What's new

Misconceptions

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
David Mayo - Some facts

I have occasionally glanced at FB and the board here and see some rather varied comments regarding David.

So I thought I would give you some background.

I first met David on the Royal Scotsman in Valencia. I had arrived on board to take up post as "Casecracker". At the time I was the highest (and best) auditor in Scn.

David had come from Auckland and had a long experience in the technical side out there. He was a highly competent tech person. After attending the original Cl 8 course lectures I went to the UK and supervised the Class 8 course. David was a student on that course. He went on to become CO AOUK and after it was moved back to St Hill David returned to Flag.

Whilst we worked together, I would not say that we were close friends. David was a rather private person. However we rubbed along ok.

One thing I would say is that without doubt, David was (and probably still is) the finest Case Supervisor Scn ever produced. He had a terrier like quality of keeping digging and digging whan all others had given up.

I remember a case at Edinburgh where the C/S, Neville Potter had been struggling with a pc file. He gave it to me and I went over and over but still could not put my finger on what was awry. Finally I asked David to go over it. He read, reread and reread again, every scrap of paper, every session, every last detail and after some hours picked up on a seemingly insignifigant point. From this he wrote a c/s directive for the auditor to ask the pc a question. From this the case fell apart.

NOTS was a brilliant marketing program. Although the technical content has caused countless deaths, heart attacks, strokes and innumerable bankruptcies, the essence was that it was based on a series of review actions constructed by Hubbard with David's assistance. I suppose Rathburn will claim some involvement in the marketing side of the program, it was David who was the technical development participant.

Having reached the highest levels on the technical side David suffered the same treatment as others who stole Hubbard's thunder. His treatment in the "Happy Valley Gulag" was disgraceful and whilst David is not in a position to comment on matters between himself and the Scn cult, the rest of us can.

As a final comment, for those of you who speculate on who was the first permanent Class 8, the answer is that there were two, John Parselle and James Hare. At the end of the first course the students had to sit an exam. However Hubbard gave an opportunity for two volunteers to skip the exam and instead c/s a case, write a c/s and deliver it. Both did so and passed with fyling colours. As a result both John and Janes were awarded permanent Class 8 badges.

That all folks,

Dart
 

AnonLover

Patron Meritorious
i hate it when i skip way ahead in a good thread... but the 20pg jump i just did to read Dart's post was well worth it :thumbsup:
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
This is one of the two last PMs by Null Portal.

Below a definition of something used in the post.

Theta-Mest theory- the idea that there was a universe and that there was thought - theta without wavelength, without mass, without time, without position in space: this was life. And that was impinged upon something else called the physical universe, which was a mechanical entity which did things in a peculiar way, and these two things together, THETA-MEST interacting, gave us life forms.

----------------------------
Null Portal

My big fat pompous final words (Part 1)
Maybe you would like to post your viewpoint in detail.

I'm flattered. I think I can briefly sum up what I believe that might be of some value.

Scientology is about Theta-MEST theory and what tools might exist to help illuminate this. There are forays into diet advice, organizational notions, and political punditry, etc., but they aren't essential. The main thing to know about theta-MEST is that they are chalk and cheese. Any correct explanation of how they manage to have anything whatsoever to do with one another is pure gold.

...

Here are some of my comments on THETA-MEST theory:

(1) THETA-MEST theory seems to assume that THETA and MEST are two different systems that interact with each other.

(2) At the same time THETA is assumed to be the source of MEST. This leads to inconsistency.

(3) This inconsistency may be resolved by viewing THETA and MEST as sub-systems of a larger system from which they inherit some common characteristics.

(4) Thus, THETA and MEST are neither totally independent of each other, nor necesarily opposed to each other.

[More later...]

.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Here are some of my comments on THETA-MEST theory:

(1) THETA-MEST theory seems to assume that THETA and MEST are two different systems that interact with each other.

(2) At the same time THETA is assumed to be the source of MEST. This leads to inconsistency.

(3) This inconsistency may be resolved by viewing THETA and MEST as sub-systems of a larger system from which they inherit some common characteristics.

(4) Thus, THETA and MEST are neither totally independent of each other, nor necesarily opposed to each other.

[More later...]

The notions of "theta" and "mest" are horrendously abstract concepts, existing at the VERY TOP of any pyramid of generalization, and as such, can and do mean just about anything to anybody.

Making the matters far worse is that "theta" is an entirely imaginary mental construct that has NO agreed-upon shared referrant. For example, the concept "MEST" DOES have a referrant because people can perceive and experience many details of it (matter, energy, space and time). People at least have SOME shared reality to form a basis for meaningful conversation.

But, "theta" is not unlike the notion of a "unicorn". There is no existing shared reality that more than a few people can agree upon! And, MANY little groups, with their cute little definitons and paradigms, all disagree with each other! :confused2: For the most part, since there is no "tangible" common experience of "theta", nearly all NOTIONS about it exist in the imagination.

It can function like "math" though, which may be why some math teachers like looking at such notions. Simple arithmetic does not "exist out there". The ideas of "zero", "equality", "integers", "addition", and so forth are DEFINED a certain way, and thus, one can "think with them" as long as you agree with the definitions (most everybody does). But, it is a product of the imagination, that has "some" relation to physical events and things.

And, also, math IS tremendously useful, and an amazing product of the human imagination! But, "math" is totally a "mental construct". For instance, there is no example of "equality" anywhere in the universe, past or present. A person cannot get an idea of "equality" by observing "out there". The notion of "equality" is an IDEAL, it doesn't "exist" anywhere else except in the mind of a human being (or some other sentient being). One needs to be aware of such things when examing the nature of MEST, the nature of "mind", and other cool stuff. The notion of "theta", like "math", exists much more as a "mental construct" than anything else. While the term "theta" "may" possibly relate to some actual "reality", in the end, there is "no proof" that all people will equally accept, and sadly, in the end, these ideas will mean VERY different things to just about every person who entertains such imaginary creations.

To "think" with "spiritual" ideas, it nearly always settles down to what the terms are DEFINED to mean. And, because of THAT, most discussion reduces to arguing over DEFINITIONS! Such is the nature of a great deal of "philosophy".

I suppose there may be a correct and accurate way to define and describe the "invisible" and the "visible", how these relate, which functions as "cause" (if at all), etc. But, really, for the most part, it is going to always end up like arguing about "unicorns". :duh:

++++++++++
 
Last edited:

Caliwog

Patron Meritorious
Caliwog, Was that the most important thing you read in Null Portal's writing? It was the least important to me. What did you think of the rest of it?

For that particular PM, not much. All the first pm (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=572967&postcount=370) basically says, after the point that there's no use in discussing anything with people who disagree, is that reality exists above physical reality, and anyone who disagrees is a whiny bitch.

I assume you're talking about the other two posts ("My big fat pompous last words"), which should be labeled tl;dr by anyone who values their time... Anyway, the nature of matter is in line with what I learned in high school physics, and the rest is all seems to revolve around the idea that the MEST universe is mocked up by thetans, which I think is hogwash. Null may have disagreed with some of Hubbard's logic, which isn't a surprise, since Hubbard's logic isn't very logical. Regardless, to me this is just horse-shit of a different color.

One of the idiosyncrasies of the human mind is that it has limits to its comprehension and understanding, but lacks the ability to accept those limits. Your cat doesn't care what the world is like a mile away, but humans have to know. Where we can't know, we have to have something to believe - and its amazing what we can get ourselves to accept.

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com
 

The Oracle

Gold Meritorious Patron
I have started two thread with the same name. Can anyone get rid of the other one for me? (I don't see how to do it from here.)

Also I was trying to move some posts from the "ESMB Poster ..." thread and didn't get them all here.

David

Admin is a via. If you are hung up in it though I volunteer to do what I can to get this handled.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I have occasionally glanced at FB and the board here and see some rather varied comments regarding David.

So I thought I would give you some background.

I first met David on the Royal Scotsman in Valencia. I had arrived on board to take up post as "Casecracker". At the time I was the highest (and best) auditor in Scn.

David had come from Auckland and had a long experience in the technical side out there. He was a highly competent tech person. After attending the original Cl 8 course lectures I went to the UK and supervised the Class 8 course. David was a student on that course. He went on to become CO AOUK and after it was moved back to St Hill David returned to Flag.

Whilst we worked together, I would not say that we were close friends. David was a rather private person. However we rubbed along ok.

One thing I would say is that without doubt, David was (and probably still is) the finest Case Supervisor Scn ever produced. He had a terrier like quality of keeping digging and digging whan all others had given up.

I remember a case at Edinburgh where the C/S, Neville Potter had been struggling with a pc file. He gave it to me and I went over and over but still could not put my finger on what was awry. Finally I asked David to go over it. He read, reread and reread again, every scrap of paper, every session, every last detail and after some hours picked up on a seemingly insignifigant point. From this he wrote a c/s directive for the auditor to ask the pc a question. From this the case fell apart.

NOTS was a brilliant marketing program. Although the technical content has caused countless deaths, heart attacks, strokes and innumerable bankruptcies, the essence was that it was based on a series of review actions constructed by Hubbard with David's assistance. I suppose Rathburn will claim some involvement in the marketing side of the program, it was David who was the technical development participant.

Having reached the highest levels on the technical side David suffered the same treatment as others who stole Hubbard's thunder. His treatment in the "Happy Valley Gulag" was disgraceful and whilst David is not in a position to comment on matters between himself and the Scn cult, the rest of us can.

As a final comment, for those of you who speculate on who was the first permanent Class 8, the answer is that there were two, John Parselle and James Hare. At the end of the first course the students had to sit an exam. However Hubbard gave an opportunity for two volunteers to skip the exam and instead c/s a case, write a c/s and deliver it. Both did so and passed with fyling colours. As a result both John and Janes were awarded permanent Class 8 badges.

That all folks,

Dart

Thanks Dart for this.

Good to see you posting again.

Don't be a stranger. :)
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
The notions of "theta" and "mest" are horrendously abstract concepts, existing at the VERY TOP of any pyramid of generalization, and as such, can and do mean just about anything to anybody.

Making the matters far worse is that "theta" is an entirely imaginary mental construct that has NO agreed-upon shared referrant. For example, the concept "MEST" DOES have a referrant because people can perceive and experience many details of it (matter, energy, space and time). People at least have SOME shared reality to form a basis for meaningful conversation.

But, "theta" is not unlike the notion of a "unicorn". There is no existing shared reality that more than a few people can agree upon! And, MANY little groups, with their cute little definitons and paradigms, all disagree with each other! :confused2: For the most part, since there is no "tangible" common experience of "theta", nearly all NOTIONS about it exist in the imagination.

It can function like "math" though, which may be why some math teachers like looking at such notions. Simple arithmetic does not "exist out there". The ideas of "zero", "equality", "integers", "addition", and so forth are DEFINED a certain way, and thus, one can "think with them" as long as you agree with the definitions (most everybody does). But, it is a product of the imagination, that has "some" relation to physical events and things.

And, also, math IS tremendously useful, and an amazing product of the human imagination! But, "math" is totally a "mental construct". For instance, there is no example of "equality" anywhere in the universe, past or present. A person cannot get an idea of "equality" by observing "out there". The notion of "equality" is an IDEAL, it doesn't "exist" anywhere else except in the mind of a human being (or some other sentient being). One needs to be aware of such things when examing the nature of MEST, the nature of "mind", and other cool stuff. The notion of "theta", like "math", exists much more as a "mental construct" than anything else. While the term "theta" "may" possibly relate to some actual "reality", in the end, there is "no proof" that all people will equally accept, and sadly, in the end, these ideas will mean VERY different things to just about every person who entertains such imaginary creations.

To "think" with "spiritual" ideas, it nearly always settles down to what the terms are DEFINED to mean. And, because of THAT, most discussion reduces to arguing over DEFINITIONS! Such is the nature of a great deal of "philosophy".

I suppose there may be a correct and accurate way to define and describe the "invisible" and the "visible", how these relate, which functions as "cause" (if at all), etc. But, really, for the most part, it is going to always end up like arguing about "unicorns". :duh:

++++++++++


(1) No matter how abstract some concepts are, one can still see whether they are consistent with each other or not, or, whether they are sequitor or not.

(2) All such concepts are considerations. They are relative to each other as considerations, and may be compared.

(3) Nothing is absolute as far as I can see. Agreed-upon shared referrants cannot be thought of as absolutes.

(4) Initially, theta was used as an "unknown" in the "equation" of life by Hubbard. It was supposed to represent the life force, elan vital, etc. Hubbard hoped to discover what it was. However, he simply ended up attaching his own considerations to it.

(5) MEST is the sum-total of what we are able to sense through various sense channels. It is our interpretation of whatever is received through those channels.

(6) Does a chair exist out there? It is actually our interpretation of certain stimuli. It is "imagination" fixed, or programmed, in the mind.

(7) Rather than THETA-MEST I would prefer to call it OBSERVER-OBSERVED. That may allow deeper investigation.

(8) As pointed out earlier, THETA-MEST theory carries the misconception that these are two separate and independent systems.

(9) Neither can OBSERVER-OBSERVED be taken as two separate and independent systems.

(10) OBSERVER and OBSERVED are two sub-systems of a higher order system. That is being encountered in Quantum Mechanics today.

Please see

Essay #5: THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE


.
 
Last edited:

Vinaire

Sponsor
Its only the most important question re life. philosophy and all that is.

tl;dr

So take a six pack and watch American Idol, or whatever.


Are you asking him to be an OBSERVER? We can't help but be observers. And in doing so we are observing ourselves too.

We may not like that always, but we observe ourselves nonetheless.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Many have commented that Hubbard's grasp of science was poor including the poster I quote below, "Null Portal". Incidently he graduated in Physics with the highest possible honours from UCLA. Sadly he died shortly after
ESMB was formed.

The factors are concerned more with " Why Existence", and that factor is definitely hard to wrap one's mind around. However once existence, then
the rest is being discovered by the various sciemces.



======================
12th January 2007, 06:09 PM
Nullportal


It is seldom worthwhile to debate Scientology with many outsiders and skeptics for a simple reason: the outsiders and skeptics often wish to confine the universe of discourse, the totality of permissible reality, to the physical universe. They are often materialist at heart and don't just disagree with, but moreover often actively despise, any ideology that goes beyond materialism.

Scientology is a scheme of metaphysics[Fn1]. It begins with the premise that reality includes in the entire universe of discourse a realm extended beyond physical reality, or perhaps even more correctly that physical reality is simply a subset within and under the control of the entire set of reality. But unfortunately a lot of outsiders simply refuse to allow the existence of any metaphysical realm at all and they wind up acting like pouty children denied their candy when someone won't agree with them to confine the universe of discourse to strictly physical reality or refuse to allow the concept that a metaphysical realm may interact with the physical, sometimes in a controlling fashion.[Fn2]

The above is probably a good enough explanation of why I won't be hanging around this forum anymore than I'm willing to hang around the already established MATERIALISM UBER ALLES forum, Clambake. Once you let in people whose sentiments simply won't let them calmly discuss metaphysical ideas you get the same old Skeptical Debunker Ubermensch ranting and raving that Clambake is lousy with.


=================
Fn1 - It's true that Scientology's main expounder, Hubbard, often invaded the physical realm with claims about it that need to be policed. They often need extensive policing because Hubbard had no grasp of the modern sciences beyond a talking-points familiarity that a sci-fi author might often have, but he loved to yak about the physical universe nonetheless.
Fn2 - metaphysical exclusion is necessary to physical sciences, but materialistically oriented people often forget that because physical sciences have excluded the metaphysical from the realm of discourse, physical sciences are therefore incompentent to discuss metaphysicality. This incompetence is deliberate. Science tells you nothing about God or the theta realm for the simple reason that science deliberately excludes these topics and is therefore incapable of proving or disproving anything about them.

I do not give much credit to Hubbard's Theta-MEST theory, nor to Null Portal's support of it. If Null Portal is from UCLA then I am from MIT. And I am still alive.

Theta-MEST theory does help organize some data but it is no longer cutting edge. There are many inconsistencies in it as already pointed out.

It is a good starting point for some discussion though.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

Null Portal

My big fat pompous final words (Part 1)
Maybe you would like to post your viewpoint in detail.

I'm flattered. I think I can briefly sum up what I believe that might be of some value.

Scientology is about Theta-MEST theory and what tools might exist to help illuminate this. There are forays into diet advice, organizational notions, and political punditry, etc., but they aren't essential. The main thing to know about theta-MEST is that they are chalk and cheese. Any correct explanation of how they manage to have anything whatsoever to do with one another is pure gold.

...

The basic questions are:

(1) How does a manifestation come about?

(2) How is a manifestation observed?


THETA is used as the "who" with regard to the creation and observation of a manifestation. MEST is used as the "what" with regard to the manifestation itself.

"Who" and "what" are simply considerations. That makes both THETA and MEST as symbolic place holders. They explain neither the manifestations nor how they come about to be observed.

I believe that OBSERVED and OBSERVER are parts of a closed circular, or spherical, system. There is no begining or end to it when looking from within the system. How one can look from outside or from beyond this system is unknowable from the current vantage point.

The best we can do is look, spot and clarify any and all inconsistencies within this system itself. Once we have done that then maybe we'll be able to grasp what is beyond it.

.
 
Last edited:

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

MEST is a completely understandable topic. Isaac Newton did an amazing job of defining physics in his basic physics text. He said "I make no hypothesii", meaning he did not resort to qualitative indwelling character traits of matter to explain it, as the Greeks did. Instead he said every perceptible difference in the world around you is due to differing motions. Full stop, period, end of sentence. This statement sums up all of physics, and once the basic unit of analysis, momentum (mv) is defined, everything in physics is commentary on or elaborate surmises from a few basic statements about momentum. This idea withstands even the most cutting edge search into subatomic physics, in which each little particle is eventually describable by the type of wiggling it does and the type of other wiggles it bounces off of or ignores, to the most far out cosmological suspicion. It's all about the motion. Solid is a state of matter where atoms can only rotate a little bit and can't swap abutting neighbors easily, liquid a state where they can rotate freely all they please and swap neighbors but must abut a neighbor, gas includes as well being as near or far to your neighbor as you like. If we encounter solid, liquid and gaseous things, their motional traits are what make them this. Red light is a complete electromagnetic wiggle in a different length than blue light, etc., It's all different motions giving differences in perceptible things. For a complete scheme of description you of course need space-time and matter/mass has to exist to resist some motional influence, otherwise every urge to move would be identical as unopposed by anything of helpfully distinguishing mass.

...

Is MEST really a completely understandable topic, as the distinguished Physics student from UCLA claims (according to Terril Park)?

I don't think so. We don't know how MEST comes about in the first place. The macro characteristics of MEST are very different from micro characteristics of MEST. No common theory to explain both set of characteristics has been found so far.

.
 
Top