Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mike Rinders Blog' started by RSS Feed, Aug 1, 2018.
It can be thought of, therefor it is.
It was widely peer reviewed Pitsy. By such august institutions as Scientific American and such well known figures as Sessue Hayakawa...
And pretty much universally panned
By people whose review revealed little comprehension of what was actually written
No, my answer is I have done many studies and yes, most certainly question if the result was achieved differently; proper scientific rigor
And no, LRH is no object of faith for me
One of the surprising things in my own studies is to have discovered the Greeks in drawing their religion from the Babylonians and passing it to the Romans found esoteric truths untouched by either
Yes, this is much as I believe.
And from the first I found Hubbard lacking in a refined concept of emotion; whereas grief may be "low on the tone scale" I believe mourning can be an enriching state, nor does Hubbard recognize supplication as a higher octae of propitiation
Each time we read about $cientology practionner (or squirrels) research, we are left in pain of having missed the paper wrote about the research.
So, againthat would be aprpeciated that Clay Pigeon publish here is account of research he has done. We are very cool and only demand to see a piece of paper of what was researched, abstract, who, how many, when, results observed, conclusion..and that would at leat confirm there was a research done..even though not qualifying for a scientific research.
So something to show ???
Rinder is so lost , or pretending to be. I think he's just pretending. GOTTA STOP HUBBARD GOTTA STOP HUBBARD GOTTA STOP HUBBARD
If there's no scientific papers published by Hubbard what was actually peer-reviewed?
Did you actually read the blog post he wrote on the 'Reactive Mind'?
It doesn't seem so (from your response).
What exactly did he write in that post you believe is untrue?
The book DMSMH
I've given several accounts.
My favorite is of the research I did after my lifelong best pal died of cancer in early May 2006. He was not diagnosed until December which was itself a horrible medical malfunction as he was complaining of serious pain at Thanksgiving.
When he was diagnosed his wife sent me a note back in Boston but I didn't receive it as I had just spontaneously, somewhat like a round ball bearing just rolling to where I belonged, hopped on a plane for the coast.
My pal's son was just then graduating from UW with honors and his sister with whom he had always been close came out from Brookline and the four of us gave him 24/7 TLC to the end.
To my great surprise it was perhaps the most pleasant task I'd ever done. Billy Martin was a hell of a guy; he was all about life and he remained so until the day he died. One day I had the graveyard shift and was to tend him from midnight til morning. We had him out of bed to crap in his portapotty just before I went to sleep that afternoon and when I awoke about 11:30 he was moaning. His back had been hurting him since he pooped. I did a (modified, but not by much) Body Comm Process on him and after less than ten minutes the pain was gone and he had a very good night waking only twice rather than the usual six or seven.
The next day after lunch I sat beside him as he napped. A peace came over me such as I have never felt before or since. I wondered if I were not in the presence of an angel come to bear my friend to paradise. Whatever, I was sure the body/mind/soul drenching serenity I was in was somehow connected to Billy and as soon as he awoke I asked "Were you dreaming?"
There was a look of naked wonder and innocence on his face as he said "I was in this room... I was in every part of this room." Ahh yes... Exterior with full perception. Which of course our "scientists" have explained as a stimulation of a particular part of the brain. But friend was in the company of a rogue rather than mainstream scientist so he did not suffer the invalidation which likely would have grounded him.
For the rest of that day he was in the most astonishing good spirits. Lying there in a thoroughly dessicated body he was the warmest and most charming man I had ever known him to be...
to be continued...
He got some other SciFi writers to offer their opinions on Dianetics.
Then a particular test was done about Dianetic engrams (using Hubbard's definition of engram) by some people outside.
The test failed to validate it.
Those are not at all research.
Those are story telling or anecdotes.
We all have those kind of anecdotes happening in our lives or to our relatives.
Rubbish. He's assisting (in a major way) to make up for the things he regrets doing or being involved in while under the control of hubbard and miscavige and he's doing it in his later years while earning a living, bringing up a family and de-culting himself from a lifetime of indoctrination ... many others are doing what they do for the same reason.
How you can try and make nothing of that says a lot more about you than him.
A scientologist doesn't need to read anything else. hubbard taught them to know how to know, simply by reading only hubbard.
The Dianetic Research Foundation doing research? Unbelievable!
I'm about to get to the meatier part of my research but what I've posted does contain research. Sir Isaac Newton rather famously once did world changing research by sitting under an apple tree. In the first it affirms, rather warmly and beautifully I would think, the description of "OT" as a round ball bearing naturally rolling to where it can be of service (G.I.Gurdjief said something very, very close to this and I would be grateful if someone could come up with his own words; in fact I suspect Hubbard was cribbing Georgie's notes. And, of course, Gurdjieff's Institute for the Harmonious Development of the Human Being is listed as a "Suppressive Group" - Jee-yay-ziss! If anyone has ever entertained the thought of walking into Gold or the Fort Harrison with a case of grenades and start chucking them it is NOT necessarily an indication you may be criminally insane) and as the subject is still experimental and developmental every application is a form of research thus I presented a firm affirmation of the Body Comm Process.
The most significant research point in what I have so far accounted is Billy's report of being exterior with perception as his body slumbered. One might declaim that he was dreaming and true enough, this cannot be definitively rejected. I would certainly have accepted it as exteriorization rather than dream even without the simultaneous subjective experience of profound serenity but it is my considered opinion based on extensive experience my friend and I had a transcendent melding of spirits. This opinion is greatly reinforced by the truly astonishing good spirits my friend enjoyed the rest of that day; a day within two weeks of his demise yet just then death was as far from all of us as ever it was, Billy warm and effusive and easygoing and somewhat surprised himself at the clarity of the moment utterly unclouded by pain or grief or regret
L. Ron Hubbard is not an object of faith for me but I would not dishonor myself by refusing to speak openly of my deep personal gratitude to the grouchy moneygrubbing old pirate
This last is considered particularly pertinent. Spirituality in the Sixties and Seventies was gaining a fairly strong foothold in mainstream media. One often read of "Oobies"; O.O.B.E.; out of body experiences. Then in the Eighties scientists announced they could get test subjects to describe something similar to an oobie by stimulating a particular spot in the brain. Thereafter all references to "Oobies" quickly and almost completely disappeared from mainstream media.
Maybe we can start getting that back if I can publish this in my next book because: stimulating a spot in the brain of one person does not produce serenity in another. My account is submitted in refutation of yet another phlogiston.
Science is a great thing but it's no place to put your faith.
So, you don't understand "science", then. There is (should be) nothing in science about faith. Either something is proven and independently verified or it isn't science.
Your stories and other people's anecdotes ARE NOT SCIENCE because they:
Aren't provable, and
Are not independently verifiable.
I have no problem with you having faith in Hubbard and his "tech". I have no problem with you having faith in your beliefs. I do have a problem when you mis-characterize your anecdotes, your faith and your beliefs as "science". It isn't and what Hubbard claimed isn't science either.
At least Hubbard knew that it wasn't science. He gave an entire lecture on how horrible and suppressive it was to "demand proof" (horrors!). Science is the enemy of Scientology and Hubbard was well aware of that.
Is these his words that you're referring to?
It seems as though some of the reviewers had excellent comprehension.
Nobel Prize–winning physicist I.I. Rabi, reviewing Dianetics for Scientific American, declared that "this volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page than has any publication since the invention of printing."
Great photo of an odd fellow whose reputation both for better and for worse is much like Hubbard's
I wonder what Hubbard might have produced had he studied with a pupil of Gurdjieff rather than Crowley
There is a quote from Gurdjieff a virtual perfect paraphrase of Hubbard's comment on ball bearings