A theory of Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology.

[TalleyWhacker]

Alex, very fine post, good points, fine summary. I just highlighted two paragraphs I wanted to comment on.

When you say sometimes the amount of time and effort needed to accomplish what he enviosioned, were beyond him. Things ended up working out that way but there were extenuating circumstances.

He originally felt the business tech in the USA was good, those with degrees from college in business or accounting knew their stuff. He then had bad experiences with professional business men and accountants when he brought them in to work in his Orgs. AS A RESULT, INSTEAD OF WORKING ON THE TECH WHICH HE HAD PLANNED TO WORK ON, HE HAD TO TAKE A SIDE PATH AND DEVELOP HIS OWN TECH ON RUNING AN ORGANIZATION. I think this is how things became too much for him to handle although he made a valiant effort to develop all these other techs such as management, promotion, ethics, debugging and data evaluation study tech etc..

MAYBE THAT IS WHY HE DEVELOPED DISDAIN FOR HIS FOLLOWERS as Kha Khan asserts . In his mind, the followers could not get anything right on their own and he had to be derailed from the research he really wanted to do and develop these other techs.

One of the techs that he did not master was how to delegate authority and responsibilty to other people. He claims to have mastered that tech but in practice he did not have a handle on it. Just look at it, he virtually redeveloped every single tech extant on Earth. He felt nothing on Earth, the medical, the government, movie making, advertising, bookkeeping, whatever, was all no good. You take something like bookkeeping and accounting. He did not like the double entry form of accounting and felt it was suppressive. He could have easily delegated the task of developing an accounting system to others, yet he spent his own time developing a single entry system. I THINK HIS REFUSAL TO SHARE THE LIMELIGHT WITH OTHERS PLAYED HEAVILY IN HIS INABLITIY TO SUCCESSFULLY DELEGATE.

It all ties together, his high abilities to reasearch, reformat and repackage data, his initial well intendedness, his early attempts to delegate using Earth technologies, his inborn refusal to share the spotlight with others, his self imposed necessity of pulling off his research in the areas he loved to develop technologies to replace the false technologies of Earth and then the disdain he developed for his followers as a result of the above chain of events.

Your closing paragraph is strong and makes a good point.
lkwdblds

Quite possibly right. I hadn't looked at that before.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Hi, Kha Khan,

I think I'm more heretical than standard. I don't have a problem with the standard bridge, per se, but I would be more than happy to squirrel it, too.

I think being any kind of a purist in one's chosen philosophy leads to close mindedness and to lack of observation.

Having spent two lifetimes as a Scn'ist, I don't want to keep making that mistake.

I was once on the radio doing an interview about Scn- it was supposed to be a puff piece on Scn and I steered it just a bit (since the reporter or talk show host or DJ always has his or her own plans for the way it's supposed to go) toward the critical. I intro'd myself as an heretical Scientologist.

That's why I get a bit peeved when some of the folks on another message board start braying about KSW and what I'm (supposedly) there to do. Like they've seen my posts how long and they still say that? So obvious that I'm a heretic. And when I'm talking to people who don't know I feel that way, I tell them. But by hose people, it's disregarded. Ah well. Some people would rather stereotype others than really communicate with them.

 

[Alanzo]

Analysis is the general area of mathematics which constitutes what is commonly called the calculus. Real analysis constitutes the subject of analysis limited to the field of real numbers. Newton was one of the originators of the field along with Leibniz. Neither one is wholly & unequivocally the "source" of real analysis. Their original references are relatively rarely directly referenced in the study of the subject by contemporary mathematicians. That does not invalidate either the subject or the real contributions [pun ] of these gentlemen.

It is necessary to separate the subject matter from the way it is described or the people involved, just as serious students who concentrate on other disciplines do.


Mark A. Baker

I did not know this.

Once again, I squeeze you and you poop out something interesting!

Thanks!

It just goes to show that not all Scientologists have nothing but truthiness and feelings supporting their arguments.

 

[Veda]

This is one of the (many) things that drives me nuts about Scientologists, Independent Scientologists, and Freezoners.

When they want to avoid all rational analysis, objective inquiry, and scientific or statistical scrutiny, it (i.e., Scientology, Independent Scientology, or the Freezone) is purely a religious and/or spiritual pursuit completely beyond rational or objective analysis, where subjective, spiritual truth is the only relevant criteria.

-snip-

Never underestimate the skills of a gifted con man/PR person to manipulate others. Watching one is like watching a skilled pickpocket work in a large crowded railway station. It's perverse. The pickpocket is quietly proud of his "skills," and the "marks" (targets/victims) are not aware until it's too late.

 

[Alanzo]

A. It's not bullshit.

B. No, it's SUBJECTIVELY true.

Subjective truth is all that is possible with regard to spiritual insights. Requiring a different standard of truth for what is an innately intense personal experience is indicative of a fundamental lack of wisdom.


Mark A. Baker

Usually, huge logical and factual inconsistencies spell trouble for any philosophy.

But apparently this is no so with Scientology.

Good to know!

 

[alex]

Never underestimate the skills of a gifted con man/PR person to manipulate others. Watching one is like watching a skilled pickpocket work in a large crowded railway station. It's perverse. The pickpocket is quietly proud of his "skills," and the "marks" (targets/victims) are not aware until it's too late.

What kind of person watchs a pickpocket work with out shouting out "THIEF"?

 

[Veda]

What kind of person watchs a pickpocket work with out shouting out "THIEF"?

What makes you think I didn't? And what makes you think that I'm not doing that right now?

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

What kind of person watchs a pickpocket work with out shouting out "THIEF"?

Every Scientologist who was every in an Org as a registrar was shaking someone down for money after they got out of session.

 

[alex]

What makes you think I didn't? And what makes you think that I'm not doing that right now?

I of course was not meaning you wouldnt/didnt!

You have been "crying thief" in every post you ever posted for years.

 

[Alanzo]

I find consistency in Hubbard. The trick is to put it all into a large enough context. If you break it into little pieces, and then compare pieces with out the other elements of the whole, sure it is easy to crow "this and that make no sense together".

An oily crankshaft and leather seat are inconsistent without the context of a car. Yet a car is inconsistent in the context of the ocean.

You can understand, or protest. Both valid choices.

All right then, how about consistency with your own self? Specifically the self you were when you were first making the decision to become a Scientologist?

Remember who you were back then? Can you remember some of the problems that you had which Scientology promised to address?

Can you remember the things that you were told that Scientology and Scientologists valued and believed in?

Can you remember how those representations of Scientology, and those claims which were made to you formed the reasoning you used to decide to become a Scientologist in the first place?

And now that you have found out that Scientology never really did address those things, that Scientology never really did believe in or value those things, and now that you know conclusively that Scientology is incapable of creating a better world - in fact would create a world that is WAY WORSE than the one we have now - how can you remain so disloyal to and inconsistent with your earlier self to remain a Scientologist?

To me, Exes who get fully out of Scientology usually remain consistent with the ideals that got them into Scientology in the first place. What got them into Scientology is usually what got them out, too, once they discovered they were lied to about so much and so thoroughly.

But I see that Freezoners and others who stay in Scientology, after learning the fundamental untruths of L Ron Hubbard and Scientology, become inconsistent with themselves, and their own ideals. They have to actually abandon their most cherished beliefs and ideals to keep being a Scientologist.

See if you can address that inconsistency - your own integrity to the self you were when you first decided to become a Scientologist.

Don't you have a duty to that earlier self of yours?

 

[uniquemand]

Alright, Mark A Baker, you've demonstrated the ability to define real analysis. I'm impressed. However, having recently spent a few days with a mathematician offspring of mine, how do you do defining COHOMOLOGY.

 

[alex]

All right then, how about consistency with your own self? Specifically the self you were when you were first making the decision to become a Scientologist?

Remember who you were back then? Can you remember some of the problems that you had which Scientology promised to address?

Can you remember the things that you were told that Scientology and Scientologists valued and believed in?

Can you remember how those representations of Scientology, and those claims which were made to you formed the reasoning you used to decide to become a Scientologist in the first place?

And now that you have found out that Scientology never really did address those things, that Scientology never really did believe in or value those things, and now that you know conclusively that Scientology is incapable of creating a better world - in fact would create a world that is WAY WORSE than the one we have now - how can you remain so disloyal to and inconsistent with your earlier self to remain a Scientologist?

To me, Exes who get fully out of Scientology usually remain consistent with the ideals that got them into Scientology in the first place. What got them into Scientology is usually what got them out, too, once they discovered they were lied to about so much and so thoroughly.

But I see that Freezoners and others who stay in Scientology, after learning the fundamental untruths of L Ron Hubbard and Scientology, are inconsistent with themselves, and their own ideals.

They have to actually abandon their most cherished beliefs and ideals to keep being a Scientologist.

See if you can address that consistency - your own integrity to yourself.

I am fundamentally the same person as I was before scientology. I did gain access to some tools, some of which I have used, some still unimplemented.

The semi organized collection of people who make up the church are not a testament to the workability of the whole tech/philosophy/gestalt as much as a testament to the recognition of the need for it.

Your use of the word "scientology" is a generalization, representing in your mind the personal failures of the subject and its practitioners.

I understand your feeling that there is no consistency/integrity in being a scientologist, but that is based on your notion of what one is.

The promise of "scientology" is still there for me, despite the apparent failure of it for others.

The idea of what scientology is, is different for me, than it is for you.

Integrity addressed.

 

[alex]

Alright, Mark A Baker, you've demonstrated the ability to define real analysis. I'm impressed. However, having recently spent a few days with a mathematician offspring of mine, how do you do defining COHOMOLOGY.

???? HEY!!!!
:dancer: :dancer: :dancer: :dancer: :dancer: :dancer:

 

[uniquemand]

Spank you very much.

 

[uniquemand]

I am fundamentally the same person as I was before scientology. I did gain access to some tools, some of which I have used, some still unimplemented.

The semi organized collection of people who make up the church are not a testament to the workability of the whole tech/philosophy/gestalt as much as a testament to the recognition of the need for it.

Your use of the word "scientology" is a generalization, representing in your mind the personal failures of the subject and its practitioners.

I understand your feeling that there is no consistency/integrity in being a scientologist, but that is based on your notion of what one is.

The promise of "scientology" is still there for me, despite the apparent failure of it for others.

The idea of what scientology is, is different for me, than it is for you.

Integrity addressed.

Beware the bait and switch. The promise? What has it actually done for you, and was it worth the price (not just financial).

 

[Alanzo]

I am fundamentally the same person as I was before scientology. I did gain access to some tools, some of which I have used, some still unimplemented.

The semi organized collection of people who make up the church are not a testament to the workability of the whole tech/philosophy/gestalt as much as a testament to the recognition of the need for it.

Your use of the word "scientology" is a generalization, representing in your mind the personal failures of the subject and its practitioners.

I understand your feeling that there is no consistency/integrity in being a scientologist, but that is based on your notion of what one is.

The promise of "scientology" is still there for me, despite the apparent failure of it for others.

The idea of what scientology is, is different for me, than it is for you.

Integrity addressed.

All right. Let's get right down to it, then, and name some specific representations that Scientology makes and see how they are different for you, than they are for me. And this difference is why you are a Scientologist, and I am not - each with our own integrity intact.

How about "The Creed of the Church of Scientology"?

It begins with the words "WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE..", and it is prominently displayed and pointed to on the walls of every mission and org on Earth, and it is actively used to recruit new Scientologists, so it seems like it might be a good place to start.

Agreed?

When you read the words "We of the Church believe... That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others"

What do you see there that I don't?

Because once you come to realize that every part of ethics and policy and even technology in Scientology is devoted to ensuring that this statement is NOT believed, or allowed to exist wherever the Church is in control, how do you keep believing in the Creed of the Church of Scientology and still remain a Scientologist?

If you really do believe in the rights and the ideals represented in the Creed of the Church of Scientology, then how can you remain a Scientologist when you know that the Church, and Hubbard, not only do not practice these rights and ideals, but actively seek to destroy them?

 

[alex]

Beware the bait and switch. The promise? What has it actually done for you, and was it worth the price (not just financial).

I am probably different than most people in that I was critical before going into the church, and critical to the extent that I was a "problem" for my family that was in.

I saw the excessive marketing and sales techniques for what they were, and the religious aspect, and the hardline press for conformity....and the potential for abuse.

I was not baited and switched. I kicked the tires real hard before I bought the shiny car with a few things needing fixing. Its still running, sort of. But now the question is restore it or buy new.

I have gotten out of scientology in proportion that I took what I learned, piloted it in real life, and then integrated it into my life.

I have never been a good scientologist. I have always been trouble. Both for the church and myself.

But yes it is "worth it". I have received much and payed little. Others have not been so fortunate.

My responsibility is to do something about THAT.

 

[uniquemand]

I hear that, Alex, and thanks for your honesty and integrity. Keep plugging.

 

[uniquemand]

All right. Let's get right down to it, then, and name some specific representations that Scientology makes and see how they are different for you, than they are for me. And this difference is why you are a Scientologist, and I am not - each with our own integrity intact.

How about "The Creed of the Church of Scientology"?

It begins with the words "WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE..", and it is prominently displayed and pointed to on the walls of every mission and org on Earth, and it is actively used to recruit new Scientologists, so it seems like it might be a good place to start.

Agreed?

When you read the words "We of the Church believe... That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others"

What do you see there that I don't?

Because once you come to realize that every part of ethics and policy and even technology in Scientology is devoted to ensuring that this statement is NOT believed, or allowed to exist, how do you keep believing in the Creed of the Church in order to remain a Scientologist?

If you really do believe in the rights and the ideals of the Creed of the Church, then how can you remain a Scientologist when you know that the Church, and Hubbard, not only do not practice these rights and ideals, but actively seek to destroy them?

Dude, the Creed is a list of "acceptable truths" told for PR area control reasons only. It is part of the "Scientology is a religion" angle, which allows Hubbard and the corporations using his marks to pay no taxes while they heap abuse upon private individuals and the courts who are trying to fix the ghosts in their machine.

 

[alex]

All right. Let's get right down to it, then, and name some specific representations that Scientology makes and see how they are different for you, than they are for me. And this difference is why you are a Scientologist, and I am not - each with our own integrity intact.

How about "The Creed of the Church of Scientology"?

It begins with the words "WE OF THE CHURCH BELIEVE..", and it is prominently displayed and pointed to on the walls of every mission and org on Earth, and it is actively used to recruit new Scientologists, so it seems like it might be a good place to start.

Agreed?

When you read the words "We of the Church believe... That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others"

What do you see there that I don't?

Because once you come to realize that every part of ethics and policy and even technology in Scientology is devoted to ensuring that this statement is NOT believed, or allowed to exist, how do you keep believing in the Creed of the Church in order to remain a Scientologist?

If you really do believe in the rights and the ideals represented in the Creed of the Church of Scientology, then how can you remain a Scientologist when you know that the Church, and Hubbard, not only do not practice these rights and ideals, but actively seek to destroy them?

What do I see that you dont?

That the beliefs, the ideals, are held by people not yet fully capable of living up to them. And that those people are solving their "problem", life, with what tools they have. Frequently imperfectly.

"Scientology" owes me nothing. Nor anyone else for that matter. It is there to be used or abused. Its what you make of it. Many have chosen to make a cluster fuck of it. A few seem to appreciate it being there and have made success with it.

And in the end, it will be the aggregate of all the individual actions and experiences that will say what it was.

That time is not here.