degraded being
Sponsor
Either that, or cuddling with wife, stuffing hisself with christmas cookies, working, having a life, hunting elsewhere,...
ya think?
Scientology explained
- Thread starter Leon-2
- Start date
ya think?
George Layton
Silver Meritorious Patron
hubbard did his best to turn humans into computer terminals, you are happy to simply turn them into lab rats. You really are lost.
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
Yeah, all sorts of "excellent work"...
All that's lacking is actual, verifiable results, like "Clear". Like "OT".
Oh, and actual proof. You know, someone actually applying strict scientific principles and providing verifiable evidence and such.
If any of this "tech" actually worked, wouldn't there be at least some actual evidence that non-believers could see?
If any of this "tech" actually worked, wouldn't the practitioners work to provide proof instead of, as they do, attack those who ask for proof?
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
Actually, no, it isn't. As is usual with this kind of discussion, the topic is only Leon-2™ brand Scientology. Your version of Scientology, not Hubbard's, not anyone else's.
When you "explain" Scientology, you don't. You only "explain" what you imagine Scientology should be - because you know "where Hubbard went wrong".
I can't imagine wanting you to explain Scientology but I really can't fathom why anyone would want you to explain Leon-2 brand Scientology. Seriously.
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
If what he does is an improvement on what he learnt from LRH and gets results, then yes, I'd say it was worth his while to do that.
Last edited:
George Layton
Silver Meritorious Patron
Who gets to decide if it was an improvement, the OP'er?
What is an auditor anyway:
A spiritual guide?
An intuitional therapist?
A misguided humanitarian?
A vanity junky?
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
If we know something's a fiction, then it's obvious that the original author's version is definitive. Today people do write fanfiction stories using the characters of authors like J.K. Rowling, but nobody tries to say that their version of Hogwarts is the real one. The original version is it, forever.
Science isn't like that. Isaac Newton started physics, but the subject exists apart from Newton. We owe him a great debt, but we've gone far beyond him. His work has been revised quite extensively. To insist that Newton's version was the only real physics would be idiotic.
Religions in general are often somewhere in between. Some founding figure proclaims some revelation, but then a lot gets built upon that foundation. Differences of interpretation develop. Which Islam or Buddhism or Christianity is the real one? It can be hard to say.
If Scientology is a fiction, then Hubbard's version is the only Scientology. If Scientology is a science, however embryonic, then Hubbard's words are no more definitive than Newton's. If Scientology is a religion, then Hubbard's words might be important but still not be everything.
When you try to argue for one of those three alternatives by assuming it, that's just being circular. It's called "begging the question", because you're not really arguing, but just asking your opponent to accept your assumption of your answer. When one person tries to prove Scientology a science by saying how much its doctrines have evolved after Hubbard, and another tries to prove it is a fiction by insisting that only Hubbard's version counts, then that's a pointless discussion.
Science isn't like that. Isaac Newton started physics, but the subject exists apart from Newton. We owe him a great debt, but we've gone far beyond him. His work has been revised quite extensively. To insist that Newton's version was the only real physics would be idiotic.
Religions in general are often somewhere in between. Some founding figure proclaims some revelation, but then a lot gets built upon that foundation. Differences of interpretation develop. Which Islam or Buddhism or Christianity is the real one? It can be hard to say.
If Scientology is a fiction, then Hubbard's version is the only Scientology. If Scientology is a science, however embryonic, then Hubbard's words are no more definitive than Newton's. If Scientology is a religion, then Hubbard's words might be important but still not be everything.
When you try to argue for one of those three alternatives by assuming it, that's just being circular. It's called "begging the question", because you're not really arguing, but just asking your opponent to accept your assumption of your answer. When one person tries to prove Scientology a science by saying how much its doctrines have evolved after Hubbard, and another tries to prove it is a fiction by insisting that only Hubbard's version counts, then that's a pointless discussion.
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
I certainly agree. The moment even one Scientology practitioner proves that his "tech" is an improvement over other technologies and actually gets results, that would be a red letter day.
Hasn't happened in 60+ years but "hope springs eternal" and all that.
Edit: I just realized you just said "it was worth his while to do so" not worthwhile for someone else to read his "explanation"!
That's a completely different thing. It is always "worth his while" to explain his version of Scientology. He gets to pretend he has "fixed Hubbard's mistakes". He gets to tell everyone else how they got conned but he "rose above it".
However, there is no evidence that it is worth anyone else's time to read his claptrap - which is my point. There is nothing in L-2's explanations that anyone else needs or wants.
If he provided any actual proof of any value to his "teachings" that would be different. But he doesn't.
Last edited:
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
LOL
That seems to be a popular and recurring theme in Scientology. Something goes wrong (i.e. the tech doesn't work). Then the guru rides in on his white horse to save the day, r-factoring the loyal [STRIKE]God[/STRIKE] Tech-Fearing parishioners that there has been a monumental new breakthrough and discovery that fixes everything.
And the sad thetans of Scientology suddenly perk up with VGIs and renewed hope! Their certainty about the tech working (and their eternity) is resurrected!
The guru du jour (Hubbard, Miscavige, Leon, et al...) then adds a screwball twist to the briefing to ensure that they themselves are absolved from any guilt that their vaunted (old, now revised) tech didn't work as they had promised and promoted. Hubbard was a master at simultaneously getting himself off the hook AND introverting the hell out of the paying customers who didn't get what they paid for. Who can forget classic propaganda spins like this one--THE TECH DIDN'T WORK BECAUSE:
As a very advanced OT, I (the guru) greatly overestimated
the lowly (degraded) condition that mankind (the PC)had
descended to--and thus I (the guru) used too high a level
of process. But, now that it's apparent that mankind (the PC)
is much further down the dwindling spiral than was ever
suspected, I am proud to announce the new amazing
tech discovery that UNDERCUTS and uses the right
gradient--which will produce 100% uniform results on
100% of mankind (the PC) 100% of the time! It now
works even with DBs (the PC ) who have very abberated
cases (accounting for the fact that the auditing didn't
do what the paying PC was guaranteed it would do).
Now, aren't I (the guru) amazing and aren't you (the PC)
amazed at my amazing amazingness?
There's another aspect to this thread that your post reminded me of. Scientologists just LOVE to make bold promises and chest-thumping proclamations about how they are miraculously able to handle any problem with the tech. Let's see what Leon promised in his opening post on this thread:
So, Leon briefs everyone on ESMB that he can easily handle any questions ex-Scientologists (like Jason Beghe) bring up.
But, then what really happens in real life? This thread is what happens and it's painfully obvious that LEON IS NOT ABLE TO "HANDLE" ANY PERSON OR ANY QUESTION AT ALL!
He fails miserably to answer any question to anyone's satisfaction. He "handles" exactly NO ONE and NOTHING.
There's the story of Scientology in a nutshell: People incessantly bragging about things they can't do.
Last edited:
Anonycat
Crusader
Some things we know about the cult teachings:
1) It is not science (It is a "reverse hypotheses", where Hubbard tried to get an effect, rather than explain one. An idea that was futile, and he admitted he had failed.)
2) it is not religion (nor a psychotherapy: page 251, Creation of Human Ability.)
3) Hubbard knew it was a scam to make money, and that Clear had never existed, even once. (In August 1950, Hubbard held a demonstration in Los Angeles' Shrine Auditorium where he presented a young woman called Sonya Bianca (a pseudonym) to a large audience including many reporters and photographers as 'the world's first Clear.' However, despite Hubbard's claim that she had "full and perfect recall of every moment of her life", Bianca proved unable to answer questions from the audience testing her memory and analytical abilities, including the question of the color of Hubbard's tie. Hubbard explained Bianca's failure to display her promised powers of recall to the audience by saying that he had used the word "now" in calling her to the stage, and thus inadvertently froze her in "present time," which blocked her abilities. Later, in the late 1950s, Hubbard would claim that several people had reached the state of Clear by the time he presented Bianca as the world's first; these others, Hubbard said, he had successfully cleared in the late 1940s while working incognito in Hollywood posing as a swami. To date, no Clears have even been realized. " ... by 1947, I had achieved clearing". The quote is from The Story of Dianetics and Scientology, Lecture 18, Oct. 1958.)
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
jee-yay-ziss HH...
what about the red sox breaking an 86 year drought taking the ALCS from the damn yankees down 3-0 in the series trailing game four by a run and facing "mr. automatic" on the mound in the bottom of the ninth then going through a cardinal team which won 105 games like it wasn't there bracketed by a stellar matched pair of new england patriot super bowl victories?
aw right, i didn't deliver a perfect 19-0 gridiron record in aught seven but i came within a cornerback's fingertips of it with less than 15 seconds on the clock
sheee-it...
no one's demoed "OT" for you HH?
read your mail my man...
RogerB
Crusader
SOT's little dissertation on Science/physics above is a good one.
True also for the subject we are dealing with here . . . let's call it, say, the science of spiritual existence. It is a body of knowledge being investigated just like any other area of universal existence.
Long ago, the established guardians of knowledge refused to accept the idea that we were NOT the center of the universe or the fact that we move about the sun . . . the scientist who tried to convince them of it was actually lucky to survive in one piece. One guy who did agree the knowledge correct did burn at the stake!
Today's guardians of knowledge cannot and do not accept the existence of anything non-physical . . . their idea of "science" is actually being practiced in the same manner as the Church of Rome practiced its protection of its guardianship of knowledge . . . and that is to block and or otherwise discredit what does not fit into their system of what is actually a fixed idea belief system.
What Leon and the folks he mentioned have done is to actually pursue their subject exactly in the same manner as valid scientists have done . . . they have observed something and they are communicating the knowledge they have acquired relative to their observations.
Not all that has been observed has been exactly correctly or fully perceived or analyzed or interpreted . . . but that is the history of the physical sciences also.
The great tragedy in this case is that, the body of knowledge being pursued had recently been tainted by an unscrupulous fraudster who used what had been discovered by many before him to unethical ends . . . and so, those affected by that taint do not look beyond that recent bad history to observe and evaluate the truth that had been before the tainting.
Those who reactively, out of a fixed belief that what they have is the actual full true answer to existence, ridicule and block the knowledge being presented in this particular subject are simply doing just as the earlier guardians of knowledge, whether as religionists or as science leaders protecting their turf and careers and jobs have done.
They are not being "scientific."
We saw it recently with those whose careers were on the line reactively acting to discredit and debunk what they themselves had mislabelled as "cold fusion" (the guys who made the discovery never called it that).
For those interested one can view the two criminal "scientists" who blocked the US from now being able to benefit from the development of this: Prof. John Huizenger called it "pathological science" due to his fixed thinking; and Prof. Ronald Parker, Director of the MIT Plasma Fusion Center, actually fraudulently altered the figures of a test he ran to "prove" to the US Dept. Energy the true finding were fraudulent. Their shit actually exists on tape for all to view now.
I say, pursue knowledge honestly. Those who can only debunk knowledge and the ideal of its pursuit are doing themselves a dis-service and we who wish to pursue knowledge would betray ourselves to be stopped by their noise.
Rog
True also for the subject we are dealing with here . . . let's call it, say, the science of spiritual existence. It is a body of knowledge being investigated just like any other area of universal existence.
Long ago, the established guardians of knowledge refused to accept the idea that we were NOT the center of the universe or the fact that we move about the sun . . . the scientist who tried to convince them of it was actually lucky to survive in one piece. One guy who did agree the knowledge correct did burn at the stake!
Today's guardians of knowledge cannot and do not accept the existence of anything non-physical . . . their idea of "science" is actually being practiced in the same manner as the Church of Rome practiced its protection of its guardianship of knowledge . . . and that is to block and or otherwise discredit what does not fit into their system of what is actually a fixed idea belief system.
What Leon and the folks he mentioned have done is to actually pursue their subject exactly in the same manner as valid scientists have done . . . they have observed something and they are communicating the knowledge they have acquired relative to their observations.
Not all that has been observed has been exactly correctly or fully perceived or analyzed or interpreted . . . but that is the history of the physical sciences also.
The great tragedy in this case is that, the body of knowledge being pursued had recently been tainted by an unscrupulous fraudster who used what had been discovered by many before him to unethical ends . . . and so, those affected by that taint do not look beyond that recent bad history to observe and evaluate the truth that had been before the tainting.
Those who reactively, out of a fixed belief that what they have is the actual full true answer to existence, ridicule and block the knowledge being presented in this particular subject are simply doing just as the earlier guardians of knowledge, whether as religionists or as science leaders protecting their turf and careers and jobs have done.
They are not being "scientific."
We saw it recently with those whose careers were on the line reactively acting to discredit and debunk what they themselves had mislabelled as "cold fusion" (the guys who made the discovery never called it that).
For those interested one can view the two criminal "scientists" who blocked the US from now being able to benefit from the development of this: Prof. John Huizenger called it "pathological science" due to his fixed thinking; and Prof. Ronald Parker, Director of the MIT Plasma Fusion Center, actually fraudulently altered the figures of a test he ran to "prove" to the US Dept. Energy the true finding were fraudulent. Their shit actually exists on tape for all to view now.
I say, pursue knowledge honestly. Those who can only debunk knowledge and the ideal of its pursuit are doing themselves a dis-service and we who wish to pursue knowledge would betray ourselves to be stopped by their noise.
Rog
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
Re: Faux therapy explained.
see deropp in "the master game" on man's frequent attempts to think with labels...
see deropp in "the master game" on man's frequent attempts to think with labels...
Good post Mister Toe Out. Thank you for it.
I have said on other posts recently that to apply the standards of the scientific method to non-physical subjects like spirit and mind can never work. I'm not going to repeat all of that here. You can read it on the other thread.
You can test for the degree of vacuum in a container by testing for the presence of atoms and molecules and mass (or however they do it). But you can not test for the state of clear by looking for the presence of engrams - engrams are in the mind and the mind is in a space of its own - it is not in the brain but can yet influence the brain. It is not in the physical universe but its influence on the physical universe can be seen and, to a degree, measured. All that an e-meter measures is that influence on a person's body. It does not measure the mind itself.
There is no physical test that can measure the relative non-existence of any engrams. The idea is laughable.
So while the influence of 'engrams' (the given name for a hidden control centre that operates on a stimulus-response basis and that influences a person's conduct without his knowledge) can be seen in the behaviour of people, yet their actual existence can only be assumed and not proven.
But this is an assumption - perhaps like the square-root of minus one - that can lead to very useful applications. And now, please note, we depart from any sort of realm of 'Scientific Truth' and enter the domain of Usefulness. Workability. And we disregard the demands of scientific purists.
So we assume the existence of engrams and we look for value in that assumption. If they exist, then how did they get there and what can be done about removing them? Well, what Hubbard found was that they have their origins in those parts of human experience that the person was unwilling to have happen. The worst of these were times of pain and unconsciousness.
Do I need to go on explaining it all step by step? I hope not. Auditing gets the guy to experience and confront what he previously didn't or wouldn't and in this way the unknown becomes known. Etc, etc, etc.
= = = =
Regarding definitions of words - the mere fact that Hubbard redefined words differently at different times shows that he was unhappy with his own earlier definitions. A look at the Tech Dictionary shows many definitions which have evolved over the years. And in places he even contradicts his own earlier ones or uses words in contexts which are inappropriate to his own definitions of how they should be used.
Look at Ethics vs Morals, or Energy vs Force, Service Facsimile, Clear, Engram, and others.
As Student of Trinity said - Scientology is bigger that Hubbard and is a work in the process of development. Hubbard only started it, or gave earlier works in this matter a new direction and impetus. What I am doing by working out better definitions and thinking with the subject and developing ideas on it is a perfectly valid activity. I make it all known to others and welcome comments on them.
Enough.
I have said on other posts recently that to apply the standards of the scientific method to non-physical subjects like spirit and mind can never work. I'm not going to repeat all of that here. You can read it on the other thread.
You can test for the degree of vacuum in a container by testing for the presence of atoms and molecules and mass (or however they do it). But you can not test for the state of clear by looking for the presence of engrams - engrams are in the mind and the mind is in a space of its own - it is not in the brain but can yet influence the brain. It is not in the physical universe but its influence on the physical universe can be seen and, to a degree, measured. All that an e-meter measures is that influence on a person's body. It does not measure the mind itself.
There is no physical test that can measure the relative non-existence of any engrams. The idea is laughable.
So while the influence of 'engrams' (the given name for a hidden control centre that operates on a stimulus-response basis and that influences a person's conduct without his knowledge) can be seen in the behaviour of people, yet their actual existence can only be assumed and not proven.
But this is an assumption - perhaps like the square-root of minus one - that can lead to very useful applications. And now, please note, we depart from any sort of realm of 'Scientific Truth' and enter the domain of Usefulness. Workability. And we disregard the demands of scientific purists.
So we assume the existence of engrams and we look for value in that assumption. If they exist, then how did they get there and what can be done about removing them? Well, what Hubbard found was that they have their origins in those parts of human experience that the person was unwilling to have happen. The worst of these were times of pain and unconsciousness.
Do I need to go on explaining it all step by step? I hope not. Auditing gets the guy to experience and confront what he previously didn't or wouldn't and in this way the unknown becomes known. Etc, etc, etc.
= = = =
Regarding definitions of words - the mere fact that Hubbard redefined words differently at different times shows that he was unhappy with his own earlier definitions. A look at the Tech Dictionary shows many definitions which have evolved over the years. And in places he even contradicts his own earlier ones or uses words in contexts which are inappropriate to his own definitions of how they should be used.
Look at Ethics vs Morals, or Energy vs Force, Service Facsimile, Clear, Engram, and others.
As Student of Trinity said - Scientology is bigger that Hubbard and is a work in the process of development. Hubbard only started it, or gave earlier works in this matter a new direction and impetus. What I am doing by working out better definitions and thinking with the subject and developing ideas on it is a perfectly valid activity. I make it all known to others and welcome comments on them.
Enough.
strativarius
Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Congratulations! The first person in history who has learned how to polish a turd!
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
i don't think leon is totally stuck on himself. i think he finds terril park, balthasar, claire, and the commander to be intelligent and discriminating. i'm pretty sure he thinks panda and roger b. are intelligent and discriminating as they surely are
and you are looking at the pictures in your own head if you see "a silly stance" which your "critical thinking" peers through. leon is an auditor. auditing is something much, much removed from "silly"
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
Got it! Thanks for clearing that up.
Those who are pursuing Hubbard's work but who refuse to provide any proof and who attack those requesting proof are "valid scientists".
Those who are requesting proof before accepting the claims of these "valid scientists" are "not being scientific".
And here I thought real science followed the scientific method. You know, work to prove with verifiable evidence and disprove their hypothesis. Silly me. Who knew "science" was all unverifiable claims and belief.
All followers of Hubbard are "valid scientists".
Just wow!
Last edited:
Anonycat
Crusader
Got it! Thanks for clearing that up.
Those who are pursuing Hubbard's work but who refuse to provide any proof and attack those requesting proof are "valid scientists".
Those who are requesting proof before accepting the claims of these "valid scientists" are "not being scientific".
And here I though real science followed the scientific method. Silly me.
All followers of Hubbard are "valid scientists".
Just wow!
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
an auditor george, is a person who listens
that alone can generate improvement. to also have some technical knowledge also helps but at the bottom line an auditor is a person who listens
and...
a very strong ability and willingness to listen is always evident on this board in those who see value in the lrh/csi imprimatur and one frequently observes an willful inability to listen in the writings of the harsher "critics"
George Layton
Silver Meritorious Patron
There are ways to explore spiritual existence without involving others. Those involved in the ongoing research of the old school mechanics of scientology are using people that have been fed the engram lies, the eternity lies, the ethics lies, etc. These auditors waiting outside the restrictions of the church are using these people as test subjects. It might be spiritual research for the unrestricted auditors but there promises are based upon the base foundation of lies. Like I said to leon, fix yourself and let others alone.