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.
Hubbard seemed to think you could. In fact, all of scientology is based on the idea you can.
If you don't believe that, what on earth are you doing with the tech?
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.
If someone claims that a clear has total recall, you can test that.
If someone claims auditing will raise you IQ, this can be tested.
If auditing claims to have any psychological effects, these effects can be tested scientifically.
The way to avoid any scientific test is to not define any tests or make any claims, but to speak in vague nebulous language which you have done admirably.
Also, while the e-meter tests the body, there are MRI and other technologies that are able to examine the workings of the brain with far greater clarity than a 19th Century Wheatstone Bridge. If you want to talk about the limitations of technology, best to position the conversation in a 21st century context.
There is no physical test that can measure the relative non-existence of any engrams. The idea is laughable.
You would need to define engrams first. If engrams are memories, you can test people's memory.
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.
If removal of engrams affects behavior, you can test for changes in behavior that are consistent with the model for how they operate.
If you define them as hidden, you get your conclusion that they can't be found from your definition itself, but you really have no reason to say they are hidden or will remain hidden from future scientists. If something exists, there is always a possibility it can be discovered. If you are defining it as hidden, it is almost like an admission that it isn't really real.
If you think they can never be found, or be inferred from evidence, then you have no justification for arguing that they exist. If you cannot in any way distinguish the existence or non-existence of an item, how can you assert it is real?
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.
Because, as you have said previously, he was a con man. He changed definitions to suit his purposes.
When he defined the term 'clear' and failed to deliver, he shifted the definition. This is what liars do. They get caught in a lie and tell another one. They shift ground.
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.
Given that he is dead, I'd have to agree. It is a work in progress because it is based on a fraud and needs repeated alteration of the lies in order to keep people convinced it is not all a scam.
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.
You've still not defined the term clear.
