Acceptable Truths

[Lone Star]

That's correct.

And watching Mark A. Baker blow smoke on that simple but very important point is disturbing.

Hmmmmmmm......I don't think you can show a valid example of Mark doing that.

If he actually did or does that it would make him a Hubbard apologist, of which he is not.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Hmmmmmmm......I don't think you can show a valid example of Mark doing that.

If he actually did or does that it would make him a Hubbard apologist, of which he is not.

Shhh! Don't pour cold water on his fantasies. It's all the poor lad has left anymore.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gadfly]

What you say is true enough as far as it goes. I think what he was doing was more general than that. I see it as his mechanism for appropriating the tech or ideas of others as his own idea or creation.

His public denouncement of an agent serves to denigrate the validity of an alternative "source". He is then free to claim the idea proposed by the other as his own, thus establishing ownership. Sometimes he would offer some pointless "refinement" of the basic idea to show the seeming fault in the original, or just as often simply re-express the same idea in his own manner and claiming it to constitute yet another breakthrough.

He did this routinely both with external sources of ideas embodied in scientology tech as well as those of his collaborators who developed public notoriety for their own accomplishments. It was a useful technique for reinforcing his claims as "creator of the tech" and source.

First: establish ownership. Second: establish control. Third: obtain obedience.

Each stage followed on as a successor to its prior.

Mark A. Baker

Mark, we are not talking about Hubbard's denouncement of an "agent" in these cases. Sure, he may have done that with Korzybski, when he appropriated the information that later became the Data Series. And while he did borrow the notion of fixed ideas from some earlier author, he explained it well, and USED IT TO MANIPULATE AND CONTROL HIS FOLLOWERS. He never really tried to denounce the original author, so as to claim sole authorship of the concept of fixed ideas.

Please don't incorrectly evaluate importances and go off topic here. Stay focused. Watch my fingers . . . .

I was talking about Hubbard's denouncement of exact TECHNIQUES, techniques that Hubbard then USED himself to effectively control and manipulate others. Hubbard invalidated the psyches and the subject of mind control (often quite rightly so), but then he aggressively went about systematically using mind control methods on his followers.

Yes, Hubbard did do just as you described, but that is NOT what I was describing. What I was describing was its own thing. It exists in abundance within the subject of Scientology and it is not embraced by and included within this more general phenomenon that you imagine to exist. What you described is surely true, but it is largely irrelevant to what I was describing.

Please don't make connections and associations where none exist. It is annoying and functions as a distraction.

You distorted what I described by adding to it and shifting it into something else that it was not.

Your point IS valid, and no doubt Hubbard did do exactly what you described. But the ONLY similarity it had to what I was describing was in the word "denouncement".

 

[Lone Star]

Mark, we are not talking about Hubbard's denouncement of an "agent" in these cases. Sure, he may have done that with Korzybski, when he appropriated the information that later became the Data Series. And while he did borrow the notion of fixed ideas from some earlier author, he explained it well, and USED IT TO MANIPULATE AND CONTROL HIS FOLLOWERS.

Please don't incorrectly evaluate importances and go off topic here. Stay focused. Watch my fingers . . . .

I was talking about Hubbard's denouncement of exact TECHNIQUES, techniques that Hubbard then USED himself to effectively control and manipulate others.

Yes, Hubbard did do just as you described, but that is NOT what I was describing. What I was describing was its own thing. It exists in abundance within the subject of Scientology and it is not embraced by and included within this more general phenomenon that you imagine to exist. What you described is surely true, but it is largely irrelevant to what I was describing.

Please don't make connections and associations where none exist. It is annoying and functions as a distraction.

Yes and he does that on purpose in order to keep Hubbard's legacy intact as the source of a valid spiritual technology. So Veda is right. Damn! :wink2:


Please excuse me, I'm in another one of my goofy, J&D trouble-making moods.

 

[Gadfly]

Yes and he does that on purpose in order to keep Hubbard's legacy intact as the source of a valid spiritual technology. So Veda is right. Damn! :wink2:


Please excuse me, I'm in another one of my goofy, J&D trouble-making moods.

Well, to be accurate, I don't see that Mark has any concern for Hubbard's "legacy", but Mark has recently used the term "spiritual technology" in connection to the subject materials of Scientology.

Spiritual technology . . . .

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Mark, we are not talking about Hubbard's denouncement of an "agent" in these cases. ...

As I said, the denouncements serve principally to distance himself from the other alternative source. That in turn leaves himself free to claim ownership of those very techniques as if in his presentation they were something "new" and "completely different".

First: establish ownership.

You're certainly free to disagree with that if you don't see in that fashion. But my perspective is a perfectly reasonable one and doesn't warrant histrionics as a response.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Well, to be accurate, I don't see that Mark has any concern for Hubbard's "legacy", but Mark has recently used the term "spiritual technology" in connection to the subject materials of Scientology.

Spiritual technology . . . .

You don't have to like it. It's a perfectly reasonable phrase. Similar claims have been made for a variety of meditation and tantric techniques. You want to argue the words go ahead. It's a reasonable usage derived from indo-aryan root sources.

I'm personally quite comfortable with the phrase and will continue to use it.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

Well, to be accurate, I don't see that Mark has any concern for Hubbard's "legacy", but Mark has recently used the term "spiritual technology" in connection to the subject materials of Scientology.

Spiritual technology . . . .

Did a quick search under MAB and came up with this from another thread, which is fairly typical of what MAB does when he's letting his hair down slightly. Enlarged font has been added:

It seems to me that too many people failed to recognize and duly account for LRH's clearly self-centered fixations. They often failed to rely upon their own judgement. Rather than discriminating between possibly useful practices in scientology techniques and using what made sense to them, they simply accepted whole hog the "words of the master" as "truth". Having discovered later that their paragon of leadership was in fact a flawed & troubled individual like others, they still prefer to ignore their own responsibility for the choices they made and their own lapses. Instead, they reject everything they encountered in scientology as being the product of someone else's deliberate subterfuge.

The problem with this thesis is that it focuses all "significance" upon Hubbard, just exactly as did Hubbard. It ignores the contributions that others made to the development of the actual tech of scientology as well as the remarkable benefits experienced by thousands of others over a period of several decades.




Expiation is your idea. It doesn't apply in the thinking of others.



If you want to insult Hubbard go ahead. It's an utterly useless practice and says a great deal more about the nature of your own character than it does about Hubbard. But hey, some people revel in hatred. On the whole, Emma doesn't. Whether she wishes to indulge the practice on ESMB with regard to Hubbard is for her to choose.

However, don't confuse insulting Hubbard with rational argument against the practice of scientology. The significance of "ad hominem" is that it is both rude as well as promoting fallacious logic when used in disputation.




Ironic that you advocate "ad hominem" attack yet sign as "benedictus". Might want to research the meaning of the latter.


Mark A. Baker

 

[uniquemand]

You don't have to like it. It's a perfectly reasonable phrase. Similar claims have been made for a variety of meditation and tantric techniques. You want to argue the words go ahead. It's a reasonable usage derived from indo-aryan root sources.

I'm personally quite comfortable with the phrase and will continue to use it.


Mark A. Baker

I prefer "methodology", and consider it more accurate, but that's because I think the "technology" idea was used to make it sound more "sciency". It ain't science.

 

[Lone Star]

You don't have to like it. It's a perfectly reasonable phrase. Similar claims have been made for a variety of meditation and tantric techniques. You want to argue the words go ahead. It's a reasonable usage derived from indo-aryan root sources.

I'm personally quite comfortable with the phrase and will continue to use it.


Mark A. Baker

Now Tantric Technology sounds promising.

 

[Gadfly]

You don't have to like it. It's a perfectly reasonable phrase. Similar claims have been made for a variety of meditation and tantric techniques. You want to argue the words go ahead. It's a reasonable usage derived from indo-aryan root sources.

I'm personally quite comfortable with the phrase and will continue to use it.

Mark A. Baker

"Techniques" and "technology" while having similar roots, have VERY different meanings.

Most people are usually quite comfortable with their own strange ways of viewing things. That doesn't mean that there is any validity or value to it.

 

[Lone Star]

Did a quick search under MAB and came up with this from another thread, which is fairly typical of what MAB does when he's letting his hair down slightly. Enlarged font has been added:

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker
It seems to me that too many people failed to recognize and duly account for LRH's clearly self-centered fixations.They often failed to rely upon their own judgement. Rather than discriminating between possibly useful practices in scientology techniques and using what made sense to them, they simply accepted whole hog the "words of the master" as "truth". Having discovered later that their paragon of leadership was in fact a flawed & troubled individual like others, they still prefer to ignore their own responsibility for the choices they made and their own lapses. Instead, they reject everything they encountered in scientology as being the product of someone else's deliberate subterfuge.

The problem with this thesis is that it focuses all "significance" upon Hubbard, just exactly as did Hubbard. It ignores the contributions that others made to the development of the actual tech of scientology as well as the remarkable benefits experienced by thousands of others over a period of several decades. "

I'll let the bolded red above make the case that he wasn't defending, or promoting Hubbard and his legacy.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Did a quick search under MAB and came up with this from another thread, which is fairly typical of what MAB does when he's letting his hair down slightly. Enlarged font has been added:

What's clear is that you find it generally beneficial and indeed useful to insult others. I don't happen to consider it to be a "best practice", although I will use it when deliberately provoked hard enough. And you do deliberately love to provoke ...

For your benefit I will repeat: nothing useful or beneficial is gained by insulting hubbard.

All that is necessary is to state the facts as best as they are known. That is more than sufficient to make the case that hubbard was not reliable as a person and could not be trusted. Using vile names in referring to the man says more about the state of mind of the detractor than it does about hubbard.

Clearly the truth is not enough for you.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

"Techniques" and "technology" while having similar roots, ...

They have the same root, a greek word meaning "skill" or "art". Yes, they have different meanings, but the word "technology" is not as limited to "science" as you seem to think. It also encompasses skills or practices used for production, whether those skills or practices are "scientificallly based" or not.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

-snip-

For your benefit I will repeat: nothing useful or beneficial is gained by insulting hubbard.

-snip-

A little more classic MAB:

-snip-

I feel the real value to be had from auditing is readily available to all and that that value exceeds the value of Hubbard's apparent promises.

-snip-

Mark A. Baker

Stunning.

Embracing the mental health technology of man that was so mentally ill that he could not stop lying every day of his life.

But that's not even the best part.

************** DRUMROLL **************

"....the real value to be had from auditing is readily available to all and that that value exceeds the value of Hubbard's apparent promises."

Unbelievably unknowing and unintended self-parody. Apparently....

* The problem with Clear and OT is not that Ron was a liar and lied about something that didn't exist.

* The problem with Clear and OT is not that Ron's tech did not deliver Clears or OTs.

* The real situation (discovered in Bakerology) is that unbeknownst to himself, Ron actually discovered tech that produced gains that EXCEED Clear and Operating Thetan!​

And Mark Baker testifies that he himself has gone BEYOND Operating Thetan!

OMG!

Hey, I am not making this stuff up...he said it himself!

And that's enough time spent on MAB.

 

[Lone Star]

A little more classic MAB:





And that's enough time spent on MAB.

Veda, you aren't proving a thing with these examples of "classic MAB" posts. I didn't see anything damning in the two you provided. Now HH's post "appears" to back up whatever claim you're making, but you didn't show what HH was responding to. Anyone can show a post of someone making fun of someone else. But is it evidence?

I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you Veda. You'll have to do better than that, or just move on and expose the cult rather than MAB.

 

[Veda]

Veda, you aren't proving a thing with these examples of "classic MAB" posts. I didn't see anything damning in the two you provided. Now HH's post appears to back up whatever claim you're making, but you didn't show what HH was responding to.

I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you Veda. You'll have to do better than that, or just move on and expose the cult rather than MAB.

Click the double horizontal >> and you can see the entire thread.

If you want to be MAB's water boy, that's your decision.

Have fun.

 

[Lone Star]

Click the double horizontal >> and you can see the entire thread.

If you want to be MAB's water boy, that's your decision.

Have fun.

Yes I have gone over to the dark side! I'll not rest until LRH's good name and legacy is fully rehabilited and that Scientology is recognized worldwide as the only valid spiritual technology that can free mankind!! And the Ex Scientologist Message Board will become the Pro Scientology Message Board!! Join me!! Join me!!!

 

[Lone Star]

Click the double horizontal >> and you can see the entire thread.

If you want to be MAB's water boy, that's your decision.

Have fun.

Okay I did click the double horizontal arrows to see what was on that old thread and OMG!!! It was terrible!!!

Here it is:

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker

From one perspective you have reason to feel affronted. For which I apologize.

However, the implication of your question about a 'DMSMH Clear', is that you have seen no such person, ergo unless objective evidence of the same can be provided then the claim is a fraud or 'cheat'. Hence my remarks.

My view is Hubbard not only used excessive language in over-promoting the subject, he outright lied. However, I do not feel cheated by those lies because the characteristics implied in DMSMH of the 'clear' are not readily apparent. Ifeel the real value to be had from auditing is readily available to all and that that value exceeds the value of Hubbard's apparent promises.

Hubbard's lies don't bother me as I do not regard him as a credible source. However, fixation on the apparent promises of Hubbard generally & DMSMH in particular is a pathway to pointlessness.

Hubbard lied, repeatedly. That does not invalidate the real benefits to be had from the process of auditing.

Now what it hell is so terrible about this Veda? Hardly sounds like a pro-Hubbard post to me. Far from it. Geez!

Edit Note: At first there were some bolded red sentences that I assumed were Mark's originally. Veda replied before I fixed that because they were not his. So you'll see a difference here and in Veda's reply.

 

[Veda]

Okay I did click the double horizontal arrows to see what was on that old thread and OMG!!! It was terrible!!!

Here it is. The bolded red were Mark's originally....

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker

From one perspective you have reason to feel affronted. For which I apologize.

However, the implication of your question about a 'DMSMH Clear', is that you have seen no such person, ergo unless objective evidence of the same can be provided then the claim is a fraud or 'cheat'. Hence my remarks.

My view is Hubbard not only used excessive language in over-promoting the subject, he outright lied. However, I do not feel cheated by those lies because the characteristics implied in DMSMH of the 'clear' are not readily apparent. I feel the real value to be had from auditing is readily available to all and that that value exceeds the value of Hubbard's apparent promises.

Hubbard's lies don't bother me as I do not regard him as a credible source. However, fixation on the apparent promises of Hubbard generally & DMSMH in particular is a pathway to pointlessness.

Hubbard lied, repeatedly. That does not invalidate the real benefits to be had from the process of auditing.

Now what it hell is so terrible about this Veda? Hardly sounds like a pro-Hubbard post to me. Far from it. Geez!

Apparently, you've chosen to sit at the knee of a double-talker.

IMO, that's a bad decision.

But it's your decision to make.

So be it.