Udarnik
Gold Meritorious Patron
Last edited by a moderator:
'Man is basically good discussion' (snip from another thread)
- Thread starter Udarnik
- Start date
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Mike McClaughry
The entire history of philosophers has a steady stream of 'men are basically good'. I should know; taught philosophy for years.
Plato
Aristotle
Augustine
Aquinas
Leibniz
Descartes
Kant
Kierkegaard
Husserl
Gabriel Marcel
Many more. Those were just some famous ones.
The entire history of philosophers has a steady stream of 'men are basically good'. I should know; taught philosophy for years.
Plato
Aristotle
Augustine
Aquinas
Leibniz
Descartes
Kant
Kierkegaard
Husserl
Gabriel Marcel
Many more. Those were just some famous ones.
Last edited:
Type4_PTS
Diamond Invictus SP
Re: Mike McClaughry
I just came across this book earlier today when searching for something else, and took a very quick look through it, reading 6-7 pages.
It's either the mother of all Scientology conspiracy theories, or a great piece of disinformation. I've not spent enough time with it to figure out which one.
Whichever it is, it's obvious that the McClaughtry's have worked very hard at it.
According to the book, Hubbard was recruited by British intelligence at a very young age, and they do include some excerpts from Hubbard where he writes about some intel agents he had been connected to (prior to 1950).
Also, the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, including some of the basic methods, were developed prior to the birth of L. Ron Hubbard, by some organization I believe was formed back in the 1880's.
I don't have time to read through the book now but it looks interesting. What percentage of the book (if any) is true, I have no idea.
He did name a book which was from the 1800's that used the word "Scientology". I googled the name of the book and found the reference to Scientology, but in a brief look didn't really understand WTF the author was talking about. :confused2:
Has anyone checked out this book? Any thoughts on it?
Here's the link for anyone interested:
https://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/the-reading-library/scientology/scientology-roots/
I just came across this book earlier today when searching for something else, and took a very quick look through it, reading 6-7 pages.
It's either the mother of all Scientology conspiracy theories, or a great piece of disinformation. I've not spent enough time with it to figure out which one.
Whichever it is, it's obvious that the McClaughtry's have worked very hard at it.
According to the book, Hubbard was recruited by British intelligence at a very young age, and they do include some excerpts from Hubbard where he writes about some intel agents he had been connected to (prior to 1950).
Also, the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, including some of the basic methods, were developed prior to the birth of L. Ron Hubbard, by some organization I believe was formed back in the 1880's.
I don't have time to read through the book now but it looks interesting. What percentage of the book (if any) is true, I have no idea.
He did name a book which was from the 1800's that used the word "Scientology". I googled the name of the book and found the reference to Scientology, but in a brief look didn't really understand WTF the author was talking about. :confused2:
Has anyone checked out this book? Any thoughts on it?
Here's the link for anyone interested:
https://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.com/the-reading-library/scientology/scientology-roots/
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Mike McClaughry
BTW
that was a noncommittal answer on my part since the topic is for me a bit odd anyway.
Man = fake souls, real souls and non souls, whoever they may be, in a fallen construct, in fallen construct bodies.
Good = Whatever men seem to think it is or else something really good, if men can have access to it...which rarely can they or do they.
So. "Man is basically good" says nothing since it lacks a context, same with my definitions for man and good.
BTW
that was a noncommittal answer on my part since the topic is for me a bit odd anyway.
Man = fake souls, real souls and non souls, whoever they may be, in a fallen construct, in fallen construct bodies.
Good = Whatever men seem to think it is or else something really good, if men can have access to it...which rarely can they or do they.
So. "Man is basically good" says nothing since it lacks a context, same with my definitions for man and good.
Last edited:
BunnySkull
Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Mike McClaughry
Coming from some graduate level philosophy courses I do appreciate your comment. I have wanted to bang my head against many a wall when people have try to have even a casual discussion about philosophy with me.
Most people fail to realize that learning the language, and agreement upon meaning of words, is the most important building block of having any relevant philosophical conversation.
Most people cannot even fathom the millions of words written just trying to define and come to common agreement on the word "being" within a philosophical framework.
Marty Rathbun used to drive me batty since he seemed to not have the faintest understanding of defining/ agreement upon language and would write paragraphs of "philosophical drivel" that only had meaning to himself. To write or have an intelligent discussion about philosophy you have to spend a lot of time learning the language and framework within which serious discussions can take place.
Coming from some graduate level philosophy courses I do appreciate your comment. I have wanted to bang my head against many a wall when people have try to have even a casual discussion about philosophy with me.
Most people fail to realize that learning the language, and agreement upon meaning of words, is the most important building block of having any relevant philosophical conversation.
Most people cannot even fathom the millions of words written just trying to define and come to common agreement on the word "being" within a philosophical framework.
Marty Rathbun used to drive me batty since he seemed to not have the faintest understanding of defining/ agreement upon language and would write paragraphs of "philosophical drivel" that only had meaning to himself. To write or have an intelligent discussion about philosophy you have to spend a lot of time learning the language and framework within which serious discussions can take place.
Gib
Crusader
Re: Mike McClaughry
so allow me to add context, it's a book called dianetics. The context of dianetics is that man is basically good, but the only thing that gets in the way of this basic good is the reactive mind. And hubbard explains it, which I fell for. And he later did the same for scientology. All based on 50,000 years of man's thinking which I thought hubbard gleamed the truth.
It's a very convincing statement by hubbard, once one falls for it, as you did, and me. Just remove the reactive mind influence, and there you go, you have a clear with perfect recall, and great abilities above normal man, now called homo novus by hubbard.
The whole purpose of dianetics/scientology is to create a clear, a homo novus.
Philsophy in scientology, give me a break, none exist. There is no philosophy or philosophizing in scientology. LOL
The only philosophizing in scientology is proving sources of hubbards reading to expose his bullshit of so called religion. And that isn't even philosophizing, it's actually called CSI, aka Crime Scene Investigation. LOL
so allow me to add context, it's a book called dianetics. The context of dianetics is that man is basically good, but the only thing that gets in the way of this basic good is the reactive mind. And hubbard explains it, which I fell for. And he later did the same for scientology. All based on 50,000 years of man's thinking which I thought hubbard gleamed the truth.
It's a very convincing statement by hubbard, once one falls for it, as you did, and me. Just remove the reactive mind influence, and there you go, you have a clear with perfect recall, and great abilities above normal man, now called homo novus by hubbard.
The whole purpose of dianetics/scientology is to create a clear, a homo novus.
Philsophy in scientology, give me a break, none exist. There is no philosophy or philosophizing in scientology. LOL
The only philosophizing in scientology is proving sources of hubbards reading to expose his bullshit of so called religion. And that isn't even philosophizing, it's actually called CSI, aka Crime Scene Investigation. LOL
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Mike McClaughry
Well philosophy is a dog house where every dog has a different bone to pick.
Well philosophy is a dog house where every dog has a different bone to pick.
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Mike McClaughry
Ok. The below is just for whoever likes it - the only real trustable soul is a soul that another soul can feel.
OT and auditing in general is the process of building a dome. The fake soul/thetan/I construct.
The fake soul is about cause....it's hard, defensive, protective, logical, strong, impenetrable.
The soul is soft, defenseless, vulnerable, feeling-based, and open.
The process of building the dome of no-feeling and abstraction around a soul bolsters a fake construct/The I of consciousness.
The more OT someone is the more plastered the poor soul is with this hard ugly sociopathic unfeeling dome. The I can't feel though it does have fake subjectivities....
The above is literally too vague but it's my first try to phrase it.
Ok. The below is just for whoever likes it - the only real trustable soul is a soul that another soul can feel.
OT and auditing in general is the process of building a dome. The fake soul/thetan/I construct.
The fake soul is about cause....it's hard, defensive, protective, logical, strong, impenetrable.
The soul is soft, defenseless, vulnerable, feeling-based, and open.
The process of building the dome of no-feeling and abstraction around a soul bolsters a fake construct/The I of consciousness.
The more OT someone is the more plastered the poor soul is with this hard ugly sociopathic unfeeling dome. The I can't feel though it does have fake subjectivities....
The above is literally too vague but it's my first try to phrase it.
Last edited:
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Mike McClaughry
The I is that mass of abstractions and subjectivities. Call it by reactive or analytic: either way, the I is insane. Bolstering to make it 'better' is utterly insane. Since to bolster it is to increase it and make it stronger = more delusional.
Edit: there is another problem, not just that the fake soul/I construct cannot feel (although it has 'psychological fake feelings'): the soul is inside that impenetrable hard dome and can't be felt by an other. It's blocked.
The I is that mass of abstractions and subjectivities. Call it by reactive or analytic: either way, the I is insane. Bolstering to make it 'better' is utterly insane. Since to bolster it is to increase it and make it stronger = more delusional.
Edit: there is another problem, not just that the fake soul/I construct cannot feel (although it has 'psychological fake feelings'): the soul is inside that impenetrable hard dome and can't be felt by an other. It's blocked.
Last edited:
Gib
Crusader
Re: Mike McClaughry
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Shall I simply say no clears or OT's.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Shall I simply say no clears or OT's.
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Maria Cuervo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Gib
Crusader
Re: Mike McClaughry
no worries, I was a little abrupt, so allow me to apologize. I forgot about this tread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...s-not-philosophy-Hubbard-is-not-a-philosopher
I've been reading up on some philosophies and my eduaction level is not up to par with yours.
I'm sorry I couldn't express things in a better way.
no worries, I was a little abrupt, so allow me to apologize. I forgot about this tread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...s-not-philosophy-Hubbard-is-not-a-philosopher
I've been reading up on some philosophies and my eduaction level is not up to par with yours.
Ogsonofgroo
Crusader
Re: Mike McClaughry
I cannot fathom how you came up with that, and I disagree. Let me try an analogy, hmmm, the soul, the soul, Put into a driver's seat of sorts, like a kid learning to drive a car, if you have good teachers, then you'll drive the car fine. On the other hand, there are those who wish to drive 'your' car the way they want, and will try and talk you into their way of looking at the road. Then, there are the ones who'll push you out of your seat, attempt to take over the controls/wheel, and tend to drive around like they own the road, and unfortunately, the car too, while the 'passenger' rolls around in the back seat trying to gain a belt-buckle, re-take the wheel, or attempt to bail out of the craft.
In regards to 'soul'. Powerful center imho, when allowed to ground and balance.
The 'dome' you speak of, is not so much that, than the power of others to enshroud you, take over your own space, not inside you, but an external and manipulative pressure from outside your being.
Helpless only when made so.
Center of each, and all's, universe.
Grounded, a power to be reckoned with, it is what it is all about imho.
The essence is, to me, neither soft nor kind, weak nor forgiving, it just is, via our own planet's inner workings and our very deep part of it. As a 'higher life form', not a bad driver either if I do say so myself, I can only hope more people keep tuning into universe on their own stations, stay strong, don't be afraid , there is more power in one good mind than all of the shit from any cult anywhere.
I humbly ask, that if any 'domes' are involved, it is the one you start from your own center of being, to defend your soul. Grow.
Mini-rant over nao, I go.
Life.
I cannot fathom how you came up with that, and I disagree. Let me try an analogy, hmmm, the soul, the soul, Put into a driver's seat of sorts, like a kid learning to drive a car, if you have good teachers, then you'll drive the car fine. On the other hand, there are those who wish to drive 'your' car the way they want, and will try and talk you into their way of looking at the road. Then, there are the ones who'll push you out of your seat, attempt to take over the controls/wheel, and tend to drive around like they own the road, and unfortunately, the car too, while the 'passenger' rolls around in the back seat trying to gain a belt-buckle, re-take the wheel, or attempt to bail out of the craft.
In regards to 'soul'. Powerful center imho, when allowed to ground and balance.
The 'dome' you speak of, is not so much that, than the power of others to enshroud you, take over your own space, not inside you, but an external and manipulative pressure from outside your being.
Helpless only when made so.
Center of each, and all's, universe.
Grounded, a power to be reckoned with, it is what it is all about imho.
The essence is, to me, neither soft nor kind, weak nor forgiving, it just is, via our own planet's inner workings and our very deep part of it. As a 'higher life form', not a bad driver either if I do say so myself, I can only hope more people keep tuning into universe on their own stations, stay strong, don't be afraid , there is more power in one good mind than all of the shit from any cult anywhere.
I humbly ask, that if any 'domes' are involved, it is the one you start from your own center of being, to defend your soul. Grow.
Mini-rant over nao, I go.
Life.
Re: Mike McClaughry
The "man is basically good" concept is to be understood - per Hubbard in his lectures, but don't ask me to go hunting for the particular one - in the context of "survival" and the eight dynamics.
"Good" is equated with high quality survival across all of the dynamics, and mankind - both individually and in groups - tends to favour that state of affairs. Those who want others to suffer and succumb are labelled as psychopaths and are either locked up in loony bins or elected to high government office.
So man is basically good. We want our fellow creatures to do well and be happy.
The "man is basically good" concept is to be understood - per Hubbard in his lectures, but don't ask me to go hunting for the particular one - in the context of "survival" and the eight dynamics.
"Good" is equated with high quality survival across all of the dynamics, and mankind - both individually and in groups - tends to favour that state of affairs. Those who want others to suffer and succumb are labelled as psychopaths and are either locked up in loony bins or elected to high government office.
So man is basically good. We want our fellow creatures to do well and be happy.
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Re: Mike McClaughry
Oh my BINGO!
I spotted this just about the time I was pondering which of your paintings might make a good background on my phone screen.
This subject being brought up has been plaguing me so long it's gone lost under the table. The idea of being inside a spiritual encapsulation and its resultant spiritual inconvenience.
I'd asked myself about a week ago what this 'thing' was made of, this barrier between me and the natural joy of direct experience of the real world. I"d even wondered if a part of the ecclectic 'me' coordinating this life had risen up from its slumber to a state of only being mechanically alive... my burden to carry. I'd considered that maybe this world had become such a threatening place, this situation was just an evolved protection from being too much here and now.
Many, immersed in ontology over the past have noticed that structures are attached to each another through their purposes. Even the existence of the color magenta on the rim of an orchid leaf has its purpose for the entire flower.
https://www.ontology.co/idx03.htm
Last week I stumbled upon a wonderful cache of youtube lectures as I aimed to reaffirm for myself the basic Good in life. These old style Calif professors are the cat's ass.
http://academyofneoplatonism.blogspot.com/2012/02/new-video-lecture-series-by-dr-pierre.html?m=1
https://youtu.be/WkC70PZQosA
http://academyofneoplatonism.blogspot.com/2012/02/iamblichus-on-theurgy-embracing.html?m=1
https://youtu.be/aEgrQv9mqtg
http://noeticsociety.org/tag/pierre-grimes-2/
http://youtu.be/TmlJC2hTLhg
http://consciouscreativity.com/study-with-master-philosopher-pierre-grimes/
I never went to college, but I do find myself getting caught up in the thrall of this. I re-evaluated what magic was recently. What these people were doing with the basic ideas that represented the various aspects in their archaic rituals 300 bce to 300 ce. They did not take for granted that these living elements would respond to being labeled or composited by human will. Instead, the task was to appreciate and understand the ancient forces that had been creating the world forever....not to compete and outsource it....topping it....as if it was an agency totally different in constituency than oneself.
Oh my BINGO!
I spotted this just about the time I was pondering which of your paintings might make a good background on my phone screen.
This subject being brought up has been plaguing me so long it's gone lost under the table. The idea of being inside a spiritual encapsulation and its resultant spiritual inconvenience.
I'd asked myself about a week ago what this 'thing' was made of, this barrier between me and the natural joy of direct experience of the real world. I"d even wondered if a part of the ecclectic 'me' coordinating this life had risen up from its slumber to a state of only being mechanically alive... my burden to carry. I'd considered that maybe this world had become such a threatening place, this situation was just an evolved protection from being too much here and now.
Many, immersed in ontology over the past have noticed that structures are attached to each another through their purposes. Even the existence of the color magenta on the rim of an orchid leaf has its purpose for the entire flower.
https://www.ontology.co/idx03.htm
Last week I stumbled upon a wonderful cache of youtube lectures as I aimed to reaffirm for myself the basic Good in life. These old style Calif professors are the cat's ass.
http://academyofneoplatonism.blogspot.com/2012/02/new-video-lecture-series-by-dr-pierre.html?m=1
https://youtu.be/WkC70PZQosA
http://academyofneoplatonism.blogspot.com/2012/02/iamblichus-on-theurgy-embracing.html?m=1
https://youtu.be/aEgrQv9mqtg
http://noeticsociety.org/tag/pierre-grimes-2/
http://youtu.be/TmlJC2hTLhg
http://consciouscreativity.com/study-with-master-philosopher-pierre-grimes/
I never went to college, but I do find myself getting caught up in the thrall of this. I re-evaluated what magic was recently. What these people were doing with the basic ideas that represented the various aspects in their archaic rituals 300 bce to 300 ce. They did not take for granted that these living elements would respond to being labeled or composited by human will. Instead, the task was to appreciate and understand the ancient forces that had been creating the world forever....not to compete and outsource it....topping it....as if it was an agency totally different in constituency than oneself.
Last edited:
Gib
Crusader
Re: Mike McClaughry
my guess is that Hubbard read Edmund Burke and retermed "survival" from "self-preservation" as explained here in Section VI, VII & VIII:
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/burke/edmund/sublime/part1.html#part1.6
Those 3 sections cover the 4 dynamics hubbard says in dianetics. The added scientology 8 dynamics are hubbards imagination at work to include his metaphysical bullshit, just like all the other metaphysical bullshit artists. Sublime.
BTW, passions as Burke describes them are actually emotions, the term passions was used to describe emotions back then.
That's my CSI work or opinion.
my guess is that Hubbard read Edmund Burke and retermed "survival" from "self-preservation" as explained here in Section VI, VII & VIII:
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/burke/edmund/sublime/part1.html#part1.6
Those 3 sections cover the 4 dynamics hubbard says in dianetics. The added scientology 8 dynamics are hubbards imagination at work to include his metaphysical bullshit, just like all the other metaphysical bullshit artists. Sublime.
BTW, passions as Burke describes them are actually emotions, the term passions was used to describe emotions back then.
That's my CSI work or opinion.
Enthetan
Master of Disaster
Re: Mike McClaughry
It might be more accurate, rather than "good vs bad", to think of categories of people as "group members" vs "predators".
Most people (to greater or lesser degree) see themselves as group members. Family, friends, fellow citizens, etc -- they cooperate, help out people in trouble, exchange value for value. Society functions with such people.
Then there are the predators. They are not necessarily "insane" in the sense of not being able to think rationally. They are predators. They have a different viewpoint.
The wolf does not cooperate or exchange with the sheep. The wolf overpowers and then consumes the sheep. The robber does not work, exchanging labor for cash -- if the robber wants cash, he goes and finds somebody who is reasonably easy prey. The rapist is not interested in giving affection and companionship for sex -- he wants sex, so he goes out and finds somebody who is reasonably easy prey. The predator may get what he wants from his prey through violence or through cunning, but however it happens, he sees himself surrounded by prey, and it's just a question of finding easy prey who will not fight back.
I think LRH saw himself as a predator surrounded by stupid sheep.
It might be more accurate, rather than "good vs bad", to think of categories of people as "group members" vs "predators".
Most people (to greater or lesser degree) see themselves as group members. Family, friends, fellow citizens, etc -- they cooperate, help out people in trouble, exchange value for value. Society functions with such people.
Then there are the predators. They are not necessarily "insane" in the sense of not being able to think rationally. They are predators. They have a different viewpoint.
The wolf does not cooperate or exchange with the sheep. The wolf overpowers and then consumes the sheep. The robber does not work, exchanging labor for cash -- if the robber wants cash, he goes and finds somebody who is reasonably easy prey. The rapist is not interested in giving affection and companionship for sex -- he wants sex, so he goes out and finds somebody who is reasonably easy prey. The predator may get what he wants from his prey through violence or through cunning, but however it happens, he sees himself surrounded by prey, and it's just a question of finding easy prey who will not fight back.
I think LRH saw himself as a predator surrounded by stupid sheep.