I love Scientology
- Thread starter egghead
- Start date
thetanic
Gold Meritorious Patron
degraded being
Sponsor
Oh yes. Now I can see that I was ambiguous. I agree that egghead does not sound like a FZer now. In my original post I was meaning that if egghead drops scio he might choose FZ. It is speculation and as such I wanted to express it but not have too much importance attached.
thetanic
Gold Meritorious Patron
Ultimately, that's why I left staff.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Wow, Man, that's HEAVY. Jammed my mind. You understand that?
You gotta know about quantum theory and Heideger's Uncertainty Principle, which is awfully cool.
Been around since 1930, or before. Hasn't been absorbed too much into the culture yet....
Should be soon, though. Big experiment starting this month in Europe that may be able to prove a lot of the theories of quantum mechanics and string theory.
Very exciting, actually.
Really.
I'm not kidding!.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Where did you get the idea that government exists to root out corruption?
Mark A. Baker
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Where did you get the idea that government exists to root out corruption?
Mark A. Baker
Please define 'corruption'. Preferably in some terms that differentiate it from social compromise.
Zinj
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Scientology is a subject which when practiced leads to the enhancement of an individual's spiritual life.
The Co$ is a religious institution which CLAIMS to promote the subject of scientology.
Religious institutions are NOT NECESSARY to the practice of spirituality. Historically, religious institutions have often proved to be BARRIERS to the spiritual values & practices they profess.
You are doing "A=A" [logically actually an "A=B"] between the Co$ and the spiritual practice of scientology.
For the record the Co$ has been squirreling the tech since AT LEAST 1982, the year of the Great Schism, when the vast majority of SENIOR tech terminals left the church because of the clear evidence of malpractice, malfeasance, & malice on the part of Co$ management.
How many individuals who actually studied the tech with LRH are left in the Co$? Why do you think that is?
DM's cancellation of ALL PERMANENT CERTS was a massive tech degrade which directly contradicted established LRH policy.
DM's redefinition of an F/N is an alteration to fundamental tech which has caused tremendous problems for pcs, auditors & c/s'es since it was mandated in the training line-up.
GoAT is a complete tech degrade of course materials.
All of this has been introduced into the Co$ brand of "scientology" on DM's instructions. He is NOT a tech trained individual.
But, hey "it's a free country" believe what you want.
Actually that's not true.
In the dogma of catholicism priesthood is an eternal sacrament. Once a priest is consecrated into the priesthood he remains ETERNALLY a priest.
A priest may be defrocked. He may be denied the right to administer sacraments to others. He may be branded a heretic. He may be excommunicated and expelled from the "body" of the church, BUT his priesthood is SACRED. It is officially considered as having been conferred on him by god and can not be removed by ANY human agency.
Which means that those of us who were catholic priests in former lives ....
Mark A. Baker
degraded being
Sponsor
EastAnon
Patron with Honors
Schrödinger's cat is very much at work here.
Basically, if i remember correctly, Schrödinger implied that the cat is both dead and alive (or not dead or alive) until you look at it.
And that's exactly the view humans have of a lot of things. As long as we don't look at it, it just does not exist (is not true or false). You could reason that Scientology is good, because you gained from it. You could reason it is bad, because people are abused in the Scientology 'system'. Both are true if you look at it. But only if you are willing to look. They are not mutually exclusive.
Also, saying the tech can't be altered because Ron is dead is some strange reasoning.
Look at this quote from James Bryant from Analog Devices:
"So anywhere at all that there is resistance in a circuit, whether it is carrying current or not, there is a noise generator with an output voltage noise spectral density of
. We can reduce the noise by reducing the resistance (this may increase current and/or power consumption), but reducing the temperature is not usually practicable (if we cool a resistor from room temperature (298K) to liquid nitrogen temperature (77K), its noise voltage is still more than half its room temperature value). And, of course, we can't change Boltzmann's Constant because Professor Boltzmann is dead."
Here we are talking about a formula, describing laws of nature (at least the ones in this universe). You can't change those. But the tech can not be changed? I respectfully disagree. Every person is different. Every person applies this tech a little differently. And for everyone the outcome is a little or very much different. The tech is not a formula.
I'm (luckily) not a Scientologist. My personal opinion is that a crook like LRH can not 'invent' a technology to further mankind. He may have stumbled upon some things from other people/religions and put them together as a package. But the man itself was delusional, paranoid and a fraud.
Egghead, if you visit ESMB like you visit a zoo, just to watch the monkeys play, you might learn something. But you will learn a whole lot more if you play with them. Step out of Scientology for sometime (if they will let you). Say you need a sabbatical. And try to see what is true for others, and if it really is true.
Start with the basics. The story of LRH. Find out what is real, and what is not. And then ask yourself why his life needed to be altered to make him appear so much better then he was.
Then look at the tech. What did he find out? What did he steal (yes, it is stealing if you sell it like he did)?
Then look at the exes. Why are there so many vocal exes? Why so much more then in any other 'religion'? What is common in all their stories? If so many people perceive this as true, can it be untrue?
Don't just look. LEARN.
Basically, if i remember correctly, Schrödinger implied that the cat is both dead and alive (or not dead or alive) until you look at it.
And that's exactly the view humans have of a lot of things. As long as we don't look at it, it just does not exist (is not true or false). You could reason that Scientology is good, because you gained from it. You could reason it is bad, because people are abused in the Scientology 'system'. Both are true if you look at it. But only if you are willing to look. They are not mutually exclusive.
Also, saying the tech can't be altered because Ron is dead is some strange reasoning.
Look at this quote from James Bryant from Analog Devices:
"So anywhere at all that there is resistance in a circuit, whether it is carrying current or not, there is a noise generator with an output voltage noise spectral density of
Here we are talking about a formula, describing laws of nature (at least the ones in this universe). You can't change those. But the tech can not be changed? I respectfully disagree. Every person is different. Every person applies this tech a little differently. And for everyone the outcome is a little or very much different. The tech is not a formula.
I'm (luckily) not a Scientologist. My personal opinion is that a crook like LRH can not 'invent' a technology to further mankind. He may have stumbled upon some things from other people/religions and put them together as a package. But the man itself was delusional, paranoid and a fraud.
Egghead, if you visit ESMB like you visit a zoo, just to watch the monkeys play, you might learn something. But you will learn a whole lot more if you play with them. Step out of Scientology for sometime (if they will let you). Say you need a sabbatical. And try to see what is true for others, and if it really is true.
Start with the basics. The story of LRH. Find out what is real, and what is not. And then ask yourself why his life needed to be altered to make him appear so much better then he was.
Then look at the tech. What did he find out? What did he steal (yes, it is stealing if you sell it like he did)?
Then look at the exes. Why are there so many vocal exes? Why so much more then in any other 'religion'? What is common in all their stories? If so many people perceive this as true, can it be untrue?
Don't just look. LEARN.
Div6
Crusader
Schrödinger's cat is very much at work here.
Basically, if i remember correctly, Schrödinger implied that the cat is both dead and alive (or not dead or alive) until you look at it.
And that's exactly the view humans have of a lot of things. As long as we don't look at it, it just does not exist (is not true or false). You could reason that Scientology is good, because you gained from it. You could reason it is bad, because people are abused in the Scientology 'system'. Both are true if you look at it. But only if you are willing to look. They are not mutually exclusive.
Also, saying the tech can't be altered because Ron is dead is some strange reasoning.
Look at this quote from James Bryant from Analog Devices:
"So anywhere at all that there is resistance in a circuit, whether it is carrying current or not, there is a noise generator with an output voltage noise spectral density of. We can reduce the noise by reducing the resistance (this may increase current and/or power consumption), but reducing the temperature is not usually practicable (if we cool a resistor from room temperature (298K) to liquid nitrogen temperature (77K), its noise voltage is still more than half its room temperature value). And, of course, we can't change Boltzmann's Constant because Professor Boltzmann is dead."
Here we are talking about a formula, describing laws of nature (at least the ones in this universe). You can't change those. But the tech can not be changed? I respectfully disagree. Every person is different. Every person applies this tech a little differently. And for everyone the outcome is a little or very much different. The tech is not a formula.
I'm (luckily) not a Scientologist. My personal opinion is that a crook like LRH can not 'invent' a technology to further mankind. He may have stumbled upon some things from other people/religions and put them together as a package. But the man itself was delusional, paranoid and a fraud.
Egghead, if you visit ESMB like you visit a zoo, just to watch the monkeys play, you might learn something. But you will learn a whole lot more if you play with them. Step out of Scientology for sometime (if they will let you). Say you need a sabbatical. And try to see what is true for others, and if it really is true.
Start with the basics. The story of LRH. Find out what is real, and what is not. And then ask yourself why his life needed to be altered to make him appear so much better then he was.
Then look at the tech. What did he find out? What did he steal (yes, it is stealing if you sell it like he did)?
Then look at the exes. Why are there so many vocal exes? Why so much more then in any other 'religion'? What is common in all their stories? If so many people perceive this as true, can it be untrue?
Don't just look. LEARN.
Great post EastAnon. Welcome to ESMB.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Another way to look at it:
Most people have been taught, and think with, 2-valued logic.
Meaning, there are only two conclusions which you can come to about something: it's either true or false, good or bad, right or wrong, etc.
Tossing aside LRH's "Infinity Valued logic" which still only permits 2 valued logic with "grays" in it, there is another kind of logic altogether which allows 4 distinct and separate conclusions:
1. True
2. False
3. Both True and False
4. Neither True nor False
This logic has been around for thousands of years. It was used in ancient Greece, but it was most famously used in Buddhism around the 2nd century and is very adept at corresponding to real life, including world affairs, and even the realities discovered in the sub-atomic world by quantum physicists.
Just as deciding something is "true" is a valid and satisfying conclusion for the user, once you have understood and adopted four-valued logic, then concluding that something is "both true and false" is also just as satisfying, and, since it can more closely correspond to the reality of the situation evaluated, even more valid.
We've all said that Scientology is both true and false, good and bad, right and wrong. 4 valued logic in this case corresponds perfectly to the reality of what Scientology is. But if you only use two-valued logic, you will constantly strive past real world observations, and discount real world data, just so you can finally CONCLUDE that Scientology is either "RIGHT" or "WRONG" and "make a decision".
So we get critics and anons where SCIENTOLOGY IS ALL WRONG.
And we get churchies and freezoners where SCIENTOLOGY IS ALL RIGHT.
The third choice, for one who is stuck in two-valued logic, is not satisfying enough mentally. They keep trying to come to a conclusion endlessly and forever past the point of accurate observation. They do this not because they can't figure out Scientology or see it for what it really is, but because the logic they are applying is insufficient to apply to real life.
Scientology is both right and wrong, good and bad, true and false. And one's actions should proceed from that reality, if one wishes to act morally and as constructively as possible.
This is why militancy ends up being so destructive. It allows for only true or false, black or white, never both. And proceeding from that unreal conclusion, that conclusion which does not correspond to reality, you end up destroying the good, too, when you are a militant.
More than the example of Schrodinger's Cat, which suspends observation to a future date, 4 valued logic applies more accurately to this situation: Scientology has been observed to death. The problem has been that the number of possible conclusions available to most observers have been insufficient to accurately settle on the truth of Scientology.
4 Valued Logic: Use it to come to conclusions and form the rationale for your actions. You'll be glad you did!
(This ad paid for by Four-Valued Logic. No militants were harmed in the creation of this commercial)
Most people have been taught, and think with, 2-valued logic.
Meaning, there are only two conclusions which you can come to about something: it's either true or false, good or bad, right or wrong, etc.
Tossing aside LRH's "Infinity Valued logic" which still only permits 2 valued logic with "grays" in it, there is another kind of logic altogether which allows 4 distinct and separate conclusions:
1. True
2. False
3. Both True and False
4. Neither True nor False
This logic has been around for thousands of years. It was used in ancient Greece, but it was most famously used in Buddhism around the 2nd century and is very adept at corresponding to real life, including world affairs, and even the realities discovered in the sub-atomic world by quantum physicists.
Just as deciding something is "true" is a valid and satisfying conclusion for the user, once you have understood and adopted four-valued logic, then concluding that something is "both true and false" is also just as satisfying, and, since it can more closely correspond to the reality of the situation evaluated, even more valid.
We've all said that Scientology is both true and false, good and bad, right and wrong. 4 valued logic in this case corresponds perfectly to the reality of what Scientology is. But if you only use two-valued logic, you will constantly strive past real world observations, and discount real world data, just so you can finally CONCLUDE that Scientology is either "RIGHT" or "WRONG" and "make a decision".
So we get critics and anons where SCIENTOLOGY IS ALL WRONG.
And we get churchies and freezoners where SCIENTOLOGY IS ALL RIGHT.
The third choice, for one who is stuck in two-valued logic, is not satisfying enough mentally. They keep trying to come to a conclusion endlessly and forever past the point of accurate observation. They do this not because they can't figure out Scientology or see it for what it really is, but because the logic they are applying is insufficient to apply to real life.
Scientology is both right and wrong, good and bad, true and false. And one's actions should proceed from that reality, if one wishes to act morally and as constructively as possible.
This is why militancy ends up being so destructive. It allows for only true or false, black or white, never both. And proceeding from that unreal conclusion, that conclusion which does not correspond to reality, you end up destroying the good, too, when you are a militant.
More than the example of Schrodinger's Cat, which suspends observation to a future date, 4 valued logic applies more accurately to this situation: Scientology has been observed to death. The problem has been that the number of possible conclusions available to most observers have been insufficient to accurately settle on the truth of Scientology.
4 Valued Logic: Use it to come to conclusions and form the rationale for your actions. You'll be glad you did!
(This ad paid for by Four-Valued Logic. No militants were harmed in the creation of this commercial)
Last edited:
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
Another way to look at it:
Most people have been taught, and think with, 2-valued logic.
Meaning, there are only two conclusions which you can come to about something: it's either true or false, good or bad, right or wrong, etc.
Tossing aside LRH's "Infinity Valued logic" which still only permits 2 valued logic with "grays" in it, there is another kind of logic altogether which allows 4 distinct and separate conclusions:
1. True
2. False
3. Both True and False
4. Neither True nor False
This logic has been around for thousands of years. It was used in ancient Greece, but it was most famously used in Buddhism around the 2nd century and is very adept at corresponding to real life, including world affairs, and even the realities discovered in the sub-atomic world by quantum physicists.
Just as deciding something is "true" is a valid and satisfying conclusion for the user, once you have understood and adopted four-valued logic, then concluding that something is "both true and false" is also just as satisfying, and, since it can more closely correspond to the reality of the situation evaluated, even more valid.
We've all said that Scientology is both true and false, good and bad, right and wrong. 4 valued logic in this case corresponds perfectly to the reality of what Scientology is. But if you only use two-valued logic, you will constantly strive past real world observations, and discount real world data, just so you can finally CONCLUDE that Scientology is either "RIGHT" or "WRONG" and "make a decision".
So we get critics and anons where SCIENTOLOGY IS ALL WRONG.
And we get churchies and freezoners where SCIENTOLOGY IS ALL RIGHT.
The third choice, for one who is stuck in two-valued logic, is not satisfying enough mentally. They keep trying to come to a conclusion endlessly and forever past the point of accurate observation. They do this not because they can't figure out Scientology or see it for what it really is, but because the logic they are applying is insufficient to apply to real life.
Scientology is both right and wrong, good and bad, true and false. And one's actions should proceed from that reality, if one wishes to act morally and as constructively as possible.
This is why militancy ends up being so destructive. It allows for only true or false, black or white, never both. And proceeding from that unreal conclusion, that conclusion which does not correspond to reality, you end up destroying the good, too, when you are a militant.
More than the example of Schrodinger's Cat, which suspends observation to a future date, 4 valued logic applies more accurately to this situation: Scientology has been observed to death. The problem has been that the number of possible conclusions available to most observers have been insifficient to accurately settle on the truth of Scientology.
4 Valued Logic: Use it to come to conclusions and form the rationale for your actions. You'll be glad you did!
(This ad paid for by Four-Valued Logic. No militants were harmed in the creation of this commercial)
something a scientologist told you about....
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
something a scientologist told you about....
Exactly, Alex.
A freaking, gosh-durned, evil Scientologist brainwashed me into this!
Another way to look at it:
Most people have been taught, and think with, 2-valued logic.
Meaning, there are only two conclusions which you can come to about something: it's either true or false, good or bad, right or wrong, etc.
Tossing aside LRH's "Infinity Valued logic" which still only permits 2 valued logic with "grays" in it, there is another kind of logic altogether which allows 4 distinct and separate conclusions:
1. True
2. False
3. Both True and False
4. Neither True nor False
This logic has been around for thousands of years. It was used in ancient Greece, but it was most famously used in Buddhism around the 2nd century and is very adept at corresponding to real life, including world affairs, and even the realities discovered in the sub-atomic world by quantum physicists.
Just as deciding something is "true" is a valid and satisfying conclusion for the user, once you have understood and adopted four-valued logic, then concluding that something is "both true and false" is also just as satisfying, and, since it can more closely correspond to the reality of the situation evaluated, even more valid.
We've all said that Scientology is both true and false, good and bad, right and wrong. 4 valued logic in this case corresponds perfectly to the reality of what Scientology is. But if you only use two-valued logic, you will constantly strive past real world observations, and discount real world data, just so you can finally CONCLUDE that Scientology is either "RIGHT" or "WRONG" and "make a decision".
So we get critics and anons where SCIENTOLOGY IS ALL WRONG.
And we get churchies and freezoners where SCIENTOLOGY IS ALL RIGHT.
The third choice, for one who is stuck in two-valued logic, is not satisfying enough mentally. They keep trying to come to a conclusion endlessly and forever past the point of accurate observation. They do this not because they can't figure out Scientology or see it for what it really is, but because the logic they are applying is insufficient to apply to real life.
Scientology is both right and wrong, good and bad, true and false. And one's actions should proceed from that reality, if one wishes to act morally and as constructively as possible.
This is why militancy ends up being so destructive. It allows for only true or false, black or white, never both. And proceeding from that unreal conclusion, that conclusion which does not correspond to reality, you end up destroying the good, too, when you are a militant.
More than the example of Schrodinger's Cat, which suspends observation to a future date, 4 valued logic applies more accurately to this situation: Scientology has been observed to death. The problem has been that the number of possible conclusions available to most observers have been insifficient to accurately settle on the truth of Scientology.
4 Valued Logic: Use it to come to conclusions and form the rationale for your actions. You'll be glad you did!
(This ad paid for by Four-Valued Logic. No militants were harmed in the creation of this commercial)
That's an interesting post Alanzo.
But I do wonder if anything would get done in a 4-value logic world. Perhaps we would all float along being neither good nor bad. What incentive would there be to change anything? Perhaps we need to drop into the 2-value system occasionally in order to move things along. Perhaps join Anonymous, for the sake of change, they may not even exist in a 4-value system.
Politics generally runs on 2 values, computing also. War certainly does. It appears to be human nature to take a side, to take a specific stance either for or against. I certainly see myself tending to do that.
Opposition to something does require a certain degree of black and white thinking; it requires a putting aside of contrary facts and an emphasis of supporting facts. This is not necessarily a good thing! Just look at any politician being interviewed.
The 2-value system certainly makes for more interest and activity, but perhaps less truth. I think this is certainly something to explore more.
Zander
Similar threads
