knowing how to know?

Scientology is the alleged Science / applied religious philosophy of knowing how to know, Hubbard says what? The word means Scio =knowledge, logos = study of. He says defines truth as Truth as What is true for you. And his definition of reality is one that would do for the word belief.

In Jon Atack's post at Tony Ortega's site - http://tonyortega.org/2013/08/19/ho...really-work-historian-jon-atack-has-a-theory/ he takes on Hubbard's Cosmology. I had thought that he would go into the Axioms or the 3 parts of man or many of the other religious aspects of Scientology. But he picks on one key point - the definition of reality.

Why reality? Why does he reduce Scientology philosophy to that? That bothered me for a day and then it struck me. It is all about subjective reality as opposed to objective reality. Example: The purif. In reality there is no mechanism in the body of swapping drug laden fat in the body with the clean fat you take in, a dollop at a, time before hopping into the sauna with your mates. But people swear they are getting gains, sun burn flushes turn on etc. Are these real, or are they subjective reality? If you apply Hubbards definition of truth or reality to the purif - really what is happening? You believe it is working. And, may the God Placebo be praised, you feel better.

So, then the cynic in me arises - Hubbard, when he says Scientology is knowing how to know, he is really saying: I know how knowledge (belief) is created in a person from my experience in hypnotism, in seeing people believe the tall tales I tell, how they believe the written word, whether true or false, and thus I can create a si fi based system of knowledge that they will know as being true whether it is or not.

Where is the actual knowing how to know in Scientology? Is it the axions? His def of zero? having a stable data to compare other data with? Why does he say reality is an agreed upon APARENCY of reality?

I think perhaps Jon is correct - Scientology's cosmology does boil down to Hubbard's definition of reality, rather than spirits, the cause before the beginning, past lives, implants, theta, Xenu and the other window dressing.

Mimsey
 

iHateDuplicity

Patron with Honors
Well this is deep. Let's dive in. :coolwink:

I think Hubbard's definition of reality is as good as anything else to go in on as a point of showing up Hubbard's thinking. I personally don't have a real problem with reality being defined as "agreement". It's simple and from my experience with it, fairly workable. I try not to be "absolute" in my thinking, and I think this definition of "reality" can still include other ideas or thoughts on the nature of reality.

However, if we're going to go in on Scn basics and question the validity of it, how about the most basic "truth" in all of the "cosmology." Hubbard specifically stated that the one thing in all of Scientology that is an absolute truth, unquestionable and 100% certain, is Axiom 1: Life is a static. Yet to me, that is something one has to take utterly on faith or personal belief and is the most uncertain thing in the wide breadth of all knowledge.

There is no proving that life is a static except by the negative proof of "well, show me that's not the case" and the personal certainty (i.e. faith) one gets on this when one goes exterior. I don't think too many people in the Cof$ actually grasp how faith-based the basics of Scn "tech" actually are.

It's also quite up for debate as to whether or not the simple act of exteriorizing from the body "proves" that you as a spiritual being are "not MEST". How is that proof? What if spiritual existence is a higher form of MEST life, analogous to a gaseous state of matter being a "higher form" of solid matter?
 

AnonKat

Crusader
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...In-MartyLand-Hypnotism-is-Reverse-Scientology

Well this is deep. Let's dive in. :coolwink:

I think Hubbard's definition of reality is as good as anything else to go in on as a point of showing up Hubbard's thinking. I personally don't have a real problem with reality being defined as "agreement". It's simple and from my experience with it, fairly workable. I try not to be "absolute" in my thinking, and I think this definition of "reality" can still include other ideas or thoughts on the nature of reality.

However, if we're going to go in on Scn basics and question the validity of it, how about the most basic "truth" in all of the "cosmology." Hubbard specifically stated that the one thing in all of Scientology that is an absolute truth, unquestionable and 100% certain, is Axiom 1: Life is a static. Yet to me, that is something one has to take utterly on faith or personal belief and is the most uncertain thing in the wide breadth of all knowledge.

There is no proving that life is a static except by the negative proof of "well, show me that's not the case" and the personal certainty (i.e. faith) one gets on this when one goes exterior. I don't think too many people in the Cof$ actually grasp how faith-based the basics of Scn "tech" actually are.

It's also quite up for debate as to whether or not the simple act of exteriorizing from the body "proves" that you as a spiritual being are "not MEST". How is that proof? What if spiritual existence is a higher form of MEST life, analogous to a gaseous state of matter being a "higher form" of solid matter?
 
don't know how long this thread will go on mims but it can be endless

after my friend billy martin died in may 2006 after being diagnosed with cancer in dec 2005 i was reflecting back and recalled the previous summer sitting on the sundeck with him and his wife. i'd been feeling very low energy and it just came on me i HAD to get to a doctor. i drove over over to the local veteran's hospital and a checkup found nothing...

this was sort of odd. i just don't go to doctors off of vague feelings. i pretty much don't go to doctors. and in reflection, based on a large empirical database garnered over many years of experiencing "presque vu" (deja vu's cousin. it means "almost seen") and then later finding what i had almost seen, i concluded i had perceived my friend's cancer months before it was diagnosed. likely early enough for it to be treated successfully

and then decided "if i can detect it then science could do so as well." and as recounted on another thread i further theorized and then Mass general hospital confirmed my findings discovering the new way of early detection my research predicted

so...

on the one hand scientific method is a very good way to turn what we know into what we know that we know...

and on the other hand we still can't pin down just how we know to begin with

but...

although lrh was a batshit crazy goofy fuck with a self confessed "insatiable lust for wealth and power" he is also a philosopher who developed techniques to hone the capacity to know in the first place


but why should a person take a single statement by anyone, produce a refutation and then claim that invalidates EVERYTHING said person ever wrote or said?
 

iHateDuplicity

Patron with Honors
But why should a person take a single statement by anyone, produce a refutation and then claim that invalidates EVERYTHING said person ever wrote or said?

They shouldn't. But don't tell that to some people on ESMB because they are convinced that every single thing that Hubbard ever said, touched, smelled, tasted or even dreamed about is pure evil defined. You cannot reason with that kind of mindset so I'm learning to ignore them.

For me, the "journey" since I've been on this board has been sifting through and determining for myself what was "batshit crazy" and what actually made sense. And I am very far from my destination on that particular path.

But at least now I can acknowledge that all the things I thought didn't make sense or used to "wonder about", really and truly didn't make any sense. I can look with a critical eye at a lot of the things I used to accept on utter faith and see them in a whole new light now. And that is really great. If I get nothing else from the different viewpoints expressed on ESMB and elsewhere, at least I've gotten that.
 

Gib

Crusader
They shouldn't. But don't tell that to some people on ESMB because they are convinced that every single thing that Hubbard ever said, touched, smelled, tasted or even dreamed about is pure evil defined. You cannot reason with that kind of mindset so I'm learning to ignore them.

For me, the "journey" since I've been on this board has been sifting through and determining for myself what was "batshit crazy" and what actually made sense. And I am very far from my destination on that particular path.

But at least now I can acknowledge that all the things I thought didn't make sense or used to "wonder about", really and truly didn't make any sense. I can look with a critical eye at a lot of the things I used to accept on utter faith and see them in a whole new light now. And that is really great. If I get nothing else from the different viewpoints expressed on ESMB and elsewhere, at least I've gotten that.

At the moment I reading Dale Carnegie, how to win friends and influence people, first copyrighted 1936. I'm about half way thru it. It's an easy read. Hubbard said not to read it, but he did.

I'm beginning to see what hubbard did and why folks here have said he plagiarized everything and incorporated other's truths for his own benefit all the while covering that up with the intent to trap people in his organization.

The big picture is coming more into view for me. What makes sense from hubbard is the stuff and ideas he got from others, that's the cheese, the bait.

Shoot, I mean you take any of the few advices Dale's book states, and you too could make a cult following just by adding to it complexities and really hyping it all up. Tony Robbins has done it. Many others as well I suppose, just like Hubbard did.
 

Gib

Crusader
For me, the "journey" since I've been on this board has been sifting through and determining for myself what was "batshit crazy" and what actually made sense. And I am very far from my destination on that particular path.

I forgot to add, I started on this board a year earlier than you, July 2012. And I too was on the same journey which is actually doing some due diligence on this thing called scientology which I never did when I first started in scientology 26 years ago, my bad. :angry:
 
Yeah - that is the baby and the bathwater - my wife told me: If he lied about that (something we have both long forgotten) then, what else did he lie about? Yes, she told me a question - rather pissed she was. That is my problem in a nut shell - is it worth taking the time to sift through it all? I especially liked the axioms and factors - and I genuinely feel for a while, he was on his game, and wrote some worthwhile stuff. But finding it? yikes.

Much of what he wrote I could sum up by saying: Xenu is a beautiful thing. By that, I mean that you can't prove it or disprove it.

Science can say - Umm, dude, like those volcanoes that they dropped the H bombs on? The weren't there 75 mil years ago, as if! If he were a better researcher, he should have known that. Sloppy sloppy.

You can't prove (yet) that the factors are wrong. Or the axioms - man could be a spirit - a thetan, a naught, a prime mover unmoved, a potential, a cause, not located in space or time, or a 'unit" of theta coexisting with other theta, while considering that it is not co-existing but is located in the mest U. Aiieee.

Well, now's the time to start making a camera that takes photos on theta wavelengths so we can see others mental pictures and view the thetan as if you were possessed of "full perceptics" (c) :yes:

Mimsey

Movie_i_see_dead_people-769472.jpg
 

Outethicsofficer

Silver Meritorious Patron
I took what was written in Dianetics as: 'This it this is the answer' while shoving the book into the face of my then wife. Something in it just spoke to me! No real observation from that point out took place. Slowly things begun to dawn on me, dismissed at first but none the less a creeping feeling begun to pervade that I had made a mistake. And eventually I decided to get out. Now there are many things within it I still find 'workable', those are mine to use now or not. I paid my dues to gain that attitude. It took me 25 years to arrive at that point of knowing...:duh:


PS: The moment I got the nerve to actually go on line and search for myself the circumstances around Hubbard's death was defining, the OT of all OTs with drugs in his body and looking like some DB...jaw dropping.
 

pollywog

Patron with Honors
Knowing how to know .... simply means knowing how to convince yourself that everything LRH said was true. The true "for you" part was just the snap back to set the hook in case your analytical mind actually had the nerve to show up. You know, kind of a "down boy" in case you actually started to "know" shit on your own.
 

Gib

Crusader
Yeah - that is the baby and the bathwater - my wife told me: If he lied about that (something we have both long forgotten) then, what else did he lie about? Yes, she told me a question - rather pissed she was. That is my problem in a nut shell - is it worth taking the time to sift through it all? I especially liked the axioms and factors - and I genuinely feel for a while, he was on his game, and wrote some worthwhile stuff. But finding it? yikes.

When we moved into a new town about 10 years ago, we got settled and my wife and I went to a Chinese restaurant for dinner. First time in this new town. Flashing neon sign and all, looked ok from the outside.

We went in and found the rather big place was empty, dinner time. We were new in town and kind of shy so we just sat down. Ordered our meal and chatted a bit.

Our meals arrive in good time, all good, friendly service and all, place was clean.

We start eating, and well, not so good. The cook and the waiter, while we were eating, decided to sit down and chat with us, all friendly and good, except the meal sucked big time.

We paid our bill, left a tip. Only to never return.

The place is closed down now.

The lesson I learned was never eat at an empty restaurant during dinner, lunch or breakfast.
 
When we moved into a new town about 10 years ago, we got settled and my wife and I went to a Chinese restaurant for dinner. The lesson I learned was never eat at an empty restaurant during dinner, lunch or breakfast.
There is another lesson on the next level of Chinese food eating that I am going to reveal to you. This lesson was learned the hard way, much like your own foodnition - if you go to a Chinese restaurant and there are no Chinese eating there - you are in a tourist trap. or worse...

Ah so. You velly smart fellah.

Mimsey
 

kate8024

-deleted-
There is another lesson on the next level of Chinese food eating that I am going to reveal to you. This lesson was learned the hard way, much like your own foodnition - if you go to a Chinese restaurant and there are no Chinese eating there - you are in a tourist trap.

Ah so. You velly smart fellah.

Mimsey

Chinese Food School.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . You can't prove (yet) that the factors are wrong. Or the axioms - man could be a spirit - a thetan, a naught, a prime mover unmoved, a potential, a cause, not located in space or time, or a 'unit" of theta coexisting with other theta, while considering that it is not co-existing but is located in the mest U. Aiieee . . .

Both the Factors and the Axioms are a study in logic fallacy . . . how can "space" be a "view point" of anything? (and so it goes on). In some respects, Jon Atack did Scientology a favour by not going there, and he did address the fundamental question of how Scientology defines "reality" which answers TonyO's query in regard to Scientology's position on "the whole schmear". IMHO.
 
Actually it is quite simple "Space is a viewpoint of dimension" means Space is what you see when you look out from a viewpoint at dimension(s). What is harder to grok is this mind bender:

Let's suppose you are theta which has no location in space or time - a pure static as Ron posits. You co-exist in this timeless non space with other theta beings and since there is no space all communication is cause - effect - pure telepathy for want of a better word. Somehow you know who you are as being distinct from the other co-existing theta beings. Your whole purpose is to create an effect. So you want to blow their minds, and you think: I'll invent some space!

So, from your non-location in no time, no space you postulate into existence dimension points which you view from a viewpoint you have created for your self to view this new reality. All your buddies get in on the act and, lo and behold, we have a universe!

One fine day, you find your self on a rollercoaster at Magic Mountain going up and down and east and west, south and north as well as upside down - all the while viewing it from the same place - through your eyes.

Are you A) moving your view point through all of those twists and turns? B) not moving but rotating your viewpoint in any of 360 degrees, much like a gunner on a ball turret on a WWII bomber? C) not moving at all from your non location but flipping the universe around up and down and all around to give yourself immobile self a sense of motion?

Lets say C) is the answer - and all of the billions of viewpoints on this planet are also independently flipping the universe around at the same time as you do.... Or are they D) each creating the same universe but from their own view points, and flipping it around in a sort of mutual masturbatory existence. And thus we have proved reality is what you agree it is.

Do you have a head ache yet?

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

Alle G

Patron with Honors
Scientology is the alleged Science / applied religious philosophy of knowing how to know, Hubbard says what? The word means Scio =knowledge, logos = study of. He says defines truth as Truth as What is true for you. And his definition of reality is one that would do for the word belief.

In Jon Atack's post at Tony Ortega's site - http://tonyortega.org/2013/08/19/ho...really-work-historian-jon-atack-has-a-theory/ he takes on Hubbard's Cosmology. I had thought that he would go into the Axioms or the 3 parts of man or many of the other religious aspects of Scientology. But he picks on one key point - the definition of reality.

Why reality? Why does he reduce Scientology philosophy to that? That bothered me for a day and then it struck me. It is all about subjective reality as opposed to objective reality. Example: The purif. In reality there is no mechanism in the body of swapping drug laden fat in the body with the clean fat you take in, a dollop at a, time before hopping into the sauna with your mates. But people swear they are getting gains, sun burn flushes turn on etc. Are these real, or are they subjective reality? If you apply Hubbards definition of truth or reality to the purif - really what is happening? You believe it is working. And, may the God Placebo be praised, you feel better.

So, then the cynic in me arises - Hubbard, when he says Scientology is knowing how to know, he is really saying: I know how knowledge (belief) is created in a person from my experience in hypnotism, in seeing people believe the tall tales I tell, how they believe the written word, whether true or false, and thus I can create a si fi based system of knowledge that they will know as being true whether it is or not.

Where is the actual knowing how to know in Scientology? Is it the axions? His def of zero? having a stable data to compare other data with? Why does he say reality is an agreed upon APARENCY of reality?

I think perhaps Jon is correct - Scientology's cosmology does boil down to Hubbard's definition of reality, rather than spirits, the cause before the beginning, past lives, implants, theta, Xenu and the other window dressing.

Mimsey


I have seen two contradictory opinions about Xenu story:

1. coming mostly, but not only, from co$ - it is an insignificant part of the doctrine, because only a small percentage of scientologists even know about it.

2. Xenu story is central, because without Xenu there is no BTs and without BTs there is no OTs. And the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] opinion is just co$ diverting attention from Xenu to avoid ridicule.


So, my question is: Is Xenu story important part of the scientology doctrine or not? Is making OTs important part of the doctrine or not (or maybe was important in the past)?


You say it is window dressing, but window dressing is for the outsiders to see, and co$ certainly does not want the outsiders to know about Xenu or BTs.

(I understand that Xenu is an ingenious way to extort money).
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think Xenu is both important and unimportant because he is the hidden filling in the mystery sandwich of the OT levels. The OT mystery sandwich is extremely important in Scientology. The lure of OT superpowers seems to be what keeps a lot of Scientologists slogging through the lower levels, even though by many accounts it is the lower levels that hold all of whatever actual benefits Scientology may be able to provide. The lower levels are really long. Scientology processing involves really a lot of tedious and expensive repetition. It's not clear to me how many Scientologists would really go through all that, for what they actually get out of it, if it weren't for the lure of moving up the Bridge to the real magic of OT. Many of the things that seem to 'work' in the lower Bridge are not actually so fantastic in themselves — a powerful but evanescent sense of epiphany (the 'auditing high'), for example, or seeing the e-meter pinch test. In themselves they might be entertaining, but if you take them as evidence that Scientology as a whole is real, then they make the promises of OT abilities a lot more appealing. Conversely, the mysterious promise of the OT levels makes the dubious 'wins' of the lower Bridge seem like the exciting first steps on an epic journey — and that's a big part of the 'win' right there.

So the OT mystery sandwich is really important to Scientology. It does actually have to have some kind of filling, and in this sense the sandwich filling is really important, and so Xenu is really important. On the other hand, though, it probably wouldn't really matter just what the filling was. For most Scientologists, it's just a mystery anyway. So the fact that the filling actually turns out to be Xenu is in this way very unimportant.

I've never done any Scientology at all, so this theory of mine is second-hand and open to correction from people who have actually been there. Just from watching, though, it's my take, for what that's worth.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Actually it is quite simple "Space is a viewpoint of dimension" means Space is what you see when you look out from a viewpoint at dimension(s)

That's not what the Axiom says and, remember, its an Axiom, a self evident truth, not some subjective interpretation of what it might mean if one were to "be the space". Its also a major fail in that it uses insufficient subordinate clauses to define the term and is non sequitur to the previous Axioms. As for Axiom One, what can there be to consider in the absence of anything to consider?

What is harder to grok is this mind bender:

Let's suppose you are theta which has no location in space or time - a pure static as Ron posits. You co-exist in this timeless non space with other theta beings and since there is no space all communication is cause - effect - pure telepathy for want of a better word. Somehow you know who you are as being distinct from the other co-existing theta beings. Your whole purpose is to create an effect. So you want to blow their minds, and you think: I'll invent some space!

I agree, its beyond comprehension. How can there be other beings and any form of communication in the absence of location and time as communication and existence is dependent on both those items being present?

So, from your non-location in no time, no space you postulate into existence dimension points which you view from a viewpoint you have created for your self to view this new reality. All your buddies get in on the act and, lo and behold, we have a universe!

This is dub in. At what point in the Axioms - those self evident truths - does it become apparent that the "static" is yourself? There is no mention of other "statics", the word "static" itself is a made up word in this context, and, again, how can anything be viewed in the absense of anything to view or, indeed, any means (like an eyeball, for example) with which to actually view? Its gobbledeegook.

One fine day, you find your self on a rollercoaster at Magic Mountain going up and down and east and west, south and north as well as upside down - all the while viewing it from the same place - through your eyes.

Are you A) moving your view point through all of those twists and turns? B) not moving but rotating your viewpoint in any of 360 degrees, much like a gunner on a ball turret on a WWII bomber? C) not moving at all from your non location but flipping the universe around up and down and all around to give yourself immobile self a sense of motion?

Lets say C) is the answer - and all of the billions of viewpoints on this planet are also independently flipping the universe around at the same time as you do.... Or are they D) each creating the same universe but from their own view points, and flipping it around in a sort of mutual masturbatory existence. And thus we have proved reality is what you agree it is.

Do you have a head ache yet?

No, just a grin on my face from observing the mental contortions required for someone to "agree" with the Axioms. If reality is agreement, then the planet really was flat until it became spherical. See, just like the "what's true for you" mindfuck, the purpose of the reality = agreement mind fuck is to provide a means to get an individual Scientologist to accept Scientology (which is the view expressed by surrounding Scientologists) as being ‘objective’. Its a trick to get an individual to dispense with evidence, verification, supporting reasoning or any of the usual tools used to decipher the nature of reality. This definition is constructed so as to neatly side-step all the techniques of critical-thought.
 
They shouldn't. But don't tell that to some people on ESMB because they are convinced that every single thing that Hubbard ever said, touched, smelled, tasted or even dreamed about is pure evil defined. You cannot reason with that kind of mindset so I'm learning to ignore them.

For me, the "journey" since I've been on this board has been sifting through and determining for myself what was "batshit crazy" and what actually made sense. And I am very far from my destination on that particular path.

But at least now I can acknowledge that all the things I thought didn't make sense or used to "wonder about", really and truly didn't make any sense. I can look with a critical eye at a lot of the things I used to accept on utter faith and see them in a whole new light now. And that is really great. If I get nothing else from the different viewpoints expressed on ESMB and elsewhere, at least I've gotten that.

do i look like i have some sort of relationship with reason?

mimsey speaks out from atacks by way of ortega, a sort of a kingston trio sort of post short on downbeat and melody. how the fuck are my counterpoint licks gonna get in th pocket and rock the baby?

what "take on hubbard's cosmology?"

does one take on dante's cosmology in the divine comedy?

naw...

ya riff off a cosmology

the only question is did the cat lay in some lead lines you can jam in on

helatrobus rocks man!

helatrobus would make a great name for a passaic new jersey niteclub run by some syphilitic second cousin of the local cosa nostra underboss
 
Top