WildKat
Gold Meritorious Patron
A=A=A
You know, it's been so long since I read the Dianetics book, and I don't have one to hand here. Can anyone cite the pertinent passage from the book? I don't recall the Anything=Anything=Anything statement, but if that is true, then it would make more sense.
I read Dianetics, practically in one weekend, over 30 years ago. It made sense to me at the time, and is what got me into Scn. (Although it seemed he did beat a lot of points to death.)
Now the only Scn books I have are Blown for Good, My Billion Year Contract and Madman or Messiah! (I didn't throw out the LRH books, I just didn't take them with me when I left.)
Hi - I am not defending Hubbard here , but to be fair , Did he not mean Anything = Anything = Anything ? He is trying to point out the "identification" with "everything" action of the "dianetic" reactive mind . However I believe you are correct . A=B=C is a far better way of describing it than A=A=A due to the mathemtical conotation , besides, Dianetics was supposed to be an analysis of the mind from an "engieering" point of view ! I suppose however , a "true blue " scio may quote the HCOB "conceptual understanding " On this one !
You know, it's been so long since I read the Dianetics book, and I don't have one to hand here. Can anyone cite the pertinent passage from the book? I don't recall the Anything=Anything=Anything statement, but if that is true, then it would make more sense.
I read Dianetics, practically in one weekend, over 30 years ago. It made sense to me at the time, and is what got me into Scn. (Although it seemed he did beat a lot of points to death.)
Now the only Scn books I have are Blown for Good, My Billion Year Contract and Madman or Messiah! (I didn't throw out the LRH books, I just didn't take them with me when I left.)