Evil

Gadfly

Crusader
I think it all comes down to demonstrable results. Is the experience relevant to the conditions to which one thinks they apply? Such as you can imagine knocking off a hat at fifty paces, but can you do it in the real world?

And can you differentiate what is imagination and what is actuality?

BINGO! Simply, can one differentiate well between the realm of ones own IDEAS and the REALITY that those ideas relate and refer to.

In Scientology, Hubbard seems to have taken GREAT measures to confuse between these two - between some IDEA and the REALITY. First, Hubbard did this when trying to make the word and idea "Scientology" some "real thing", OTHER THAN just an abstract idea.

He constantly defines "Scientology" in some way, such as "knowing how to know", or as "Man's only hope". He often defines the word "Scientoloigist" in some way, such as "the being three feet behind scoiety's head". THAT is a vague analogy, that means what exactly? :confused2:

The FIRST major error one makes when dealing with this subject of Scientology is in accepting the ABSTRACT IDEA, "scientology", as if it means anything outside of the specific details of the subject, the organization, people, Hubbard's history, policies, etc. This is as true for the cirtics as it is for the believers.

Hubbard studied General Semantics, and he incorporated more than a little of it into his subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. He hides and masks that well. The Data Series comes directly from General Semantics. So do the notions of "absolutes don't exist", "gradient scales" and the notions of "differentiation", "identification" and "similarities".

But, Hubbard USED these ideas, being well aware of the difference between the realm of IDEAS and the realm of OBSERVABLE REALITY, to intentionally CONFUSE the two realms. I suggest that the critics stop what they first began doing when they were involved in Scientology - tear down these confusions between IDEA and REALITY that Hubbard instilled in your heads.
 
Last edited:

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
You know, this concept of "free will" makes me wonder about what is free and what is simply natural inclination.

Take pure energy from which electrons and such form. The manifestation of that energy would most likely be "preordained" to some degree. Resistance would precipitate predictable conditions. The resistance at a subatomic level would begin to manifest as subatomic "particles" which would interact with fairly predictable patterns.

I wonder if the same applies to consciousness. And that which precedes consciousness.

By which, I wonder if consciousness can actually operate as "free will" against its own nature.

Or whether it can only pretend to act as free will against its own nature.

And, if in acting against its own nature, consciousness brings about undesirable conditions.

As for those who act with certainty that what they are doing is right and good while bringing great harm, perhaps they knew it was evil and gloried in the power of that evil. The rest was merely a good PR campaign to convince others to go along. Much like occurred in Scientology.

You sell the idea that there is this greater good and that sacrifices are needed. What you want is the sensation of power in dominating others. You don't care about the greater good or those who must suffer. But you SELL that idea to others so you can get away with openly committing the criminal acts.

What a rush. A criminal rush. A sense of not only dominating, but of getting away with it, of having deceived all these fools into not only letting you but helping you commit heinous acts.

It's like being a rapist exponentially. Feeding off the helplessness of others to stop you. Feeding off a sense of personal power.

I can't really answer about free will. But I can say that my certainty of rightness wasn't motivated by a desire for power. But then the main harm done was to myself and family. So some of us can be just plain dumb even though we appear to be quite bright in many other ways. :wink:
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
BINGO! Simply, can one differentiate well between the realm of ones own IDEAS and the REALITY that those ideas relate and refer to.

That's what is so fucked up about the con. The con-fidentiality. The hidden lie. But eventually I did see. It just took a long time
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Read TAJ's above post.

Chairs and tables are NOT nouns anywhere even close to or in the same sense as "evil".

Do you actually believe this nonense that you write?

You can bump your shin on a chair, or knock over a table, but you cannot touch "an evil". Terms like "touched by evil" are METAPHORS.

There are some nouns that refer to actual things that can be seen and experienced, and there are some that do not.

Abstractions may be formed by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball retains only the information on general ball attributes and behavior, eliminating the other characteristics of that particular ball.

In fact, the IDEA "table" doesn't exist as any real thing. It is a general category, and as an IDEA, it omits a great many details of any REAL table. Every noun out there is an abstraction. If you qualify the noun with specifics, with adjectives, as to time and place, size and shape, etc, then, and ONLY THEN does it begin to connect to some REAL thing of reality.

Ideas versus reality. The two are very different, and your comment exhibits a lack of understanding in this regard.

Me thinkith he was baiting you.

I've been touched by a number of your posts Gadfly and don't try to convince me I didn't experience it. (He quickly explains that he understands that it is just a metaphor and the experience was emotional/mental to save Gad's 2 fingas from having to tango on the keys too much) :biggrin:

Oh yeah, that reminds me! Show me a M*F**KIN chair!
 
Can't you say - Evil is in the eye of the beholder? It is similar to the idea of a suppressive person. To the cow lead to slaughter, she is being lead to untold evil betwixt her demise, and subsequently being eaten, skin flayed for shoes, skull painted red and hung in a college student's dorm room etc. However the people who use her flesh and milk do not consider themselves any more evil than the MAA who types out some golden rod on a person such as my self.

If you take the intellect out of it, there is no such thing as evil. A cat kills a mouse for food or pleasure. It is just an action with no more significance. So the cow, while she may have apprehensions about walking up that chute toward that blood splattered door, does not consider evil is being done for the good reason it does not exist in reality, but in our imagination only.

Mimsey
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Can't you say - Evil is in the eye of the beholder? It is similar to the idea of a suppressive person. To the cow lead to slaughter, she is being lead to untold evil betwixt her demise, and subsequently being eaten, skin flayed for shoes, skull painted red and hung in a college student's dorm room etc. However the people who use her flesh and milk do not consider themselves any more evil than the MAA who types out some golden rod on a person such as my self.

If you take the intellect out of it, there is no such thing as evil. A cat kills a mouse for food or pleasure. It is just an action with no more significance. So the cow, while she may have apprehensions about walking up that chute toward that blood splattered door, does not consider evil is being done for the good reason it does not exist in reality, but in our imagination only.

Mimsey

Technically, that is quite correct. :thumbsup:

Reality is "food for our thought".

And, it is not necessarily all about the "intellect". It does have something to do with how any human being creates "values". In how any person chooses and decides what is "good" or "bad". Some things one simply experiences as "bad", because it HURTS. Slip and slice your finger with a knife - OWWWWW! That hurts! You don't need to think to have the "negative reaction". Hubbard was not entirely incorrect when he framed his whole survival idea (ref: Dianetics) in terms of attempts to experience pleasure and avoid pain. On an intellectual level, one might call this experience of pain "evil". Few would call it "good". :no:

I think is important to grasp this from two levels. First, yes, human beings ADD significance into the mix. There is no meaning or valuation "out there". This whole process of adding significance is the result of a HUMAN MIND in action, doing what it does with the fodder of "reality".

But second, adding significance is largely what makes life "human". It is one of the things that separates us from all other animals. This consciousness, self-awareness, this ability to CREATE significance and attach this significance to the objects of our experience defines WHAT we are (at least at this stage of our evolution).

Man's advancement in a great many areas exists because of this added significance. Of course, a great many "evils" have also been the result of this added significance.

Without the imagination and the ability to IMBUE life with "meaning", well, I doubt many of us would be very "happy".

One doesn't "find purpose or meaning", though a great many people imagine that is what they do. What they actually do is create purpose and meaning, and then "see it somewhere out there". Few people can accept that he or she is the author of ALL of ones purposes and meaning - many NEED to see it as coming or deriving from some LARGER source (other than him or herself). That was part of the attraction with Scientology - finding meaning and purpose.

I remember reading the EP of the Life Orientation Course - something about "finding your hat in life". I thought that was so nutty, and disingenous of Hubbard (who unmderstood all about considerations and agreements). In fact, what a person did was AGREED or created some idea of "my hat in life", and pretended that he or she had "found it". Hubbard was a slippery bugger!

Remember how John Gotti was called "the Teflon Don"? Well, in a certain sense Hubbard worked very hard to make Scientology exist as the "Teflon Religion"!!!! No matter how hard one tries, they continue to "get away with murder".

Scientology - The Teflon Religion :hysterical:
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
That's what is so fucked up about the con. The con-fidentiality. The hidden lie. But eventually I did see. It just took a long time

I always felt like there was something "the org" and it's "inner circle" weren't telling me, and that I wasn't in their confidence. I took it to mean I was unproven or raw, but the reality is, everyone feels like there's something they didn't know, some mystery that "management", or "techies" or "executives" were working from that the rest of us didn't have a "need to know". Compartmentalization is part of the trap. The truth is that nobody had a full picture, not even Davey Boy. Perhaps LRH did, for a while, but by the late 70's, at least, the orgs were big, spread across the globe, and there were a lot of games afoot that LRH didn't know about and couldn't control. By the 80's he was a figurehead and a liability, and due to Miscavige's style, nobody reports truthfully to him, or completely, and he conceals his motives and plans from everyone, as well.

I blogged indirectly about this sort of problem, here: http://kevingbrady.blogspot.com/2011/05/snafu-lie-to-me-baby.html

Manipulation requires disinformation.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
The evil in scientology is what makes scientology so hated.



Here is the 1000th time I have had this "cognition". But each time it somehow seems new & better.

Scientology is described perfectly by the "tech" known as "covert hostility".

If there is any "1.1" person or religion, it is assuredly Hubbard and the monstrosity known as Scientology.

All those highly moral-sounding and bait-n-switch humanitarian front groups, creeds and codes are the smile.

Fair Game, disconnection, "black ops", fraud, quackery and a 62 year long crime wave of human rights atrocities and terrorism are the knife behind the back.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I can't really answer about free will.


No problem. Ron answered it for us.

I don't want to give you verbal data, so I will just type it here.

Ron says that Free Will is off policy because free things are out-exchange and make a being criminal.

Therefore, by application of the Scientillogical Logics, it is better to not give the public a choice (free will) because once they go criminal you will have to call a blow drill, stake out the train/bus stations and kidnap them...bring them back and imprison them until they are rehabilitated.

Obviously, Ron was concerned about our total freedom, so he discovered all these things.
 

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
I recently finished reading a book by M Scott Peck called 'People of the lie: The hope for healing human evil'. He writes:

"......To proceed we need at least a working definition.It is a reflection of the enormous mystery of the subject that we do not have a generally accepted definition of evil. Yet in our hearts, I think we all have some understanding of it's nature. For the moment I can do no better than to heed my son, who,with the characteristic vision of eight-year olds, explained simply, 'Why Daddy, evil is "live" spelled backwards'.Evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force. It has, in short, to do with killing. Specifically it has to do with murder-namely unnecessary killing, killing that is not required for biological survival.......When I say that evil has to do with killing I do not mean to restrict myself to corporeal murder. Evil is also that which kills spirit. There are various essential attributes of life - such as sentience, mobility, awareness,growth, autonomy, will. It is possible to kill or attempt to kill one of these attributes without actually destroying the body. Thus we may break a horse or even a child without harming a hair on it's head...

Erich Fromm was acutely sensitive to this fact when he broadened the definition of necrophilia to include the desire of certain people to control others - to make them controllable, to foster their dependency,to discourage their capacity to think for themselves, to diminish their unpredictability and originality, to keep them in line. Distinguishing it from the 'biophilic' person, one who appreciates and fosters the variety of life forms and the uniqueness of the individual, Fromm demonstrated a 'necrophilic character type', whose aim it is to avoid the inconvenience of life by transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing them of their humanity.

Evil, then, for the moment, is that force residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is it's opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness"
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I read that book right before I read Dianetics. I don't think that evil is a "thing", and I don't think any person IS evil. They may have identified themself with and "evil" cause, they may have acquired "evil" urges, etc., but I do not believe any person is INHERENTLY evil. This was an area I disagreed with Peck on. Perhaps I misread him. I think his ideas could have been used to justify rounding up "evil" people and killing them for the public benefit.

There is no doubt that I have evil impulses, fantasies, or have even acted in an evil manner at times. However, I'm not evil. People who have suffered abuse often develop evil tendencies, and think of themselves as evil. It's one of the worst parts about having suffered abuse: you think you deserved it.
 

Dark Phoenix

Patron Meritorious
I read that book right before I read Dianetics. I don't think that evil is a "thing", and I don't think any person IS evil. They may have identified themself with and "evil" cause, they may have acquired "evil" urges, etc., but I do not believe any person is INHERENTLY evil. This was an area I disagreed with Peck on. Perhaps I misread him. I think his ideas could have been used to justify rounding up "evil" people and killing them for the public benefit.

There is no doubt that I have evil impulses, fantasies, or have even acted in an evil manner at times. However, I'm not evil. People who have suffered abuse often develop evil tendencies, and think of themselves as evil. It's one of the worst parts about having suffered abuse: you think you deserved it.

As I understand him, Peck talked about evil as a disease.
 
The question as to what is the definition of evil arose on another thread about Scientology and the occult.

Occultism was the name of the thread in the off-topic discussion.

I think that a definition of evil is vital to clarify, or at least discuss, if we want to grasp the good or bad effects of Scientology.

So here goes.

I would say that evil can be defined in one way as something morally bad or wrong, but this definition is just about what people call a good or bad action based on their moral code.
This definition is contingent on one’s beliefs and moral codes. It’s just an adjective.

Another definition of evil is a noun and can mean any intentional or malicious act that causes harm and destruction.

But again, this definition is based on a evaluation of consequences and doesn’t really get at the nature of evil.

Probably a definition that may give the essence of it is that evil is a force, or power, or a personification of an intention to harm.

But even this can be argued to be a relative term at times.

If someone wants to harm a child molester is that evil?

Restraining a child molester with imprisonment, or rehabilitating him, if such a means exist, would not be evil.

But maybe harming him would be evil.

I don’t know how many here would consider evil to be a person, like the devil.

But sometimes it looks as though the qualities of evil, that is, cruel and harmful acts, can be personified in a person such as Hitler.

However, there were those that benefited greatly from Hitler’s actions. They would not call him evil.

So what I am getting at is that all the definitions of evil involve situations that are particular, not universal; contingent, not necessary (necessary here means logically inevitable); and probable, not certain.

So evil is a relative term.

Calling something evil is OK if you are talking about the destructive and harmful consequence of something.

It is a commonplace term. People will know what you mean.

But pure evil may not exist. For pure evil to exist it would have to be universal, logically necessary and certain.

So is the Church of Scientology evil?

Calling the Church of Scientology evil is just being emotional and trying to influence a person with emotion rather than reason.

Being precise about the destructive actions of the Church is what can bring it down.

One is name-calling and the other is seeking the truth.

Name-calling won't make a difference in the long run; precision and truth will.

There is a lot of truth about Scientology posted on this board; but there is also just a lot of name-calling too.

Personally I am on the side of those who consider those acts considered evil to be the consequences of ignorance, greed, and lack of moderation and virtue (the ancient Greek meaning of virtue—a personal quality conductive to the discovery of truth). And those folks are Plato, Aristotle, and Buddhist.

So I will say that evil really doesn’t exist as a noun, only as an adjective.

The Anabaptist Jacques

yeah taj...

the question of evil...

we have been hashing that out for millenia haven't we?

for my own thought of it's meaning i center on the passage from scripture where the nazz said "who among if your child ask you for a fish would give him a serpent? if you who are evil can give good things to your children..."

he was not speaking to his enemies but his friends. it's our bestial nature, the sharp teeth and claws we're born with, the hungering bellies, the screaming gonads...

yes, there is also the question of the malignant evil, the daemonic, infernal evil, the upper case Evil and i think it interesting to note that scientology challenges us to question if it might perhaps be an intrusion into this plane from another plane lower and darker, a plane from which ascenscion to higher cannot be but invasion of higher remains a possibility...

(tbc)
 
yeah taj...

the question of evil...

we have been hashing that out for millenia haven't we?

for my own thought of it's meaning i center on the passage from scripture where the nazz said "who among if your child ask you for a fish would give him a serpent? if you who are evil can give good things to your children..."

he was not speaking to his enemies but his friends. it's our bestial nature, the sharp teeth and claws we're born with, the hungering bellies, the screaming gonads...

yes, there is also the question of the malignant evil, the daemonic, infernal evil, the upper case Evil and i think it interesting to note that scientology challenges us to question if it might perhaps be an intrusion into this plane from another plane lower and darker, a plane from which ascenscion to higher cannot be but invasion of higher remains a possibility...

(tbc)

Yeah.

The more I dwell on it I think about Ahura Mazda's kids.

When I was deciding on a name to use on this board it was either Martin the Manichean or The Anabaptist Jacques, both characters from Voltaire's "Candide."

I went with The Anabaptist Jacques because it's closer to what I believe.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
Yeah.

The more I dwell on it I think about Ahura Mazda's kids.

When I was deciding on a name to use on this board it was either Martin the Manichean or The Anabaptist Jacques, both characters from Voltaire's "Candide."

I went with The Anabaptist Jacques because it's closer to what I believe.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Believe? As in kindness coupled with pessimism?

If you would flesh this out, I'd be forever grateful.

(Oh, that's not even a half truth. It's a falsehood, as I would really only be grateful for the span of reading your response, then, being as inattentive as I am, I'd absently leave your heart-felt thoughts laying around with all the other heartfelt thoughts I've casually accumulated. Good intentions not only pave the road to hell, they also clutter my life. Much like lint. Pocket lint.)

(I would not distract with the above statement, but I have my own personal ethics officer on this board, amassing thick ethics folders which chronicle my egregious and iniquitous behaviors. Ye Gods! I feel the ethics gradient rapidly rising. Soon the snooty mentions will result in a golden rod declaration accompanied by a compendium so precise and dazzling in execution it would shame all Tiffany displays ever displayed by their most gifted displayers.)

Whew!

Now having declaimed my disclaimer, I've always been curious about Jaques. Here you have the idea of baptism, of finding salvation through the experience of a medium--in this case water. One is baptized in water.

Then that same medium claims the life of Jaques when he attempts to save a drowning sailor.

The irony of being destroyed through that by which one sought deliverance.

Somehow, I see the relevance.

Fool that I am.
 
Last edited:
Believe? As in kindness coupled with pessimism?

If you would flesh this out, I'd be forever grateful.

(Oh, that's not even a half truth. It's a falsehood, as I would really only be grateful for the span of reading your response, then, being as inattentive as I am, I'd absently leave your heart-felt thoughts laying around with all the other heartfelt thoughts I've casually accumulated. Good intentions not only pave the road to hell, they also clutter my life. Much like lint. Pocket lint.)

(I would not distract with the above statement, but I have my own personal ethics officer on this board, amassing thick ethics folders which chronicle my egregious and iniquitous behaviors. Ye Gods! I feel the ethics gradient rapidly rising. Soon the snooty mentions will result in a golden rod declaration accompanied by a compendium so precise and dazzling in execution it would shame all Tiffany displays ever displayed by their most gifted displayers.)

Whew!

Now having declaimed my disclaimer, I've always been curious about Jaques. Here you have the idea of baptism, of finding salvation through the experience of a medium--in this case water. One is baptized in water.

Then that same medium claims the life of Jaques when he attempts to save a drowning sailor.

The irony of being destroyed through that by which one sought deliverance.

Somehow, I see the relevance.

Fool that I am.

No, believe as in carefully considered what is the most rational and congruent.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
8p4uA.jpg
Unless I am mistaken, the guy on the left really has his TR-O in!

That guy in the middle though gets a flunk for flinching.
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Here is the 1000th time I have had this "cognition". But each time it somehow seems new & better.

Scientology is described perfectly by the "tech" known as "covert hostility".

If there is any "1.1" person or religion, it is assuredly Hubbard and the monstrosity known as Scientology.

All those highly moral-sounding and bait-n-switch humanitarian front groups, creeds and codes are the smile.

Fair Game, disconnection, "black ops", fraud, quackery and a 62 year long crime wave of human rights atrocities and terrorism are the knife behind the back.


Big Ditto. :yes:
 

BardoThodol

Silver Meritorious Patron
No, believe as in carefully considered what is the most rational and congruent.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Oh, you silly goose. I know what you meant by "believe."

What made me curious was why.

You wrote, "I went with The Anabaptist Jacques because it's closer to what I believe."

Traditionally, the character Anabaptiste Jacques is considered to have kindness and pessimism as dominant traits. I was curious just what traits you felt he had that made you pick him. Such as, why did you identify with him?

If identify with him you did.

Voltaire was satirizing the shit out of almost everything in Candide. Layers upon layers of satirism. Every character had levels of self deception pursued in utmost earnestness.

It's the earnest innocence which gives the work its power.

Water often symbolizes spirit or soul. Baptism is not only a ritual cleansing, but an introduction to the spiritual world. The Anabaptists believed a person had to be baptized by choice, which was not available to an infant, thus the need to be "re-babtized." But, the argument is "how can you be baptized again if the first time isn't valid?"

I know I'm just babbling here, but...

I was simply curious if you had caught the irony that someone who believed in being saved through baptism would end up being drowned by trying to save another.

These types of ironies abound in Voltaire's works. And are often missed.

Because he was satirizing religion, Voltaire's works also apply obliquely to Scientology. The ironies of those things which one tries to use to gain salvation ending as slavery or demise.

It's also ironic that Hubbard credited the guy.

But, hey, who am I to offer up observations. I'm merely a humble gardner, cultivating what little I can afford with my limited resources--mental, spiritual, economic, physical.
 
Here is the 1000th time I have had this "cognition". But each time it somehow seems new & better.

Scientology is described perfectly by the "tech" known as "covert hostility".

If there is any "1.1" person or religion, it is assuredly Hubbard and the monstrosity known as Scientology.

All those highly moral-sounding and bait-n-switch humanitarian front groups, creeds and codes are the smile.

Fair Game, disconnection, "black ops", fraud, quackery and a 62 year long crime wave of human rights atrocities and terrorism are the knife behind the back.

atrocity?

your poetic liscence is in cum laude good order HH...

i suppose...

but there are so many true atrocities through history, in livng memory, current events and the forseeable future...
 
Top