Individuation

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

I promise to let it go, but for those who were bend out of shape because I called the church sociopathic as someone who has never been in Scientology, here is a post by a ESMB member who was on the EPF, in preparation for the Sea Org and who writes about his experiences. Read his blog post and his comment afterwards as part of the thread.

http://dbloch7986.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-estates-project-force.html

He writes:

Scientology does, in effect, create a sociopathic personality in its followers. It essentially turns off or teaches you to suppress your ability to feel empathy, which is the key thing that a clinical sociopath lacks. If you can't feel empathy you are able to enact all manner of cruelty on fellow humans without feeling remorse or sorrow.

It is this ability to suppress or switch off empathy in followers that allows the church to encourage them to treat ex-members, even their own children, with such cruelty.

 

[Techless]

"Consideration is the stupidity of Unknowingness

Unknowingness is the consideration of Stupidity

Unknowingness is the stupidity of Consideration"


my late night consideration: (Ron would approve though):

"Stupidity is the stupidity of stupidity"

"Consideration is the consideration of consideration"

"Unknowingness is the unknowingness of unknowingness"


Holy crap- even my spell checker aint' getting through this...

 

[Claire Swazey]

The federal government is barred from doing so by the First Amendment. About the only time they can get something past that bar is when the material to be censored is deemed as affecting national security. That's a tough sell to make and courts don't look on attempts by the government to engage in censorship kindly as it is illegal. Claire's remark is correct.

Various local municipalities, schoolboards, etc., have "banned books" on a limited and localized basis. The constitution does NOT necessarily bar such attempts by local governing boards. The courts rulings in such matters typically look at the scope of the ban and the degree of localization. Even so, they are not permissive about banning books for adult readership. The reasons offered are usually fairly idiotic and the "bans" are often overturned with time. The Librarian's association celebrates thsoe books which have been banned as a symbol of the importance of free speech and the tendency of small groups to seek to ban speech which they may find problematic or offensive.


Mark A. Baker

Right. And they can't ban freedom of belief either. Which is what prompted me to make that remark.

I don't see the point of anyone being a poster child for the FZ or Indie scene or considered to be a threat to anyone or in league against critics, just because of a stance for freedom of choice.

If anyone wants to see those choices taken away, they can lobby for a change to the 1st amendment. And they can move to a totalitarian country.

One of the things for which CofS- and Hubbard (since he had the GO created and Fair Game, etc) was and is justly criticized is for trampling people's freedoms. This should not be emulated by anyone not wishing to come off as a total hypocrite.

 

[GreyLensman]

Having just read the Lawrence Wright book, I sometimes catch myself thinking about things I haven't considered for years. The other day I woke up saying to myself, "Individuation". The word hadn't crossed my mind for decades -- and it's also not something I remember having been discussed here on ESMB.

I don't know if I've got it right. (I have kept absolutely no Scientology books to refer to, I'd rather stab myself.) But I seem to recall that it's the act of the individual thinking or acting in a way that asserts his/her own individuality and separateness, therefore not of the group. The group is of course the group of Scientologists. And of course separation from the group is A Very Bad Thing.

It's interesting to me that though quite a few of the recent books I've read (Urban, Reitman, Wright) spend time on what Wright terms the "prison of belief" and the necessity to conform to the group at all times, no-one has mentioned Hubbard's ideas about individuation.

What's interesting is the opposition between "group think" (A Very Bad Thing in theory but widespread in practise in the cult) and Individuation. If Hubbard deemed group think to be destructive, why was Individuation also bad? In this oppositional universe what was the safe option if both group think and individual think were condemned?

Hubbard just made this shit up as he went along. Asking for it to have an internal logic or consistency beyond that "pulled it out of my ass" level is just stretching to find a coherence the subject and Hubbard never had in the first place.

It doesn't make sense because... ...it doesn't and never was supposed to make sense. We imposed a certainty and an effectiveness becasue we were heavily invested in fooling ourselves that all of this Scientological stuff was (1) worth the effort & money, (2) working for us and (3) a subject that made sense as a whole.

 

[TG1]

I agree with GreyLensman that much of the complexity of Scientology was generated seemingly randomly, although it's so much easier to recognize that from the outside of the bubble than the inside.

Compare the complexity of Scientology with that of any other religion out there -- and particularly to Buddhism, the religion that Scientology strives hardest to position itself with.

There's just no comparison.

TG1

 

[Mark A. Baker]

"Consideration is the stupidity of Unknowingness

Unknowingness is the consideration of Stupidity

Unknowingness is the stupidity of Consideration"


my late night consideration: (Ron would approve though):

"Stupidity is the stupidity of stupidity"

"Consideration is the consideration of consideration"

"Unknowingness is the unknowingness of unknowingness"


Holy crap- even my spell checker aint' getting through this...

Start a blog. Put whatever you want on it. The government will not stop you from publishing.

Beware: should you libel others in your remarks, incite others to violence, or reveal national secrets you may well have your @ss handed to you via legal proceedings. You are entitled to free speech, not protected speech. They aren't the same thing.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Compare the complexity of Scientology with that of any other religion out there -- and particularly to Buddhism, the religion that Scientology strives hardest to position itself with.

There's just no comparison.

TG1

I disagree. Buddhist psychology is immensely complex, and although many of the fundamental concepts of Buddhist thought are "simple" they can be equally difficult to grasp. In that it is similar to higher mathematics where the concepts are simple but learning to see the simplicity can be quite difficult.

Moreover, as a religious doctrine traditional christianity is not simply complex, it is outright nonsensical. The only reason it "comes naturally" to many is that the dogmas of christianity are based on the superstitions and mythologies which have formed the basis for western culture; i.e. people have been trained since birth to believe it made sense.

As to the complexity of scientology, much of that stems from hubbard's personal inconsistency and lack of concentration. He was constantly changing his mind and shifting his attention. What seems clear from observing the nature of his work is that hubbard lacked the sort of mind which allowed for the coherent architecture of ideas. He routinely jumped from interest in one idea to the next; quickly losing interest in an idea and adopting some new conceit. He never succeeds at the process of relating multiple ideas in a coherent fashion beyond a few simple concepts, none of which he dealt with deeply.

This can also be seen in the nature of his fiction. His stories were for the most part short fiction or pot-boiler novels; based on one simple idea, long on action, but lacking depth of portrayal or analysis. In other words, pulp fiction. Something as uniformly coherent and deeply complex as Moby Dick or War and Peace were clearly beyond his skill set. His attempts at constructing larger works along such lines, Battlefield Earth and Mission Earth were both utterly dreadful examples of pulp fiction unnaturally drawn out to an interminable length. As literature they're as disjointed and incoherent as would be reading through the admin volumes.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mojo]

As to the complexity of scientology, much of that stems from hubbard's personal inconsistency and lack of concentration.


Mark A. Baker

Ok Mark, on a personal level.... (note to self: pose an emotional based question here to ascertain if Mark A. Baker is a real live person or is a computer generated logarithmic facsimile of a real live person)....do you think it is possible for someone not suffering from personal inconsistency and lack of concentration (ala Hubbard) to eliminate the unnecessary complexity of the subject of scientology?

And if you say yes, do you have any free time on your hands?

Mojo

 

[What's It All About]

I disagree. Buddhist psychology is immensely complex, and although many of the fundamental concepts of Buddhist thought are "simple" they can be equally difficult to grasp. In that it is similar to higher mathematics where the concepts are simple but learning to see the simplicity can be quite difficult.

Moreover, as a religious doctrine traditional christianity is not simply complex, it is outright nonsensical. The only reason it "comes naturally" to many is that the dogmas of christianity are based on the superstitions and mythologies which have formed the basis for western culture; i.e. people have been trained since birth to believe it made sense.

As to the complexity of scientology, much of that stems from hubbard's personal inconsistency and lack of concentration. He was constantly changing his mind and shifting his attention. What seems clear from observing the nature of his work is that hubbard lacked the sort of mind which allowed for the coherent architecture of ideas. He routinely jumped from interest in one idea to the next; quickly losing interest in an idea and adopting some new conceit. He never succeeds at the process of relating multiple ideas in a coherent fashion beyond a few simple concepts, none of which he dealt with deeply.

This can also be seen in the nature of his fiction. His stories were for the most part short fiction or pot-boiler novels; based on one simple idea, long on action, but lacking depth of portrayal or analysis. In other words, pulp fiction. Something as uniformly coherent and deeply complex as Moby Dick or War and Peace were clearly beyond his skill set. His attempts at constructing larger works along such lines, Battlefield Earth and Mission Earth were both utterly dreadful examples of pulp fiction unnaturally drawn out to an interminable length. As literature they're as disjointed and incoherent as would be reading through the admin volumes.


Mark A. Baker

He took a lot of stimulant drugs. Helped his output, but not his coherency. That anyone reads his work or takes it seriously astonishes me. Maybe people are intrigued by the idea that if they work hard enough, they can find "The Answers" in his or other vague or distorted writing. People are great at investing meaning into random events, like the cargo cultists who worship objects that wash up on their shores. Maybe many of have a bit of the cargo-cultist in us.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Ok Mark, on a personal level.... (note to self: pose an emotional based question here to ascertain if Mark A. Baker is a real live person or is a computer generated logarithmic facsimile of a real live person)....do you think it is possible for someone not suffering from personal inconsistency and lack of concentration (ala Hubbard) to eliminate the unnecessary complexity of the subject of scientology?

And if you say yes, do you have any free time on your hands?

Mojo

That should read: is a real live person or is a computer generated algorithmic facsimile of a real live person.

The answer to that depends on your view of what constitutes a computing machine and whether minds in fact arise as a result of strictly physical processes, or whether minds are transcendental phenomena linked in some not as yet fully understood fashion to the physical processes of the brain.

As to your question, the answer is : yes

Clearbird is a good start in that direction as far as a rewriting of the basic tech of scientology goes. Although even that work is not entirely sufficient as a presentation based on the principles of formal logic. Still, logical formalism isn't necessarily required, whereas logical consistency within the subject materials is. As such, Clearbird remains a far superior set of training materials than anything the church produced, not surprisingly as that was its intended purpose.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Panda Termint]

Dear All, I'd love to contribute something meaningful to this thread but I'm probably too Individuated... or you are!
Yes you! No you!
YES, you! NOOOOOYOU!!!
No you! no...
Oh, no you! (I get it!)

 

[Mojo]

That should read: is a real live person or is a computer generated algorithmic facsimile of a real live person.

The answer to that depends on your view of what constitutes a computing machine and whether minds in fact arise as a result of strictly physical processes, or whether minds are transcendental phenomena linked in some not as yet fully understood fashion to the physical processes of the brain.

As to your question, the answer is : yes

Clearbird is a good start in that direction as far as a rewriting of the basic tech of scientology goes. Although even that work is not entirely sufficient as a presentation based on the principles of formal logic. Still, logical formalism isn't necessarily required, whereas logical consistency within the subject materials is. As such, Clearbird remains a far superior set of training materials than anything the church produced, not surprisingly as that was its intended purpose.


Mark A. Baker

Ok, firstly, logarithmic, algorithmic or arithmetic, it's all the same to me.

Secondly, where you wrote:

The answer to that depends on your view of what constitutes a computing machine and whether minds in fact arise as a result of strictly physical processes, or whether minds are transcendental phenomena linked in some not as yet fully understood fashion to the physical processes of the brain.

I take issue with your insinuation that we (individually 'and' as a species) will somehow or other know more, in say, 10,000 years from now, than we do right now, about consciousness as it relates to its origins and functions. That is such an invalidating comment Mark. If I could get a hold of my primary auditor right now, I would schedule a session right now, just to make myself feel better about your entheta filled commentary. But, she's on vacation in Hawaii. Thus I will suffer until her return.

Thirdly, and lastly, I am familiar with the works of Clearbird, and have been for years. What I am not familiar with is the underlying significance of your comment:

Still, logical formalism isn't necessarily required, whereas logical consistency within the subject materials is.

Formalism Shmoralism. What I want to know is if, and how, the essential principles of scientology (divorced from the essential principles of basic diantetic auditing) can be recreated in a way that is not only acceptable, but admirable, to the world at large. If such a vision is even possible.

It occurs to me the pink elephant in the livingroom is the fact that basic book one individual auditing is factually beneficial to the overwhelming majority of individuals that partake of it (so to speak). And, yet, Scientology itself is a Devil in Disguise, where dog shit reality is concerned.

In Martyworld (which I prefer to call Martyland) the subject of whether or not Scientology is salvagable (in terms of public image) has been raised. And setting all (justifiable) emotion aside, the question is a worthy one.

Do you imagine something like Markbird or Clearbaker is a future possibility, in response to the issue at hand?

Mojo

note to self: Mark A. Baker appears to be a real person, but don't jump to conclusions just yet. As illusions are not limited to the optical and audio variety. lol.

 

[What's It All About]

Individuation is defined in the Tech dictionary as a "separation from knowingness".

28 AUG 1952 LECTURE on Individualism gives a more concrete scenario:

Nineteen fifty I gave a talk — little did I know — on the subject of individuation. How does a
person become an individual? How does a Dickens character become a Dickens character?
Well, it’s by aberration. It’s by different ways of handling motion — different ways of
handling motion. And of course, to handle motion at all he has to select some thing out for his
randomity; something has to be an enemy of his. If he takes responsibility for everything,
then he gets no motion. You get a motion-no-motion situation or a one-motion-other-motion
situation, you get action. But if you don’t have that, you don’t have action.

And so what does individuation mean? It means, how does a person become the aberrated
self which we find him to be? It doesn’t mean how individual can a person become? Because
to get a high feeling of unaberrated individualism, you have to put your boat full speed astern
and hit the main body of theta. Because right on this side of it, the worst and most aberrative
example in the whole deck says. . . This is very true, very, very true of all aberrative
incidents: They beat a fellow over the head and tell him something he already knows and
force him to believe it, and thereafter it becomes pain. That’s the most effective aberration
there can be, and that first-level incident tells you, you are an individual. It says you’re an
individual. That’s great.

Now you’d expect, then, the person would become more individual if somebody told him he
was an individual, but this doesn’t happen to be the case. He becomes an individual with less
determinism. His feeling of individuation was much higher just before that incident
happened. Just before it happened he had a terrific feeling of beingness. He really was And
all of a sudden they said, “You are you all by yourself, and you’re not anybody else and the
thing for you to do is to go on your way.”

Randomity? Hubbard missed his calling as a double-speak artist. If he'd had a sense of humor about himself, maybe he could have emulated the distinguished career of Master of Nonsense Irwin Corey.

If you need to lighten your mood (enlightenment is at hand!), see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/nyregion/14comedian.html?_r=0

"Mr. Corey, who is known as Professor Irwin Corey on the comedy circuit, has been billed as “The World’s Foremost Authority,” a reference to his trademark style of highfalutin double talk and long, nonsensical observations..."

"“He’s one of the great trailblazers in comedy,” Mr. Stone said.

Waiting for his coffee, Mr. Corey explained the meaning of life, at least as he and probably no one else understood it.

“One of the things that you’ve got to understand is that we’ve got to develop a continuity in order to relate to exacerbate those whose curiosity has not been defended, yet the information given can no longer be used as allegoric because the defendant does not use the evidence which can be substantiated by,” he said before finally asking, “What was the question?”"

Sound familiar? I hope that somewhere, someone is studying this extensively to see what mastery of self and others will ensue once they correctly interpret Professor Corey's intentions. To quote Mickey Rooney, "Hey gang, let's put on a religion!" Or at least have a good laugh.

Corey's son said of him:

“His style is a deep philosophical statement: No one in fact is any more important than another,” said Richard Corey, who lives in Manhattan. “He is constantly digressing from his own tangent, so he’s digressing from a digression.”

Maybe Hubbard wanted to be the dead-serious Irwin Corey. Too bad we're (mostly) not laughing. Maybe Hubbard is though.

Aldous Huxley said, ''Nonsense is the assertion of humanity's spiritual freedom despite all the oppressions of circumstance.'' Hubbard took his nonsense and turned it into more oppression, by insisting that people take him seriously.

Dr. Raymond Moody, author of Life After Life, the pioneering work that popularized the concept of the near-death experience in modern Western life, has made a study of nonsense as part of his fascination with philosophy. See: http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug2/moody.htm

I think his study on the subject may help to reveal why we are vulnerable to religious beliefs, including scientology: (my bolding)

"Dr. Moody's forthcoming book brings together all the ancient lore about nonsense, and shows how nonsense can be used to alter the mind. He believes that nonsensical utterances can transform people's consciousness. This new book, which he's been laboring on for forty-something years, sets out the logic and rules of nonsense. At the very end, it offers exercises that will give a person the sensation or the feeling that they have passed over to another dimension of reality. ''That's really what I've been working on for a long time, it's called the 'wisdom of nonsense.' The things I'm known for, the paranormal, are subdivisions or corollaries of this more complete project. Once it comes out, people will see the context for which all these things fit.''

Happy playing!

 

[Free to shine]

I think you're pissed off because you feel I'm saying you had no control. But what I find strange is that when people outside the church hear stories about the forced abortions, the Hole, the RPF, Fair Game, etc, we ask ourselves, how do people who join an organization because they want to further themselves and want to help the world, become capable of extreme acts of denial and cruelty?

Big Sigh...

You know, I have to say about all of this...that many Exes are still in the process of unpeeling the onion of their Scientological beliefs, and that takes some time, lots of reading and insight, and often wrestling with painful emotions. Very understandable! We need to give them the space to discover for themselves what their group really has said done and created over the years, and come to grips with the fact of their own complicity, support, and enabling of Corporate Scientology with all of it's evil actions and destructive results, either by their financial contributions or service.

My whole life I've heard from Scientologists and their supporters about "what good people (individual) Scientologists are..." (sad to say that my own life experience with individual Scientologists since the 70's leads me to the opposite conclusion... That they are self-deluded money-grubbing manipulative liars and opportunists who use people to enable themselves to "get up the bridge" at all costs, and are not to be trusted by any sane person!) and yet the reality is such that members of the group and especially the leadership of the group, supported by the membership, (starting with RON and his minions) have always done evil, criminal acts, which were largely hushed up until the Mission holder's revolt and Mission takeover by the RTC in the early 80's. Then some serious whistle blowing began!

Now with the Internet it's easy for folks to do research and learn the truth, question COS Authority and actions, etc. Which we do more and more as more whistle blowers speak their piece and tell about their experiences... KEEP WRITING THOSE BOOKS AND BLOGS, FOLKS!!!

The thing you have to remember is that most long time COS members were lied to constantly by their leadership about their own group, also lied to about alleged "enemies of Scientology" and were inculcated not to look too closely at any "outpoints" in the system, not to natter or share ideas with each other, never to question authority, and to avoid looking at or thinking about whatever the COS hierarchy said was "entheta". They were really living in a sort of a false construct, a social/cultural mental "bubble" outside of mainstream culture and "reality", especially staff, SO and really especially CMO and RTC members.

A lot of recently "out" Exes (and those on the fence) don't know half the stuff about the true or real history of Ron and/or his Cult that most outsiders know. (Especially kids who were raised in and got a sub-standard education and were put to work in the Cadet Org and then Sea Org at a young age!) Many still really believe that Lisa McP. died because of some injury she got in that minor car accident, and that Scientology did everything possible to care for her in the very best way, and was in no way responsible for her death...because they are programmed to believe and accept whatever lies they are told is the truth by COB (and Ron before him!!!) and his Corporate Scientology management minions... (FUCK OSA!!!)

Snips from two excellent posts.

XB, one thing to remember is that you can't lump "staff members" or scientologists all together, there are so many different levels of information known at different levels.

Being a staff member at a Mission or lower level org requires a great deal of courage and dedication. As S&L says, it's like being in a social/cultural bubble that once entered, usually with the best of intentions, becomes a vital part of survival. You work hard, very hard, you go to extraordinary lengths to "make it go right", you get crazy management orders - "Oh here's another crazy management order, now how can we survive and do what we are supposed to be doing and do crazy order as well?" Head down, bum up, just keep going ... get through the day ... find a way to buy some toilet paper.... surely it will be better tomorrow .... this is for the greatest good" and so on.

One can be scathing about it from the outside and in many ways rightly so, however as S&L points out, ignorance is a huge factor. This is not a deliberate ignorance, it is an ignorance that creeps in the more involved you are, the more desperately you try and fulfill the goals of the group that (apparently) match your own. It is the terrible legacy of scientology. So much as I love the fresh air that billows behind your posts sometimes, remember that those newly emerging are having to face some horrendous information and an unimaginable struggle to understand their own part in it all, and you can't always know this from what a person posts.

Kindness love, kindness ....

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Do you imagine something like Markbird or Clearbaker is a future possibility, in response to the issue at hand?

Mojo ...

No.

The (remote) possibility exists that I might choose to layout my own synthesis of related ideas in a published form. If so it wouldn't qualify as a Markbird or Clearbaker.

As to your uncertainty about my remarks concerning the lack of a need for a logical formalism, what I see is that it is not necessary to create a strictly formal description of the subject ala Whitehead & Russell's Principia. However, working from a basis of the Clearbird materials it would likely be possible to demonstrate the practical efficacy of the various processes and rundowns described on an experimental basis from a clinical psychological approach. It needn't be seen as strictly a therapeutic modality either. Many cp's are interested in human potential.

Of course doing so is not something that an hubbard loyalist would embrace, as it requires being open to hubbard being wrong. But then, frankly anyone who would look to them for advice or leadership is greatly misguided.

[note: I usually include links to Clearbird materials as a matter of course when referencing them for the further benefit of any reader who may as yet be unfamiliar with them.]

... note to self: Mark A. Baker appears to be a real person, but don't jump to conclusions just yet. As illusions are not limited to the optical and audio variety. lol.

There are no real people, only the artificial & empty constructs of Buddha Mind. :angel:


Mark A. Baker

 

[programmer_guy]

No.

The (remote) possibility exists that I might choose to layout my own synthesis of related ideas in a published form. If so it wouldn't qualify as a Markbird or Clearbaker.

As to your uncertainty about my remarks concerning the lack of a need for a logical formalism, what I see is that it is not necessary to create a strictly formal description of the subject ala Whitehead & Russell's Principia. However, working from a basis of the Clearbird materials it would likely be possible to demonstrate the practical efficacy of the various processes and rundowns described on an experimental basis from a clinical psychological approach. It needn't be seen as strictly a therapeutic modality either. Many cp's are interested in human potential.

Of course doing so is not something that an hubbard loyalist would embrace, as it requires being open to hubbard being wrong. But then, frankly anyone who would look to them for advice or leadership is greatly misguided.

[note: I usually include links to Clearbird materials as a matter of course when referencing them for the further benefit of any reader who may as yet be unfamiliar with them.]


There are no real people, only the artificial & empty constructs of Buddha Mind. :angel:


Mark A. Baker

Can you talk in plain English (academics put aside)?
Just curious.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

No.

The (remote) possibility exists that I might choose to layout my own synthesis of related ideas in a published form. If so it wouldn't qualify as a Markbird or Clearbaker.

As to your uncertainty about my remarks concerning the lack of a need for a logical formalism, what I see is that it is not necessary to create a strictly formal description of the subject ala Whitehead & Russell's Principia. However, working from a basis of the Clearbird materials it would likely be possible to demonstrate the practical efficacy of the various processes and rundowns described on an experimental basis from a clinical psychological approach. It needn't be seen as strictly a therapeutic modality either. Many cp's are interested in human potential.

Of course doing so is not something that an hubbard loyalist would embrace, as it requires being open to hubbard being wrong. But then, frankly anyone who would look to them for advice or leadership is greatly misguided.

[note: I usually include links to Clearbird materials as a matter of course when referencing them for the further benefit of any reader who may as yet be unfamiliar with them.]




There are no real people, only the artificial & empty constructs of Buddha Mind. :angel:


Mark A. Baker

I did. Nothing academic about my remarks. However here it is in a shortened form.

It's remotely possible I'll write a book. It wouldn't be a formal treatment of scientology. Clearbird could serve as a basis for more formalized studies of that topic.

"Real people" is a convenient label for something the basis of which is innately a complex mental construct. See Mahayana Buddhism for details.

Mark A. Baker

 

[programmer_guy]

I did. Nothing academic about my remarks. However here it is in a shortened form.




Mark A. Baker

What would a "formal" treatment of Scientology entail?
Give me some bullet points...

 

[programmer_guy]

No.

As to your uncertainty about my remarks concerning the lack of a need for a logical formalism, what I see is that it is not necessary to create a strictly formal description of the subject ala Whitehead & Russell's Principia. However, working from a basis of the Clearbird materials it would likely be possible to demonstrate the practical efficacy of the various processes and rundowns described on an experimental basis from a clinical psychological approach. It needn't be seen as strictly a therapeutic modality either. Many cp's are interested in human potential.

Mark A. Baker

When was the last time that you had an auditing session (Indie/freezone or SCN)?
Or are you just reading this stuff but not really currently involved?
How many years has it been?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

What would a "formal" treatment of Scientology entail?
Give me some bullet points...

It's what hubbard partly attempted with his axioms only it would have to be far more coherent and successful in the treatment. Imagine if the tech were actually derivable from axioms and definitions in a fashion similar to Euclidean geometry's axiomatic expression. It needn't even be that precise in it's formulation; most sciences aren't, much less the social sciences. However, the more closely the ideas can be regularized in such a fashion the easier it is to critique the weaknesses and strengths of the subject matter and the simpler the process of correcting and improving the work.


Mark A. Baker