Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
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
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