Scientology is all bad

[SweetnessandLight]

Sometimes there's just no percentage in responding.

TG1

Now, don't get discouraged, Tee Gee!

Think of the Lurkers! Do it for them!

Onward and Upward, everyone!

Courage and patience, my friends...

Thinking is happening, folks are communicating (really! even when they seem to miss each other). It's possible to read something one day, not get it, puzzle over it a bit, live life, read some more, think about it and come back again in a future point in time and totally understand where the poster was coming from.

I have confidence that learning and growth are happening as we post! (Not to mention re-orientation! )

And think of the Lurkers!

 

[Jquepublic]

Sorry - if there is a state called STATIC, I haven't experienced it knowingly, so I am the wrong person to try to describe it to you. I'm doing my best off the top of my head LOL

I think it's one of those deliberately unprovable items that Hubbard built into his subject. Since only a being in Native State would be able to completely understand, and we've all degenerated (in Hubbard's construct) to shadows of our true selves, then Scientologists pretty much have to take his word for it that the statements he made are true.

 

[Demented LRH]

Sure, if you've got a cerebral cortex as well as a brain stem, then you have two rather different chunks of meat in your skull. But it's voodoo neuropsychology to jump to the conclusion that this means two minds.

The brain stem has some reflex mechanisms, but it seems very unlikely that it gives rise to any mind at all. Within the cerebral cortex there are zillions of cells, and whatever the heck is going on among them, the concept of 'control centers' seems now to be a hopelessly crude homunculus model that can bear very little relation to what really happens.

Insofar as 'control center' may be meaningful at all for describing complex behavior like parsing sound or vision and interpreting words, there may be many control centers within the cerebral cortex, and there are probably none at all in the brain stem. So the 'two mind' theory seems pretty irrelevant.

I agree with your post. However, it has no relation to the engram idea.

This is the sequence of events -- Korzybski introduced the notion of reactive mind -- Hubbard accepted Korzybski's definition of the reactive mind -- I have shown that the reactive mind (engrams) is incorrectly defined because it contains logical inconsistencies -- therefore the reactive mind does not exist.

 

[Dilpickle]

No. I am saying that it is unknown what kind of interpretation of a word the reactive mind does when it encounters one. When the wrord is mapped into undefined word, this is an indication that the mapping is not properly defined. In other words, lack of information about the mapping leads to conclusion that thereactive mind does not exist.

Here is an analogy -- the word "ether" cannot be defined properly, so it does not exist. The scientists have abandoned the notion of ether in 1900s.

Definition of the word "either" is an example of mapping of language onto itself.

I feel like you are speaking French, and I am speaking Spanish.. LOL For some reason, I cannot understand what you mean.. Maybe this will help. My understanding of the reactive mind, is that it doesn't concern itself with things it does not have any understanding of.. it ignores them. It only comes into play when something it CAN understand wakes it up and it feels the need to store that information for future use.. in terms of protecting itself, or the body, or to win when threatened, or survive when attacked.. etc..

 

[Jquepublic]

I agree with your post. However, it has no relation to the engram idea.

This is the sequence of events -- Korzybski introduced the notion of reactive mind -- Hubbard accepted Korzybski's definition of the reactive mind -- I have shown that the reactive mind (engrams) is incorrectly defined because it contains logical inconsistencies -- therefore the reactive mind does not exist.

Agreed. I have been assuming that you're (the participants here discussing it, not you only) are discussing the concept of mapping from the perspective of conscious vs unconscious mind, since the reactive mind is not proven to exist. Am I wrong in that assumption?

 

[Dilpickle]

I think it's one of those deliberately unprovable items that Hubbard built into his subject. Since only a being in Native State would be able to completely understand, and we've all degenerated (in Hubbard's construct) to shadows of our true selves, then Scientologists pretty much have to take his word for it that the statements he made are true.

That sounds right to me.. although that doesn't mean that Axiom 1 or 2 are incorrect.. that's something MAYBE we will find out someday if/when we evolve to that level..

 

[Demented LRH]

Hmm.. I followed you up to the point where you said Hubbard did not provide alternative interpretations.. let's say of the words French Fries.. or what your point is about that.. I can say, that the words "french fries" might mean something good to eat to the analytical mind, but to the reactive mind, they are BAD because when the person was 2 years old, his mother almost died choking on a french fry.. or whatever the reactive mind considers the problem is with french fries.. to the reactive mind, french fries equal "danger".

In the example that you described the reactive mind interpreted the phrase "french fries" correctly because it was able to attach a real episode to it. This is not what Hubbard says, according toi him the source of engrams is incorrect interpretation of the words.

Besides, the analytical mind may also consider eating french fries a dangerous activity because of the past experience, so the distinction between the analytical and reactive minds is not well-defined in this case.

 

[TG1]

Now, don't get discouraged, Tee Gee!

Think of the Lurkers! Do it for them!

I can't. It's like being stuck with someone on your volleyball team who couldn't care less whether she can return the ball, but still tries to hit every one that comes across the net.

TG1

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Sorry - if there is a state called STATIC, I haven't experienced it knowingly, so I am the wrong person to try to describe it to you. I'm doing my best off the top of my head LOL

The problem is not with your trying to describe it.

The problem is basing a religious philosophy on axioms.

The Axioms per L Ron Hubbard are neither self-evident nor scientific.

All he does is pack the axioms with his definitions and then, if you accept his definitions, the argument is circular.

It is like Spinoza and his axioms for ethics.

Think it through. It doesn't make sense.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[TG1]

Yet it makes sense to her, TAJ.

Ergo, it must be true.

And if not true, then possible.

Ergo, possibly true.

Now, you have to prove it's not possibly true.

On your mark, get set ....

TG1

 

[Demented LRH]

Agreed. I have been assuming that you're (the participants here discussing it, not you only) are discussing the concept of mapping from the perspective of conscious vs unconscious mind, since the reactive mind is not proven to exist. Am I wrong in that assumption?

It is possible to discuss the concept of mapping from the perspective of conscious vs unconscious mind, But my goal is much more narrower -- I just want to prove that the reactive mind does not exist.

 

[Dilpickle]

In the example that you described the reactive mind interpreted the phrase "french fries" correctly because it was able to attach a real episode to it. This is not what Hubbard says, according toi him the source of engrams is incorrect interpretation of the words.

Besides, the analytical mind may also consider eating french fries a dangerous activity because of the past experience, so the distinction between the analytical and reactive minds is not well-defined in this case.

Ah.. well, if LRH ever said that the source of engrams is incorrect interpretation of the words, maybe he didn't mean their DEFINITION.. but how we interpret them.. In my example, the analytical mind and reactive mind both knew the DEFINITION of French Fry, but the reactive mind interpreted the VALUE of a french fry by an unfortunate experience and perhaps made limiting decisions because of it. If you eat a french fry and you are allergic to it and almost die, then the analytical mind would say OH.. I better not eat any more of these, and that would be logical. The reactive mind is Illogical.

 

[Jquepublic]

The problem is not with your trying to describe it.

The problem is basing a religious philosophy on axioms.

The Axioms per L Ron Hubbard are neither self-evident nor scientific.

All he does is pack the axioms with his definitions and then, if you accept his definitions, the argument is circular.

It is like Spinoza and his axioms for ethics.

Think it through. It doesn't make sense.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Early on, when I first started to read critical works I wound up in a cursory study of philosophy. I SWEAR I came across the ideas expressed in the Axioms from the works of a Greek philosopher, but for my life I can't remember who or where I found it.

Hubbard not only stole the ideas, he made them faith-based, or faith-requisite. You cannot accept the premise of the Axioms without relying on faith that they're true.

 

[Jquepublic]

It is possible to discuss the concept of mapping from the perspective of conscious vs unconscious mind, But my goal is much more narrower -- I just want to prove that the reactive mind does not exist.

Then I better re-read a few posts! No wonder it wasn't making sense.

 

[Demented LRH]

I feel like you are speaking French, and I am speaking Spanish.. LOL For some reason, I cannot understand what you mean.. Maybe this will help. My understanding of the reactive mind, is that it doesn't concern itself with things it does not have any understanding of.. it ignores them. It only comes into play when something it CAN understand wakes it up and it feels the need to store that information for future use.. in terms of protecting itself, or the body, or to win when threatened, or survive when attacked.. etc..

OK, I'll try another analogy -- imagine the reactive mind as a big black box. You throw something in it, and something else comes out. You do not know how that black box works, and what is inside it. Now you want to patent that box. But the patent authority will tell you that you cannot patent it because you have no diagrams and drawings showing how it works. For the patent authority that big blax box does not even exist.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

TAJ!

I LOVE YOU TOO!

It is SO GOOD to see you posting here!

 

[Jquepublic]

Oh, FTR I am not through with the Scientology processing=hypnosis point on this thread. I want to know how exactly I was hypnotizing pcs. Not talking about Dianetics, I can see that is hypnosis. Scientology.

 

[Dilpickle]

OK, I'll try another analogy -- imagine the reactive mind as a big black box. You throw something in it, and something else comes out. You do not know how that black box works, and what is inside it. Now you want to patent that box. But the patent authority will tell you that you cannot patent it because you have no diagrams and drawings showing how it works. For the patent authority that big blax box does not even exist.

But in my example, I do explain how it works. I ought to get a patent LOL

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Early on, when I first started to read critical works I wound up in a cursory study of philosophy. I SWEAR I came across the ideas expressed in the Axioms from the works of a Greek philosopher, but for my life I can't remember who or where I found it.

Hubbard not only stole the ideas, he made them faith-based, or faith-requisite. You cannot accept the premise of the Axioms without relying on faith that they're true.

Maybe Pythagoras, at least in style:

http://youtu.be/HlBA9_3zj9w

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Infinite]

. . . Are you saying there is no such thing as a person with continual overts of magnitude? Maybe I'm not following you. I doubt you are really saying that nobody exists in this world whose intentions are bad and who regularly hurts others.. are you? Maybe I am mis-understanding.. You are expressing yourself in a way that is difficult for me to understand.. like "reconstructed into objective reality".. etc.. not sure what you mean at all.. or what it is you are actually interested in at the end..

I am interested, amongst other things, in learning about how L Ron Hubbard tricked people into tricking other people so that I can explain it to people who might be similarly tricked. One of L Ron Hubbard's most devious techniques was to change a person's language. I like to mention phrases of his which contain tacit inferences. For example, in Scientology "a person with continual overts of magnitude" would include just about every poster on ESMB. I'm not suggesting that you believe we all have bad intentions and regularly hurt others, in fact, your use of the statement was in reference to L Ron Hubbard himself. It struck me as inconsistent that, in the same statement, you called him a conman yet you use his language. I'm going to assume it was deliberate irony.

I'm sorry you misunderstand me. I try hard to be as clear and as concise as I can but know that my "style" sometimes comes across as a tad brusque. By "deconstructing into objective reality" I mean to expose subjective beliefs which are false. Its part of my attempt at unwinding that dreadful "what's true for you" L Ron Hubbard Kool Aid. For example, you mentioned you sort out the true/false data of a conman by using that which "works". In that case, how do you know it works and, even if it does, what other options are available which might provide a better result?