: The “In-Organization” Strata 27

“…[Scientology] under the guise of [‘White Scientology’]…”
Exploitation of the process of abreaction
Playing one thing off another or “counter-playing”
“Loaded language”: the seemingly enlightened “counter-played” with the manipulative
Tone 4, “entheta,” “theta,” Suppressive Person
The Thought Limiting clichés of Scientology
Publicized, “In-organization” and Confidential Scientology “Ethics”
“…aligning the individual against the desire not to conform…”
Side effects of “critical thoughts”
Dominion over the loyalties of individuals

Layer Three of the “Onion”: The Confidential “Upper Levels” of the “Bridge to Total Freedom” 33

“…avoid the understanding of the layman…”
Highest of the “upper levels” must remain a mystery to the membership
Operating Thetan or O.T.
Aleister Crowley, Head of the O.T.O.
O.T. III, The “Wall of Fire” into which Hubbard “took the plunge” to save Mankind
Exploitation of the paranormal

Layer Four: “…a well trained individual who serves in complete obedience…”
The Sea Organization, the Rehabilitation Project Force, and the Five Card System 36

The Sea Organization: “Custodians of the O.T. Levels”
“…the only loyalty which should exist… is to the State [Scientology].”
Sea Org Ethics under Commodore Hubbard on the Flagship
“Refusal to let them sleep over many days…”
The Rehabilitation Project Force
“Filthy food, little sleep, nearly untenable quarters…”
“…the first loyalty [to himself]… is destroyed…”
“Degradation and conquest…”
The children’s and teenagers’ RPF
“A certain amount of fear…”
The RPF’s RPF
The Five Card “Team Share” System
“The technologies of psycho-politics…”

Layer Five: Confidential Scientology Policy and Tech for “handling” uncooperative outsiders 46

The Fair Game policy and “philosophy”
“…find or manufacture enough threat…”
“Direct the attention of the authorities…”
Scientology’s unscrupulous use of the legal system
“We will no longer put up with our religion being criticized…”
Discourage inquiry
Defamatory data on file; “Culling”: Searching “religious confessional” (auditing) files for embarrassing or intimidating items
Background: The Commodore’s Intelligence Network
The policy of covert attack and publicized PR “defense lines”
Scientology’s Multi-layered Public Relations tech
Scientology Intelligence tech
Data collecting, and Attack or “support” Intelligence
Creating incidents that reflect badly on others
“Data needed by Ops on each located who”
Attack or “support” Intelligence - The Covert Ops study course and checklist
“Persons in his vicinity to whom he is emotionally involved…”
Coerce them into signing prepared “retractions” or “confessions”
Plenty of bogus “documentation”
One justification for unscrupulous covert methods
Treatment of VIPs and celebrities
Goal of talking over “mental health” and “political guidance”
Full knowledge of Intelligence tech must be denied to the general membership
“Deception, chicanery, lying, manipulation and outright criminality”
“She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me”
Scientologists believe in a planet-wide conspiracy against L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology
The Scientology Hierarchy

Layer Six: The Core of the “Scientological Onion” 69

“…virtually a pathological liar…egotism… lust for power, and vindictiveness…”
“We must be like the vine upon the tree…”
The elusive “1000 page” official L. Ron Hubbard biography
“It’s a trap not being able to prevaricate”
Conscience as an “impediment”
The L. Ron Hubbard Fan(atic) club

Epilogue 74

Freeing the Positives

Addendum 76

"Dr. Hubbard's" FBI letters written concurrent with the appearance of the Brainwashing Manual 77

L. Ron Hubbard assumes the identity of Dr. Hubbard Ph.D DD - Patriotic Concerned Citizen
Letter of 29 July 1955
From a letter dated 7 September

A further look at Scientology's Covert Intelligence Tech 79

"Categories of Data Needing Coding"
A glimpse at a covert operation, and of public strata "policy" used as a cover for applied covert policy
An example of public strata "policy" used as "cover" - this time used on Scientologists by Scientology
"Ops Planning"
What to "Vet" or delete from sensitive internal messages that may be scrutinized by outsiders

Bibliography 82

Notes 87


L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, 2nd edition:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0942637577/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-0654802-4263319

 

[pollywog]

I don't agree. Nor do I respond to posts in order to please your sense of aesthetics.


Mark A. Baker

That's nice.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

That's nice.

Some people assume an altitude to go with their arrogance so they don't mingle with us mere folks because they have decided they are above it all.

Funny stuff.....if you keep your sense of humore while reading their "stuff".

 

[pollywog]

Some people assume an altitude to go with their arrogance so they don't mingle with us mere folks because they have decided they are above it all.

Funny stuff.....if you keep your sense of humore while reading their "stuff".

Thanks Toad. I was going for irony (see post #19). But I admit to struggling between laughter and the overwhelming desire to simply end it all because I can never hope to live up to MAB's awe-inspiring erudition.

 

[Student of Trinity]

No doubt as your primary reference frame lies in the discipline of physics you regard such things as being trifling distinctions 'within tolerable margins of experimental error'. However, my experience as a student of mathematics taught me the exact opposite; the importance of attention to detail when formulating any sort of logical analysis or proof.

My point is not that details do not matter — that's a ridiculously flimsy straw man. My point is that not only details matter, that there are very important aspects of understanding that will be missed if one focuses too much on details, as 'study tech' seems to encourage. The fallacy of focusing too much on detail definitely applies to mathematical proofs. A mathematician who can pore through every detail of a proof, but cannot also more succinctly express the basic gist of what the proof is about, is useless. Mathematicians discuss proofs, and discover proofs, by thinking in broader terms. Fixing all the little details comes afterwards.

The physical universe may seem to be self-correcting within the physical limits of measurement, but even that is misapprehension based principally on customary scales of observation and the limited potential of human comprehension.

No doubt God sees every detail, but as Bertrand Russell famously pointed out, the exact sciences are completely dominated by the idea of approximation. To understand something in physics is to approximate it with a simple model that nonetheless captures the essential features of the phenomenon. If you can't distinguish details from essential features, you can't even get started. Fixing all the details is just the last stage — and it is usually delegated to a few specialists, while most physicists go on to other things.

Statistical mechanics is predicated on the observation that accurate prediction of sufficiently complex phenomena is only possible in the aggregate and as a matter of statistical probabilities. It is not that the 'details are therefore necessarily insignificant', they are simply deemed intractable as a practical problem of physical science.

I'm not sure how you're trying to argue here, since statistical mechanics is a very direct expression of my point that higher-level thinking is a necessary complement to focusing on detail. Statistical mechanics means following macroscopic properties without specifying details. The fact that it works so well is a pretty open-and-shut demonstration of my case. If you're trying to dismiss statistical mechanics as a mere technical accommodation to an unfortunate technical difficulty, I'm afraid that is silly. The fact that reality is far too complex to follow in detail, but can be described amazingly well without being followed in detail, is not itself a technical detail at all. It is an enormous and fundamental fact; it is the big picture.

Similarly level quantum phenomena are not at all predictable except as aggregated statistical averages. ...

I'd recommend against arguments based on quantum mechanics. It's too hard to make QM relevant to anything else without grossly misinterpreting it.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... My point is that not only details matter, that there are very important aspects of understanding that will be missed if one focuses too much on details, as 'study tech' seems to encourage.

No, only it's use as commonly practiced within the Co$. Admittedly, the church is its primary proponent, but not the only one. No one here is arguing in favor of the church.

Don't confuse the church's use of the tech with the tech itself. Despite claims to the contrary, hubbard was not the originator of the tech. He simply adopted it as it was presented to him by Charles Berner, himself a professional educator. Hubbard characteristically claimed authorship himself.

ST is itself merely one tool which can be used in study. It is a fairly useful tool, with the potential for widespread application & adaptability, yet it is but a tool.

I fully concur with your statement regarding the primary importance of conceptual understanding. That is obviously the primary goal of any study. It is, however, not only not inconsistent with study tech, it is THE principle purpose & intent for study tech. That is explicitly stated in the written & lecture materials which describe the use of ST and it is a misuse of ST to use ST with any other intent.

The point of the various forms of modeling and word clearing is to separate any prior confusions in conflicting meanings which may have been previously adopted by the student and which serve to impede his current conceptual understanding and to clarify the concepts being described in the specific course materials being studied so that the student grasps them conceptually. This is true whether the materials be for mathematics, physics, psychology, scientology, or some other topic.

However, I have absolutely no disagreement with you in that that purpose is all too often overlooked or intentionally negated by the church in enforcing a domineering cult mentality upon its membership.

... No doubt God sees every detail, but as Bertrand Russell famously pointed out, the exact sciences are completely dominated by the idea of approximation. ...

That is certainly true. Approximation is also a very useful tool. It is also only one tool available for increasing human understanding. The real point of this discussion is not whether the use of approximation, or emphasis on detail is superior the one to the other.

The point you earlier raised to which I took exception dealt with what you claimed to be the rarity of the importance of detail. I disagree. I acknowledge that by the customary nature of your own work there is a clear reliance on the art of approximation, but that does not necessitate a conclusion that details are accordingly unimportant. As an example, the details associated with the manner in which approximation is derived are often of critical relevance to accurate interpretation of results.

Moreover, all of this is a digression away from the actual discussion which is the purpose intended to be served by adoption of study tech and how that relates to establishing context.

... I'm not sure how you're trying to argue here, since statistical mechanics is a very direct expression of my point that higher-level thinking is a necessary complement to focusing on detail.

I don't deny that point. I'm in agreement with it. Nor is ST inconsistent with it.

I took your prior remarks, not as suggesting the importance of conceptual understanding, a point about which we have no disagreement, but as dismissing the role that apparently 'minute' or 'irrelevant' detail may have. Depending on the topic at hand, details can be of extreme and fundamental importance; whether it be physics, mathematics, engineering, or some other area of human knowledge.

Aspects of ST can be used to emphasize the importance of attention being paid to details, but ST itself is focused principally on broad conceptual understanding. It constitutes a complete conceptual misunderstanding of ST to apply it in any other way.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

As an example of the stupidity of study tech!
To define ordinary words when the meaning you use to define is made up of more simple words than the single word you are about to define, when it is perfectly sensible to define a complex word like; ‘Entropy’ or ‘phenotype’ with the use of ordinary words. And if they find a word you cannot define even if you say you know but can’t say then you have to restudy everything from that word and so on, and they don’t care if you understand what you are reading, because that word is senior to understanding in their strange world, meanwhile in the real world it would be impossible to even have an ordinary chat with someone if you don’t understand ordinary words. Btw, it is impossible to acquire both context and details, as evidenced when you zoom in with a camera you lose perspective, and the details begin to blur when you zoom out and see perspective, and same it is with reasoning you cannot pay attention to every single word and follow a way of reasoning as in the old saying; you miss the trees for the forest, and there is a correlation in quantum mechanics; a particle doesn’t have a well defined momentum and position, because the more we know about its position the less with know about its momentum, and vice versa!

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Student of Trinity and Mark A Baker,

You both need to get your ethics in and take responsibility and find your words.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Student of Trinity and Mark A Baker,

You both need to get your ethics in and take responsibility and find your words.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Maybe its just too late, but that is too cryptic for me, TAJ.


Mark A. Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Maybe its just too late, but that is too cryptic for me, TAJ.


Mark A. Baker

I was just trying to save the planet.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I was just trying to save the planet.

The Anabaptist Jacques

There are bigger threats than the two of us out there.

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/


Mark A. Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

There are bigger threats than the two of us out there.

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/


Mark A. Baker

Yeah. God help us.

The Anabaptist Jacques