The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes Lakey.

I guess I was playing Gizmo's quiz, and since he or she seemed to be fishing for party topics I thought Archimedes Principle was the one he was after. Not that there are not a lot of other things that Archimedes is known for, all of them above my pay grade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes'_principle

How wonderful, a win-win situation where everyone is right. I Googled the Wikepedia link which Maria provided and the last sentence in the article defines Archimeded principle as follows:

"Archimedes' principle states that when a body is partially or completely immersed in a fluid, it experiences an apparent loss in weight which is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the immersed part of the body."

You see, that was the principle I was talking about as well only I had forgot it's name, 'Archimedes principle'. Don't you see, Archimedes placed his body into a tub which was completely filled with water and doing that caused the tub to overflow onto the floor. Most people would have paid little attention to the overflow other than worrying how to clean it up.. One steps into a full tub of water and some water overflows, no big deal, right? Well actually, "wrong"!

Archimedes did have an urgency factor in that his king had ordered him earlier to figure out a way to tell if a metal was real gold or just looked like gold. LETS SAY THAT ARCHIMEDES WEIGHED 160 LBS, WHEN HE STEPPED IN, AND WATER RAN OUT OVER THE EDGE OF THE TUB ONTO THE FLOOR, HE CONCLUDED THAT 160 LBS OF WATER MUST HAVE BEEN DISPLACED FROM THE TUB. That was an achievment by itself and maybe a few of us may have expected as much ourselves; it is pretty easy to verify whether that is true or not, by capturing the overflow water and then weighing it.

However, Archimedes had an epiphany and saw the complete answer all at once. He saw that he could fill a tub with water, drop in the king's solid gold crown and collect the overflow water in a jar. Next he could take the same sized crown, presented by a crown maker as solid gold, refill the tub and drop in that crown and collect the overflow water in a jar. Gold is an extremely heavy metal, If a crown had brass in it mixed in with gold, that crown would displace less overflow water into the jar than the solid gold crown. No weighing was even involved, simply a comparison of two weights. Those who were attempting to cheat the king were thwarted and were lucky to get out of town without losing their lives!

That illustrates the difference between genius and just being smart or talented. The genius sees further and deeper and grasps a full intellectual understanding faster than someone who is only "smarter than the average bear". Thinking outside the box, way outside the box, may be a good descriptive term for genius.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

How wonderful, a win-win situation where everyone is right. I Googled the Wikepedia link which Maria provided and the last sentence in the article defines Archimeded principle as follows:

"Archimedes' principle states that when a body is partially or completely immersed in a fluid, it experiences an apparent loss in weight which is equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the immersed part of the body."

You see, that was the principle I was talking about as well only I had forgot it's name, 'Archimedes principle'. Don't you see, Archimedes placed his body into a tub which was completely filled with water and doing that caused the tub to overflow onto the floor. Most people would have paid little attention to the overflow other than worrying how to clean it up.. One steps into a full tub of water and some water overflows, no big deal, right? Well actually, "wrong"!

Archimedes did have an urgency factor in that his king had ordered him earlier to figure out a way to tell if a metal was real gold or just looked like gold. LETS SAY THAT ARCHIMEDES WEIGHED 160 LBS, WHEN HE STEPPED IN, AND WATER RAN OUT OVER THE EDGE OF THE TUB ONTO THE FLOOR, HE CONCLUDED THAT 160 LBS OF WATER MUST HAVE BEEN DISPLACED FROM THE TUB. That was an achievment by itself and maybe a few of us may have expected as much ourselves; it is pretty easy to verify whether that is true or not, by capturing the overflow water and then weighing it.

However, Archimedes had an epiphany and saw the complete answer all at once. He saw that he could fill a tub with water, drop in the king's solid gold crown and collect the overflow water in a jar. Next he could take the same sized crown, presented by a crown maker as solid gold, refill the tub and drop in that crown and collect the overflow water in a jar. Gold is an extremely heavy metal, If a crown had brass in it mixed in with gold, that crown would displace less overflow water into the jar than the solid gold crown. No weighing was even involved, simply a comparison of two weights. Those who were attempting to cheat the king were thwarted and were lucky to get out of town without losing their lives!

That illustrates the difference between genius and just being smart or talented. The genius sees further and deeper and grasps a full intellectual understanding faster than someone who is only "smarter than the average bear". Thinking outside the box, way outside the box, may be a good descriptive term for genius.
Lakey

And those who were just taking a bath while sipping on some good wine and listening to a bit of harp playing in the distance were lucky not to have to get involved in politics.....

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

At various times, on this thread I think, I've claimed that the unconscious was a dated concept and a cultural one at that....that Freud's theories are in disrepute. Tonight I logged into Amazon and it 'highlighted' a book whose summary is quite related (related, not identical to) to what I was trying to argue on the thread when I said that the concept of a reactive mind is ridiculous. Of course Amazon shows us books related to what we have browsed or purchased, and I've purchased most of Lacan and all of Freud over the last 15 years. And as I have also purchased most of Schelling and Hegel, no wonder this book got highlighted.

So here is the link and the summary. It alludes to my argument that the unconscious is romantic notion or at least a concept that arose in the romantic period along with certain other agendas of enlightenment philosophy. It [the book] doesn't of course mention the reactive mind, which I find to be also a romantic notion, created by those who need a romantic notion, 'postulated' as a way to cope (fill a NEED).

Notice the past tense, that the unconscious WAS a key concept. LOL.

Book title: The Foundation of the Unconscious: Schelling, Freud and the Birth of the Modern Psyche
by Matt Ffytche (Author)

"The unconscious, cornerstone of psychoanalysis, was a key twentieth-century concept and retains an enormous influence on psychological and cultural theory. Yet there is a surprising lack of investigation into its roots in the critical philosophy and Romantic psychology of the early nineteenth century, long before Freud. Why did the unconscious emerge as such a powerful idea? And why at that point? This interdisciplinary study breaks new ground in tracing the emergence of the unconscious through the work of philosopher Friedrich Schelling, examining his association with Romantic psychologists, anthropologists and theorists of nature. It sets out the beginnings of a neglected tradition of the unconscious psyche and proposes a compelling new argument: that the unconscious develops from the modern need to theorise individual independence. The book assesses the impact of this tradition on psychoanalysis itself, re-reading Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams in the light of broader post-Enlightenment attempts to theorise individuality."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/11...rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop


The use of the word theorise in the last sentence of the summary? In my book this translates to cope, explain, wish, dream, hope, etc.


It's more fun to ride a horse or go sailing but in the meanwhile
philosophy is just endless fun. History is so funny and this stuff
is too good to make up.

 

[looker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Mom, Maria and Lakey are using big words again....

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Mom, Maria and Lakey are using big words again....

Nothing a bit of wine can't fix.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

At various times, on this thread I think, I've claimed that the unconscious was a dated concept and a cultural one at that....that Freud's theories are in disrepute. Tonight I logged into Amazon and it 'highlighted' a book whose summary is quite related (related, not identical to) to what I was trying to argue on the thread when I said that the concept of a reactive mind is ridiculous. Of course Amazon shows us books related to what we have browsed or purchased, and I've purchased most of Lacan and all of Freud over the last 15 years. And as I have also purchased most of Schelling and Hegel, no wonder this book got highlighted.

So here is the link and the summary. It alludes to my argument that the unconscious is romantic notion or at least a concept that arose in the romantic period along with certain other agendas of enlightenment philosophy. It [the book] doesn't of course mention the reactive mind, which I find to be also a romantic notion, created by those who need a romantic notion, 'postulated' as a way to cope (fill a NEED).

Notice the past tense, that the unconscious WAS a key concept. LOL.

Book title: The Foundation of the Unconscious: Schelling, Freud and the Birth of the Modern Psyche
by Matt Ffytche (Author)

"The unconscious, cornerstone of psychoanalysis, was a key twentieth-century concept and retains an enormous influence on psychological and cultural theory. Yet there is a surprising lack of investigation into its roots in the critical philosophy and Romantic psychology of the early nineteenth century, long before Freud. Why did the unconscious emerge as such a powerful idea? And why at that point? This interdisciplinary study breaks new ground in tracing the emergence of the unconscious through the work of philosopher Friedrich Schelling, examining his association with Romantic psychologists, anthropologists and theorists of nature. It sets out the beginnings of a neglected tradition of the unconscious psyche and proposes a compelling new argument: that the unconscious develops from the modern need to theorise individual independence. The book assesses the impact of this tradition on psychoanalysis itself, re-reading Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams in the light of broader post-Enlightenment attempts to theorise individuality."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/11...rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop


The use of the word theorise in the last sentence of the summary? In my book this translates to cope, explain, wish, dream, hope, etc.


It's more fun to ride a horse or go sailing but in the meanwhile
philosophy is just endless fun. History is so funny and this stuff
is too good to make up.

Speaking as a layman in this subject, Maria, where does the work of Pavlov come in;

Here is a link to Pavlov's work on the effect of stimuli on conditioned responses in dogs which also includes an interest short video:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html

Pavlow noticed first that dogs salivated when food was brought to them. Pavlov experimented adding various stimuli such as ringing a bell or flashing a light at or just before the time when the food was brought to the dogs. It turned our that all such stimuli were able to cause the dogs to salivate even if no food was brought to them. Thus simply ringing a bell was sufficient on its own to cause the dogs to salivate, even if no food was brought. This, Pavlov. figured was proof of learning. If Pavlov started ringing the bell but not bringing food, after a few dry runs the dogs stopped salivating when the bell was rung, thus what the animal learned was unlearned if conditions changed.

Animals happen to have this trait of conditioned response and it is logical to carry this behavior pattern over to humans. Say a sexy woman wears a special perfume when she visits her lover, it would not be unrealistic to assume that when the man smells the perfume or perhaps even sees a closed perfume bottle with no smell emanating from the bottle, his sexual hormones may still be aroused.

If this is true, wouldn't it be appropriate to call this type of reaction a stimulus response reaction and what is the flaw in assigning what produces this reaction to something called the "unconscious mine" as Freud did or the "reactive mind" as Hubbard did? It is clear that the person is not consciously able to cause his sexual hormones to be excreted when he views a certain type of perfume bottle; the part of the person's mind which computes and analyzes problems does not have the capacity to make certain types of hormones start to flow when a certain type of object is sense.

I am not even starting a debate with Maria on this because I am simply a layman on this subject. I am just trying to understand why Pavlovian data discovered in 1904, and subjected to testing to prove its efficacy is now considered to be out of date by modern psychology with no data being given in Maria's article to specifically explain why this new work supercedes the work of Pavlov or if not that, then explain why it was not valid for Freud to affix the name, "unconscious mind" to the portion of the person's mind which caused hormone to flow when seeing a perfume bottle.

Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Speaking as a layman in this subject, Maria, where does the work of Pavlov come in;

Here is a link to Pavlov's work on the effect of stimuli on conditioned responses in dogs which also includes an interest short video:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html

Pavlow noticed first that dogs salivated when food was brought to them. Pavlov experimentith adding various stimuli such as ringing a bell or flashing a light at or just before the time when the food was brought to the dogs. It turned our that all such stimuli were able to cause the dogs to salivate even if no food was brought to them. Thus simply ringing a bell was sufficient on its own to cause the dogs to salivate, even if no food was brought. This, Pavlov. figured was proof of learning. If Pavlov started ringing the bell but not bringing food, after a few dry runs the dogs stopped salivating when the bell was rung, thus what the animal learned was unlearned if conditions changed.

Animals happen to have this trait of conditioned response and it is logical to carry this behavior pattern over to humans. Say a sexy woman wears a special perfume when she visits her lover, it would not be unrealistic to assume that when the man smells the perfume or perhaps even sees a closed perfume bottle with no smell emanating from the bottle, his sexual hormones may still be aroused.

If this is true, wouldn't it be appropriate to call this type of reaction a stimulus response reaction and what is the flaw in assigning what produces this reaction to something called the "unconscious mine" as Freud did or the "reactive mind" as Hubbard did? It is clear that the person is not consciously able to cause his sexual hormones to be excreted when he views a certain type of perfume bottle; the part of the person's mind which computes and analyzes problems does not have the capacity to make certain types of hormones start to flow when a certain type of object is sense.

I am not even starting a debate with Maria on this because I am simply a layman on this subject. I am just trying to understand why Pavlovian data discovered in 1904, and subjected to testing to prove if efficacy is now considered to be out of date by modern psychology without any data being given to specifically refute the work of Pavlov or if not that, then why it was not valid for Freud to affix the name, "unconscious mind" to the portion of the person's mind which caused hormone to flow when seeing a perfume bottle.

Lakey

Pavlov is irrelevant....to most anything I can think of. Freud is relevant....but passé. Modern psychology gives a rat's ass for either. It is really a big yawn. Which was my point. Please watch the six part 'century of the self' and get back. It won't answer you but it will open a door to forming the question.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Pavlov is irrelevant....to most anything I can think of. Freud is relevant....but passé. Modern psychology gives a rat's ass for either. It is really a big yawn. Which was my point.

But WHY is Pavlov irrelevant? What does modern psychology do to achieve better results when applying their newer psychology to people than what those using Freud and Pavlov did in earlier times. I haven't read all of the references in your last article, if I read them, will that explain in layman's language to me why and how modern views in psychology have surpassed the earlier work of Pavlov and Freud?

I recall that you said earlier that you are not "results driven". Does that apply here. Is newer psychology not as results driven as Freud was. What happens to those of us who like to achieve results in helping people to rid them selves of manias and phobias? Are we simply ignored and left to flounder on our own or does modern psychology have some teachings available to us which might bring us up to date in our understanding of more modern psychology?
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

But WHY is Pavlov irrelevant? What does modern psychology do to achieve better results when applying their newer psychology to people than what those using Freud and Pavlov did in earlier times. I haven't read all of the references in your last article, if I read them, will that explain in layman's language to me why and how modern views in psychology have surpassed the earlier work of Pavlov and Freud?

I recall that you said earlier that you are not "results driven". Does that apply here. Is newer psychology not as results driven as Freud was. What happens to those of us who like to achieve results in helping people to rid them selves of manias and phobias? Are we simply ignored and left to flounder on our own or does modern psychology have some teachings available to us which might bring us up to date in our understanding of more modern psychology?
Lakey

Pavlov was never under discussion, so first of all I viewed introducing his work as a response to what I posted as not really related. But I will respond anyway to be nice.

Pavlov's work has to do with physiological and neurological pathways, not mental images pictures, thus his work on stimulus response had to do with bodies, not 'thetans.' Certainly any relation to reactive minds or banks is purely additive or by analogy. His work did affect behaviorism and psychology (later). The problem is that modern psychology has to do with bodies, and even psychology does. Psychology presupposes empiricism. It has nothing to do with thetans. It has nothing to do with engrams. Freud himself was an atheist, did not believe in thetans, and viewed psychology as a matter of the study of drives. Counseling served the function of imposing comformity. This was the subject of huge critique in the 50s and 60s in France, especially from a political perspective since the entire of psychoanalysis was viewed with suspicion there for its action of normalizing a person's desires. Bringing a person into the norm. Thus conditioning as a way of steering/directing bodies. Generally it was used as a form of behavior modification ('learning') if I am not mistaken. Sad. It's use has nothing to do with Scn's use of any sort of stimulus response in their bogus formulation of the mind since for Freud there is nothing beyond a body and therefore no way that drives or 'engrams' have their basis in incidents, images, or whole track. Scientology's use of Freud is pathetic and confused because it didn't know what it was 'borrowing.' Thus their understanding of stimulus response is completely different and then implies that a being, a thetan could be conditioned. If so Ron's thetan is equivalent to Pavlov's dog. Scn's understanding is just muddled.

And bogus.

As to Freud, and the drives, Freud was an empiricist as I already mentioned. He didn't give a rat's ass about thetans, incidents and reactive minds or past lives. He discarded the theory on regression on which Dianetics is based. Discarded it as weak and not usable. (Atack writes about this.) Whatever we may say about Scientology, it has an transcendental object, the thetan, and therefore Scn qualifies as an idealism, not an empirical or scientific subject.

Freud's theories had great success in marketing (thanks to his nephew Bernays), mind control etc. All of this is well worked out in the six part series by the BBC, which if watched, would make all this explanation unnecessary. It would not give you a full understanding but without reading Freud it will be a good start (at least).

The series would answer a lot, in layman's terms.

Freud's theories are now in disrepute. They are most popular in English and Literature courses at both undergrad and graduate level since they are great for use in the interpretation of fiction. In psychological circles they are completely repudiated and rarely if ever used. Freud is a laughing item. He is not seriously engaged anymore in clinical psychology. It can be Googled for verification. It is very extensive the amount of literature on this topic so I can't summarize it plus it would kill your traffic to dwell on it too much.

Freud is passé. Neither Freud or Pavlov are relevant to Scn except as a practical joke on Ron because he took them seriously and based his tech on ideas that were to become dated. But in no way can Freud's work be reduced to Pavlov's work, in any case. Freud's work is entirely distinct from Pavlov's.

I only brought up the topic of the unconscious mind (fiction in my view) to show that there was an example of a book which examines the 'romantic' underpinnings, thus the literary/fictional and wishful roots of the concept of an unconscious mind. Or a reactive one. Humans love romantic stories and certainly the reactive mind is one.

I encourage anyone interested to watch the series Century of the Self. It's sad to see that in the end Freud's work was just a way to control human beings with stories of how they could conform, be more beautiful, be more stupid, etc. (Oh and why little boys love/hate their mommies and why girls wish they had penises. Completely ridiculous!)

As for the current methodologies and theory, I am not a psychologist so you'd have to investigate on your own. I know that medications are used and I assume other methods but I am not that interested in that field (as it currently exists) so I am not informed.

If you find Pavlov's work relevant in general, that is for you to decide.

I am not that interested in Pavlov myself and I know for sure his work is not related to to Scn or Dianetics except via a misunderstanding, as explained in very rough sketch, above.

 

[looker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I think I am going to go find the ESMB thread called "What is Consciousness"?

I have nothing to replace the notion that there are 2 minds the conscious and the subconscious minds.

From a Netflix video called "Mind Games" it seems there are just 6 or 7 details we can hold in our mind at a time. This is proved by playing the party game called Telephone in a group of people where one item is added to a list. When critical short term memory has reached 6 to 7 items adding one more overloads memory.

Memory faults are also prevalent when a crowd witnesses a staged crime. Few of the details are correct. The color of clothing the facial characteristics.

so what does REALLY happen when one stores away a unwanted AESP? What IS the best mechanism to erase it. Is it revivification? Or talk therapy? Certainly it must help but what is a provable erasure?

Psychologists are using revivification with PTSD suffering soldiers. They mock up a computer simulation and ask the people to go back through the sights and sounds. Some wins have occurred by doing this type of gradual reliving as a style of Freudian regression.

I watched a film called the "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" Wherein When their relationship turns sour, a couple undergoes a procedure to have each other erased from their memories. But it is only through the process of loss that they discover what they had to begin with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JETxX3rzyag

Its very interesting to see how they propose to do this. They show a MRI scan of a persons brain map thinking of the unpleasant incident what locations are active. Then they build a time line with videos and their voice narrative and the MRI activity map. They start to erase the memories by inducing sleep with and injection then trough some drugs allow the erasure program to start in present time and go back further each time the mind map is monitored and the pattern interfered with and replaced by silence or no brain activity invoking amnesia in the patient.

I thought the premise or theory was Rather Brilliant A thought occurred, what happens to the other memories that are stirred up during the making of the unpleasant memory? Does it leave amnesia "holes" in ones memories as LSD did in the 60s?


Below are my thoughts trying to make some semblance of meaning for myself.

Anyway Its amazing that no one outside of Scientology after all the years of research has professed to have cracked the mystery of erasure of unwanted memories. There is a computer memory test called surround and disturb. This is where one memory location is given a value and the location is to remain stable. then the program sends all sorts of new memory values all around the location to see if it disturbs the original location value. If it doesn't it passes the memory chip.

The inverse seems to happen with Scientology in the attempt to erase a memory location. When the subject is asked to spot a disturbing incident they may instantly feel grief then when asked to tell what happens the surroundings start to disturb or lift focus away from the original memory location. then moving more away from the incident brings one closer to present. while the original memory is not erased the less dangerous memories are mixed in with the original and changes the pattern of the original memory. Even if it is temporary and filled with imagined memories or like what we do while dreaming try to make logical connections.

Some day we should discover what really happens. We are getting closer. The research is being done with MRI and PET scans.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Pavlov was never under discussion, so first of all I viewed introducing his work as a response to what I posted as not really related. But I will respond anyway to be nice.

Pavlov's work has to do with physiological and neurological pathways, not mental images pictures, thus his work on stimulus response had to do with bodies, not 'thetans.' Certainly any relation to reactive minds or banks is purely additive or by analogy. His work did affect behaviorism and psychology (later). The problem is that modern psychology has to do with bodies, and even psychology does. Psychology presupposes empiricism. It has nothing to do with thetans. It has nothing to do with engrams. Freud himself was an atheist, did not believe in thetans, and viewed psychology as a matter of the study of drives. Counseling served the function of imposing comformity. This was the subject of huge critique in the 50s and 60s in France, especially from a political perspective since the entire of psychoanalysis was viewed with suspicion there for its action of normalizing a person's desires. Bringing a person into the norm. Thus conditioning as a way of steering/directing bodies. Generally it is used as a form of behavior modification if I am not mistaken. It's use has nothing to do with Scn's use of any sort of stimulus response in their bogus formulation of the mind since for Freud there is nothing beyond a body and therefore no way that drives or 'engrams' have their basis in incidents, images, or whole track. Scientology's use of Freud is pathetic and confused because it didn't know what it was 'borrowing.' Thus their understanding of stimulus response is completely different and then implies that a being, a thetan could be conditioned. Its understanding is just muddled.

And bogus.

As to Freud, and the drives, Freud was an empiricist as I already mentioned. He didn't give a rat's ass about thetans, incidents and reactive minds or past lives. He discarded the theory on regression on which Dianetics is based. Discarded it as weak and not usable. (Atack writes about this.) Whatever we may say about Scientology, it has an transcendental object, the thetan, and therefore Scn qualifies as an idealism, not an empirical or scientific subject.

Freud's theories had great success in marketing (thanks to his nephew Bernays), mind control etc. All of this is well worked out in the six part series by the BBC, which if watched, would make all this explanation unnecessary. It would not give you a full understanding but without reading Freud it will be a good start (at least).

I really can't give a course on Freud but the series would answer a lot, in layman's terms. Freud's theories are now in disrepute. They are most popular in English and Literature courses at both undergrad and graduate level since they are great for use in the interpretation of fiction. In psychological circles they are completely repudiated and never used. Freud is a laughing item. He is not seriously engaged anymore in clinical psychology. It can be Googled for verification. It is very extensive the amount of literature on this topic so I can't summarize it plus it would kill your traffic to dwell on it too much.

Freud is passe. Neither Freud or Pavlov are relevant to Scn except as a practical joke on Ron because he took them seriously and based his tech on ideas that were to become dated.
I only brought up the topic to show that there was an example of a book which shows the 'romantic' underpinnings, thus the fictional and wishful roots of the concept of an unconscious mind. Or a reactive one. Humans love romantic stories and certainly the reactive mind is one.

I don't agree with your above paragraph. Newton is passe now but from about 1680 to 1905, his tech was the bible here on Earth. Tremendous advancements were made based on Newtonian physics. Theorem after theorem was proved and lead to advancement after advancement. Only when the Michaelson Morley experiment failed in the late 1800's was Newtonian physics faced with a problem which it could not explain. That state of affairs led to relativity theory and now we have used that for 110 years successfully and I don't doubt for a minute that will soon become passe, in fact that process has already started, and some future genius will arise to formulate a replacement or major upgrade to relativity theory. My point is that a scientific investigator of his time must use the most advanced techniques of his own age to make any progress. The fact that the tech that he used may become passe in the future and his new breakthrough may also become passe at some future time does not make a scientific investigator into a laughing stock.

I encourage anyone interested to watch the series Century of the Self. It's sad to see that in the end Freud's work was just a way to control human beings with stories of how they could conform, be more beautiful, be more stupid, etc. (Oh and why little boys love/hate their mommies and why girls wish they had penises. Completely ridiculous!)

As for the current methodologies and theory, I am not a psychologist so you'd have to investigate on your own. I know that medications are used and I assume other methods but I am not that interested in that field so I am not informed.

If you find Pavlov's work relevant in general, that is for you to decide.

I am not that interested in Pavlov myself and I know for sure his work is not related to to Scn or Dianetics except via a misunderstanding, as explained, in very rough sketch, above.

Please see my comments in red above.

Maria, thanks for being "nice" and taking the time to write the above! In your response above, you state the following, "Pavlov's work has to do with physiological and neurological pathways, not mental images pictures, thus his work on stimulus response had to do with bodies, not 'thetans.' Certainly any relation to reactive minds or banks is purely additive or by analogy.

I believe that you are making an erroneous supposition that Dianetics, as originally formulated by Hubbard, had something to do with thetans. Dianetics was developed in the late 1940's, prior to Hubbard's alleged discovery of the existence of the human spirit in 1951. Therefore, Dianetics was developed along the lines that man was a body with a mind. The concept of a "thetan" is not contained in Dianetics as it was originally published in 1950. Your initial assumption is not a minor point but is a major point which may or may not effect the following portions of your post which start off citing this erroneous supposition.

It is true that Dianetics was concerned with mental image pictures and that Pavlov's work has to do with physiological and nuerological pathways. You then strongly infer that these two things are incompatible as if only one or the other can exist. You rule out that they both could exist simultaneously because Pavlov's work was bodies based while Hubbard's Dianetics was thetan based. I am saying that Hubbad's original Dianetics was not thetan based and thus the conclusions which you reached may not be correct.

That same paragraph claims that Freud did not believe in thetans and you state "Counseling served the function of imposing comformity". Of Course, Freud, who died in 1939, did not believe in thetans because that term was not even defined by Hubbard until 1951. I presume you really mean that Freud did not believe in spirits but as I just showed above, thetans or spirits were not part of Dianetics as originally formulated by Hubbard. Also, your statement which I put in bold letters above is just asserted without any back up in a manner reminiscent of Mark A Baker, who used to post here quite a bit. I admit that I am a layman and really don't know but it seems to me that Freudian counseling was devised as a form of treating mental illness. IMO, you or anyone else who believes that it only served the function of imposing conformity needs to do more than just assert that as a matter of fact. That is a big claim you made and as such, it deserves references and documentation to back up your assertion.

I do not believe that Hubbard ever put the concept of thetans into Dianetics. I don't think there is any official Hubbard Bulletin or Policy which specifically puts the concept "thetan" into the later versions of Dianetics. Of course if Scientology, which is supposed to have evolved from Dianetics proved the existence of thetans, as Hubbard claimed, once that proof was made, Dianetics could not deny that thetans existed but the concept that beings were thetans was never officially made part of Dianetic procedure per se. Dianetcis was designed to work on a human being who was made of only 2 major parts, a body and a mind.

New Era Dianetics for OTs, called NOTS, deals almost totally with the thetan but I don't see any usage of Dianetics at all in New Era Dianetics for OTS.

Following down through your post, it is really over my head and difficult for me to read but before I make more of an effort to understand it, I need all those points which I addressed above to either be cleaned up or defended strongly enough to get me to change my mind.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Please see my comments in red above.

Maria, thanks for being "nice" and taking the time to write the above! In your response above, you state the following, "Pavlov's work has to do with physiological and neurological pathways, not mental images pictures, thus his work on stimulus response had to do with bodies, not 'thetans.' Certainly any relation to reactive minds or banks is purely additive or by analogy.

I believe that you are making an erroneous supposition that Dianetics, as originally formulated by Hubbard, had something to do with thetans. Dianetics was developed in the late 1940's, prior to Hubbard's alleged discovery of the existence of the human spirit in 1951. Therefore, Dianetics was developed along the lines that man was a body with a mind. The concept of a "thetan" is not contained in Dianetics as it was originally published in 1950. Your initial assumption is not a minor point but is a major point which may or may not effect the following portions of your post which start off citing this erroneous supposition.

It is true that Dianetics was concerned with mental image pictures and that Pavlov's work has to do with physiological and nuerological pathways. You then strongly infer that these two things are incompatible as if only one or the other can exist. You rule out that they both could exist simultaneously because Pavlov's work was bodies based while Hubbard's Dianetics was thetan based. I am saying that Hubbad's original Dianetics was not thetan based and thus the conclusions which you reached may not be correct.

That same paragraph claims that Freud did not believe in thetans and you state "Counseling served the function of imposing comformity". Of Course, Freud, who died in 1939, did not believe in thetans because that term was not even defined by Hubbard until 1951. I presume you really mean that Freud did not believe in spirits but as I just showed above, thetans or spirits were not part of Dianetics as originally formulated by Hubbard. Also, your statement which I put in bold letters above is just asserted without any back up in a manner reminiscent of Mark A Baker, who used to post here quite a bit. I admit that I am a layman and really don't know but it seems to me that Freudian counseling was devised as a form of treating mental illness. IMO, you or anyone else who believes that it only served the function of imposing conformity needs to do more than just assert that as a matter of fact. That is a big claim you made and as such, it deserves references and documentation to back up your assertion.

I do not believe that Hubbard ever put the concept of thetans into Dianetics. I don't think there is any official Hubbard Bulletin or Policy which specifically puts the concept "thetan" into the later versions of Dianetics. Of course if Scientology, which is supposed to have evolved from Dianetics proved the existence of thetans, as Hubbard claimed, once that proof was made, Dianetics could not deny that thetans existed but the concept that beings were thetans was never officially made part of Dianetic procedure per se. Dianetcis was designed to work on a human being who was made of only 2 major parts, a body and a mind.

New Era Dianetics for OTs, called NOTS, deals almost totally with the thetan but I don't see any usage of Dianetics at all in New Era Dianetics for OTS.

Following down through your post, it is really over my head and difficult for me to read but before I make more of an effort to understand it, I need all those points which I addressed above to either be cleaned up or defended strongly enough to get me to change my mind.
Lakey

The entire subject of Dianetics is spurious. Therefore I don't see why I would argue about a subject like that. Mental image pictures are not a part of Pavlov's work. Dianetics is snake oil. Scientology is snake oil. I offered 6 hours of BBC documentary which since you have not watched it I am perplexed that as you say I offered no evidence. Thanks.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Freud was not a scientist so I don't see how comparing him in analogy to Newton really works.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The entire subject of Dianetics is spurious. Therefore I don't see why I would argue about a subject like that. Mental image pictures are not a part of Pavlov's work. Dianetics is snake oil. Scientology is snake oil. I offered 6 hours of BBC documentary which since you have not watched it I am perplexed that as you say I offered no evidence. Thanks.

Thanks for the clarification pointing out that your link did cover the subject under discussion. I specifically asked you whether it did or not because I wanted to make sure that it did before I began watching it. I certainly am not going to spend 6 hours watching a documentary if I have absolutely no assurance that the answer to my objections will be addressed somewhere within that documentary. I will watch it enough so that I get the gist of what they are saying about a topic and then skip to another topic and sort of sample what the documentary is all about. If a particular topic piques my interest enough, I will watch that whole segment.

Sorry if I sort of put the cart before the horse but I wanted to tell you my objections to your last post and then ask you if you thought your link might supply answer to my objections before I invested major time in sitting at my desk watching a full documentary. When I am done watching, I will respond to you whether my objections were handled by the documentary in full, in part or not at all.

I hope you understand where I am coming from on this. One thing for certain, when I next reply to your previous post, I will be better informed then I am now.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Freud was not a scientist so I don't see how comparing him in analogy to Newton really works.

The term "medical science" is used frequently, so there is precedent to consider Freud as a scientist since he was researching into mental illness which is part of mental science. Clearly the people developing all these new drugs which are supposed to be aids to mental illnesses as well as many physical illnesses are scientists since they are engaging in the science of chemistry. Why should people who develop pills to abate or even cure mental illness be considered scientists while someone such as Freud, who pioneered spoken mental therapy, is NOT considered to be a scientist. To disqualify Freud seems very argumentative to me as if that fine distinction is being used only to win an argument. Of course I can use Freudian therapy becoming passe as an analogy to Newtonian dynamics becoming passe!

HOWEVER, I DIDN'T EVEN THINK OF THAT POINT WHEN I CITED FREUD BECOMING PASSE AS NEWTONIAN PHYSICS HAD BECOME PASSE WHEN THE MICHELSON MORLEY EXPERIMENT FAILED IN THE LATE 1800'S,

What about Pavlov? He was a scientist using the scientific method, to better understand why dogs would salivate automatically when a bell was rung. He is now passe as well and he was a scientist. If you won't allow me to use Freud because he was not a scientist, I could use Pavlov in part to make the point which I was making. After all, Hubbard's reactive mind was a stimulus response type mind cited by Hubbard to be similar to Pavlov's salivating dogs.

Your comment brings up another point. Newton was an authority in the science of physics and was also an authority in Mathematics which is not considered a Science as far as I know. Mathematics is its own subject and advanced mathematics is often needed to analyze and formulate scientific results but mathematics can also be used by little children playing games such as hide and seek when a seeker closes his eyes and counts to ten before going to look for some other kids who are hiding.

Let's say that Newtonian mechanics did become passe by 1905, did that reality also make calculus, co-discovered by Newton passe? Clearly it did not.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The term "medical science" is used frequently, so there is precedent to consider Freud as a scientist since he was researching into mental illness which is part of mental science. Clearly the people developing all these new drugs which are supposed to be aids to mental illnesses as well as mny physical illnesses are sciences since they are engaging in the science of chemistry. Why should people who develop pills to abate or even cure mental illness be considered scientists while someone such as Freud, who pioneered spoken mental therapy, is NOT considered a scientist. Of course I can use Freud becoming passe as an analogy to Newtonian dynamics becoming passe!

HOWEVER, I DIDN'T EVEN THINK OF THAT POINT WHEN I CITED FREUD BECOMING PASSE AS NEWTONIAN PHYSICS HAD BECOME PASSE WHEN THE MICHAELSON MORLEY EXPERIMENT FAILED IN THE LATE 1800'S,

What about Pavlov? He was a scientists, using the scientific method, to better understand why dogs would salivate automatically when a bell was rung.

Your comment brings up another point. Newton was an authority in the science of physics and was also an authority in Mathematics which is not considered a Science as far as I know. Mathematics is its own subject and advanced mathematics is often needed to analyze and formulate scientific results but mathematics can also be used by little children playing games such as hide and seek when a seeker closes his eyes and counts to ten before going to look for some other kids who are hiding.
Lakey

Let's say that Newtonian mechanics did become passe by 1905, did that reality also make calculus, co discovered by Newton passe? Clearly did not.

I tend to be quite anal and limited in the way my mind takes up topics. So I suppose I got irritated. Why? Because my original post had to do with showing that conceptions of the term unconscious mind were based in Romantic literature and philosophy (on which Ron's reactive mind is based via Freud). As evidence for this detail, I posted an amazon book. I could have posted 100 books and articles, taking all day. Instead, I gave one since it served as anecdotal evidence. Basically I've argued around the forum and in my blog that the reactive mind as a concept is flawed and I don't buy into it.

So when I say that being anal and limited I got irritated, this is because suddenly we were talking about Pavlov, which had nothing to do with my original point, now completely lost in the mist of time. And this new line of flight then went on to discuss Newton.

Freud's work is mostly considered literature today. Never medical science. I know this after having studied Freud, literature and philosophy for 12 years. At the risk of destroying the thread by getting into long winded proofs, I offered a series created by the BBC, easy to understand and enjoy, by any lay person, and produced by Adam Curtis, an award winning journalist.

If you want I can get into a very minute, sentence by sentence response to every thing you said about Pavlov, Newton, Freud, and so on. But right now I think I need to go paint for a while and after all this is a forum, not an academic journal.

I'm sorry I'm so frustrated by I feel my original post was derailed. I was on a very narrow, specific topic and it ended up going all over creation. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Leland]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I tend to be quite anal and limited in the way my mind takes up topics. So I suppose I got irritated. Why? Because my original post had to do with showing that conceptions of the term unconscious mind were based in Romantic literature and philosophy (on which Ron's reactive mind is based via Freud). As evidence for this detail, I posted an amazon book. I could have posted 100 books and articles, taking all day. Instead, I gave one since it served as anecdotal evidence. Basically I've argued around the forum and in my blog that the reactive mind as a concept is flawed and I don't buy into it.

So when I say that being anal and limited I got irritated, this is because suddenly we were talking about Pavlov, which had nothing to do with my original point, now completely lost in the mist of time. And this new line of flight then went on to discuss Newton.

Freud's work is mostly considered literature today. Never medical science. I know this after having studied Freud, literature and philosophy for 12 years. At the risk of destroying the thread by getting into long winded proofs, I offered a series created by the BBC, easy to understand and enjoy, by any lay person, and produced by Adam Curtis, an award winning journalist.

If you want I can get into a very minute, sentence by sentence response to every thing you said about Pavlov, Newton, Freud, and so on. But right now I think I need to go paint for a while and after all this is a forum, not an academic journal.

I'm sorry I'm so frustrated by I feel my original post was derailed. I was on a very narrow, specific topic and it ended up going all over creation. Thanks for understanding.

I have never understood....since you started posting on ESMB....(quite recently...a few months?) why you choose to post on this thread.

You have no "original post" here....

Maria this is not your thread....

This thread is the longest thread on ESMB....and has been around for years.....it was started in 2009

Perhaps if you did start a thread about a narrow topic.....it might work better for you...

But knowing the interwebs...and msg boards....perhaps not..

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I have never understood....since you started posting on ESMB....(quite recently...a few months?) why you choose to post on this thread.

You have no "original post" here....

Maria this is not your thread....

This thread is the longest thread on ESMB....and has been around for years.....it was started in 2009

Perhaps if you did start a thread about a narrow topic.....it might work better for you...

But knowing the interwebs...and msg boards....perhaps not..

My post was just a post, not a thread. I never said it was my thread and I never said anyone had to ever be in any way interested in my posts. If I feel my posts are not of interest here because no one responds, I'll stop posting to this thread. I have on occasion started threads.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I tend to be quite anal and limited in the way my mind takes up topics. So I suppose I got irritated. Why? Because my original post had to do with showing that conceptions of the term unconscious mind were based in Romantic literature and philosophy (on which Ron's reactive mind is based via Freud). As evidence for this detail, I posted an amazon book. I could have posted 100 books and articles, taking all day. Instead, I gave one since it served as anecdotal evidence. Basically I've argued around the forum and in my blog that the reactive mind as a concept is flawed and I don't buy into it.

So when I say that being anal and limited I got irritated, this is because suddenly we were talking about Pavlov, which had nothing to do with my original point, now completely lost in the mist of time. And this new line of flight then went on to discuss Newton.

Freud's work is mostly considered literature today. Never medical science. I know this after having studied Freud, literature and philosophy for 12 years. At the risk of destroying the thread by getting into long winded proofs, I offered a series created by the BBC, easy to understand and enjoy, by any lay person, and produced by Adam Curtis, an award winning journalist.

If you want I can get into a very minute, sentence by sentence response to every thing you said about Pavlov, Newton, Freud, and so on. But right now I think I need to go paint for a while and after all this is a forum, not an academic journal.

I'm sorry I'm so frustrated by I feel my original post was derailed. I was on a very narrow, specific topic and it ended up going all over creation. Thanks for understanding.

Thanks for the further clarification. I understand much more what you were doing and how and why you were doing it. As I say, I will open your reference material and check it out.

I do want us to reach some sort of consensus on this, even if the consensus is that we agree to disagree. Again, your coming at this topic from studying Freud literature and philosophy for 12 years while I am coming at it from the point of view of a moderately informed layman should dictate that I simply go along with what what you say. As much sense as that makes, I will almost never do that and I really don't believe that you would want me to do that either.

What I will do is end the discussion with you here on the open board and then research the references which you cite. If I come to fully agree with you, I will send you a PM to that effect and if I don't end up fully agreeing, I will PM you and let you know about it.

I agree we have already beat the subject to death and should cease discussing it on this thread since the discussion is now more argumentative than productive. I do thank you very much for posting the topic on the thread. I got a lot out of it and I hope some others did as well. I was starting to get anal about it myself and I am sorry for that
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks for the further clarification. I understand much more what you were doing and how and why you were doing it. As I say, I will open your reference material and check it out.

I do want us to reach some sort of consensus on this, even if the consensus is that we agree to disagree. Again, your coming at this topic from studying Freud literature and philosophy for 12 years while I am coming at it from the point of view of a moderately informed layman should dictate that I simply go along with what what you say. As much sense as that makes, I will almost never do that and I really don't believe that you would want me to do that either.

What I will do is end the discussion with you here on the open board and then research the references which you cite. If I come to fully agree with you, I will send you a PM to that effect and if I don't end up fully agreeing, I will PM you and let you know about it.

I agree we have already beat the subject to death and should cease discussing it on this thread since the discussion is now more argumentative than productive.
Lakey

Going along with what I say was never my point. Since I don't really have time today for all this I won't say more. Next time I have anything to post I will post it.

I had no idea I had beaten anything to death but please forgive me and and let me know the penance if so. (I don't believe in confession so no doubt I will deny all charges.)