ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

For the record

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Isene, Jul 10, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. Isene

    Isene Patron with Honors

  2. LA SCN

    LA SCN NOT drinking the kool-aid

    Very nicely put!

    Thank you so much for this. :yes:

    It resonates well with me. :thumbsup:

    Especially this:

    "I still use Scientology every day in my life. I also use art, computers, psychology, physics and a lawn mover now and then."

    "I am not a scientologist. Just like I am not an artist, computerist, psychologist, physicist or the lawn mover man."

    - Geir Isene

    I hope my use of your quotes is OK.
  3. Isene

    Isene Patron with Honors

    Sure - go ahead and quote :)
  4. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    My current stance on Scientology:

    Been there, done that. Moved on. YAWN!!!!!!!!

    I found many ideas and practices with MUCH MORE value in other non-Scientology areas. :yes:
  5. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    You still want to do your L's and re-do the old oatee levels?


    You are still a (embarrassed to admit it?) scientologist!

    But, whatever floats your boat, its entirely your own business, not ours.

  6. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter


    I am so proud of you. Getting away from the Scn'ist/Scn branding is, IMO, an important step. It means you are thinking of you as you and not defining yourself in terms of "I'm a this" "I'm a that".

    I think these things evolve with time. I truly believe I've seen your stance and viewpoint evolve and change over the past couple or so years. And I think you deserve credit for that.

    Hardly anyone leaving CofS after years in stays the same, ideology-wise. You've shown a lot of change and vitality, as well.
  7. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    My current stance on Geir Isene. He's done himself a lot of good by using his own ability to do himself a lot of good. He attributes some of that to Scientology, I attribute all of it to him, and his innate ability to learn and grow.

  8. Isene

    Isene Patron with Honors

    Smilla; Thanks for the vote of confidence.
  9. Megalomaniac

    Megalomaniac Silver Meritorious Patron

  10. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Hi Geir, I wonder how you deal with the contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard goes to great lengths to state that the tech works if applied exactly, he says how he and he alone is responsible for the tech, how he ate crow when he took tech advice from others, essentially saying it is his way or the highway. He claims Scientology is the most ethical practice on the planet, however, his organization mistreats the staff, lies in the press about disconnection, and has had a scorched earth policy in dealing with critics.

    The point of his being responsible for the quality of the tech is in question, especially obvious with the purif – One of the major points is how the person takes in oil, which replaces the chemical laden fats held in the cells, yet there is no known mechanism for that known to medical science. The body simply metabolizes the oil. And there is the question, how does the cells store water soluble drugs, when they are known to flush out of the body shortly after ingestion. There are physical dangers connected with high doses of niacin such as liver damage. The purif is not even dignified as Junk Science, but is looked upon as Quackery. And yet he says he is responsible for the quality of the tech.

    To me, he would have assembled a team of medical researchers, and with the vast sums of money he had available, he would have done a creditable job of putting together a valid and workable purification program. But he didn’t. I find it interesting, that many people have reported gains from the purif. How does one account for them? Daily exercise, the body reacting to the heat with increased blood flow? A diet and vitamin regimen? Placebo effect? Faith healing?

    And there is the business of his stating his being in the first class on Nuclear physics, rubbing elbows with the A-bomb guys, setting them straight with his definition of zero, his stating in his congresses that he slept through most of his classes, pawning himself off as a nuclear physicist, and he doesn’t bother fact checking his book “All About Radiation”, it is widely known to be full of errors on the subject of radiation. In other words, what you would expect from someone who flunked the class which he did.

    So here is a clear cut example of how Mr. Hubbard was disingenuous with regards to a portion of his tech. How his ethics were in the toilet. How much does this lack of ethics find itself find itself in the remainder of the body of the tech? And how do you deal with it? I grant that, he does have some workable aspects in his technology, the study tech, the lower auditing levels and some of the other points you make, however, this lack of ethical behavior on his part, is a major bone of contention with some, myself included. Where does the truth of Scientology end and the lies begin? What is valid and what isn’t?

    And how does Mr. Hubbard respond to criticism of his technology? He calls it entheta, which is essentially a thought blocker. That something is true or not, is not part of whether it is theta or entheta. It is whether it is good news or bad. So having instilled in his public a self-policing mechanism, that allows them to not confront or consider criticism, he sails along, not changing his moral compass. If anything, it gets worse and he institutes disconnection policies to prevent his flock from being alloyed by criticism.

    So, Geir, how do you deal with this thread of unethical behavior? Do you feel it has tainted his technology?


    ( I posted this on his site as well, if you care to see the responses there - it is currently awaiting moderation)
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2012
  11. well mims, it appears geir deals with these things (and a bookshelf full of other things) basically the way i and so many others do. by not practicing or endorsing them and by not treading on turf controlled by CoS.

    we're free men and women here and the spectrum of our beliefs ranges from the infrared to the ultraviolet (my own orbit is around indigo). as much as many have a great fervor for seeing hubbard's work disappear it isn't gonna happen. many people of good will and intelligence living well beyond the grasp of the organization continue to affirm virtue and value to it
  12. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    "Study tech" - bypassing critical analysis with robotic acceptance - just what every kid needs.
  13. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    No, not all of it is like that. The emphasis that Hubbard's work is to be duplicated exactly is what you say, but looking up words, demoing principles, getting mass, pictures, conceptual understanding, gradients etc. are all workable principles that can be used to understand and apply something.

  14. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    But it still works from the basic premise that what is being studied is correct. Does it teach a person to evaluate what they've just read? Well, that might be reading but it's not studying. Try studying like that in university. Try just regurgitating texts and see what kind of mark you get. In proper study they expect you to analyse the source, such as internet, newspaper or peer-reviewed study, the methodology, weaknesses and strengths, limitations etc. They expect you to look at the case for and against. They expect you to come to a conclusion based on evidence. This is study. Hubbard's "study technology" has nothing of this. If I knew how to study properly I would have thrown Dianetics in the bin during the first chapter.
  15. themadhair

    themadhair Patron Meritorious

    In principle this sounds fine, but per the study technology method it is actually counter-productive to learning. Actual learning requires understanding and getting a mental grasp of the concepts of the subject being studied. Looking up a few words that you need in order to grasp the meaning of a concept is fine, but the wordclearing of study technology atomises conceptual descriptions into their individual words, effectively removing those words from the conceptual framework they were trying to convey.

    The continual interruption to the mental faculties caused by this method severely retard the minds ability to find associations, connections and other macro-relationships needed to learn a given topic. This is great if the goal is to manufacture acceptance from the student, but toxic to allowing that student to exercise the mental muscles needed for them to ‘get their head around’ the subject.
    Fine in certain circumstances, but mostly this is simply garbage given that many concepts do not have a sensible referent in a demo kit. Trying to demo concepts like ‘love’ is not conducive to educational learning where the goal is to encourage a student’s mind to expand itself as it explores new concepts and ideas. The whole demo kit methodology severely retards a student’s ability for abstraction by connecting their associative reasoning to the over-simplifications demo kits induce.
    The above are just two examples of where the very methods of study technology inhibit such.
    This is something that sounds very nice in theory, but in practice is yet again counterproductive. A good example is in how subjects like mathematics are taught. If you were to gradient the relevant material you would bore the shit out of the students. By going completely out-gradient and first showing the power of what the student will learn works far far better with many technical subjects. Actively informing students of the intellectual challenge they will face in a given subject, a complete and utter violation of the gradient principle, was a hallmark of my university education. And it really really worked.

    By actively encouraging and fostering students to fill in the gaps in their own knowledge as material was covered (with the necessary help available when needed), students are able to develop a whole litany of self-reliant investigative skills – skills which when applied to the material gives those students a much deeper understanding of the topic than simply following a study technology gradient.

    When I think about all the various little skills I have used to learn new material, from back in primary school all the way up the present day, the absolutely crucial ingredient is the ability to form associations, to mentally join the dots, to have that moment where your mind successfully shuffles a myriad of once seeming disparate ideas into a cogent all-encompassing explanatory framework – all things that the method of study technology seems to retard.
  16. :clap::clap::clap:

    The Anabaptist Jacques
  17. Isene

    Isene Patron with Honors

    Mimsey: See my answer to your question on my blog (nice of you to ask the question over there so that my readers could see your questions).

    Re: Study tech - see the link I provided with that in the OP at the blog.
  18. Purple Rain

    Purple Rain Crusader

    That still doesn't cover the point about the missing connections with the rest of the body of knowledge and related bodies of knowledge. It also doesn't cover the fact that study should lead just as much to questions as answers. That is one of the most important products of studying a subject - what questions come out of this - how can that guide future research?

    Also I am no expert, but from what I understand the human mind is far more about "connections" than about "pictures" as Hubbard said it was.
  19. Isene

    Isene Patron with Honors

    Did you read my critical posts on the Study tech?

    As for the "whole body of knowledge"... yes, my answer to Mimsey does indeed cover that.
  20. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    Where do you get this from? Are you serious? Lets say you want to fix your stalling diesel and you read that it is due the the PMD not functioning - you are not going to bother looking up what a PMD is because it atomizes your understanding? It just makes good sense to know what the words of what is being studied mean. Give me a break. Look up the words and reread it. Or read it and then go back and look up the words after. What the hell is so atomizing about that?

    You are welcome to your opinions, but I can't say I completely agree with them. Sure, if you are going to robotically look up every damn word you encounter, demo every little concept you encounter you are going to have a time of it. But the intent of study tech was tools you used when you encountered difficulty, to help untangle it so you could go forward. Did you ever do the student hat? I suggest you missed that point.

    I will agree on the atomization in this degree - I find it distracting when I write when the spell check highlights mis-spelled words - my attention is dragged off what I am writing to correcting the error, losing my train of thought.

    I can't say that worked with me - my study of math went down the toilet by out gradient crap. When I flunked geometry and re did the course, then I got what I had missed the first time through it and did quite well on it afterwards, thank you.

    As to demonstration, I like to sketch things to help me to visualize them. I use the sketch up program a lot in that wise. I can see your point that demonstrating abstract concepts is difficult, if not impossible. However, shall we toss out demonstration because we can't demo love? It has it's uses. Part of this is deciding what tool to use when. But then again, you can say that about any part of life. Like in Pulp Fiction - do you choose the chain saw or the samurai sword?


    ( the PMD is a module that controls the fuel flow to the injectors, BTW. )
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2012