Psychiatry and Psychology in the Writings of L. Ron Hubbard

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Show me a person without a body, let me interact with them in any way, and I will acknowledge that the body is not the seat of consciousness.
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
????

all right SF

i do understand you would shitcan the whole thing

i don't understand this post

could you briefly illuminate the statement?

I assumed that the "man is mud" position you were claiming would be replaced by Scientology is essentially the reductionist position, i.e the view that humans -- like everything else -- are essentially the sum of their parts and everything about humans can be explained in terms of physical processes.

The arguments against reductionism usually claim that certain things (consciousness, evolution, the abiogenesis, the creation of the universe, etc.) require some organizing principal that is not explainable solely in terms of the behaviour of the lower-level processes. In this view, consciousness dictates the behaviour of processes within the body rather than arising from processes within the body.

The arguments against reductionism typically focusses on gaps in our knowledge. As gaps in our knowledge shrink, this pool of arguments shrinks.

The more we learn about the brain and consciousness, the more the reductionist view has held up.

While it is possible that neuroscience will suddenly conclude that Hubbard was right and we aren't just bits of dead stars (which is both more accurate and more poetic than "mud") but it does not presently seem likely.
 
I assumed that the "man is mud" position you were claiming would be replaced by Scientology is essentially the reductionist position, i.e the view that humans -- like everything else -- are essentially the sum of their parts and everything about humans can be explained in terms of physical processes.

The arguments against reductionism usually claim that certain things (consciousness, evolution, the abiogenesis, the creation of the universe, etc.) require some organizing principal that is not explainable solely in terms of the behaviour of the lower-level processes. In this view, consciousness dictates the behaviour of processes within the body rather than arising from processes within the body.

The arguments against reductionism typically focusses on gaps in our knowledge. As gaps in our knowledge shrink, this pool of arguments shrinks.

The more we learn about the brain and consciousness, the more the reductionist view has held up.

While it is possible that neuroscience will suddenly conclude that Hubbard was right and we aren't just bits of dead stars (which is both more accurate and more poetic than "mud") but it does not presently seem likely.

ahhh!!!

thank you very much!

thoroughly unfamiliar with the intelectual construct known as "reductionism" your original post was, shall we say, clear as mud. and more opaque than bits of dead stars. and this you have clarified with brevity and eloquence

however...

intelectualizing the spirit invariably achieves the same results as cheating at solitaire; whoever holds the deck wins

i am among many on this board who have given simple account of personal spiritual experience. in the arena of written dialogue fine gauzy veils can be spun around all such statements and wrapped so tightly about the witness he or she might fear to succumb to asphyxiation

but to have breath within this world and stand in daylight with the tapestry of decades strung across the hills of time like christo's "running fence" i can argue you to a draw each match until you will no longer defeat yourself
 
I appreciate the sentiment, but without evidence, I'll hold that statement in the "unevaluated" section of my mind.

i wish i could find where i told of tending my lifelong best pal and ace henchman as we wrote his closing chapter dying of cancer. quite intense especially that day he napped after lunch and as i sat beside him the stillness of the moment filled a most indescribable serenity as to make me wonder if i were in the presence of an angel and on which side of the pale my chum's nap would end. it was this and i quickly inquired of perhaps his dream. his dessicated face was painted with astonishment and he spoke of being in the room, in every corner of the room...

and all the rest of that day he was of the most easy spirited temperment, his prone and shriveling body virtually immobile he was yet as vibrant and alive as ever i had known him

quit unevaluating the unevaluable and fukkin' live the life of it ya dumbass hibernian mackrelsnapper outethics papist rumguzzler
 
I assumed that the "man is mud" position you were claiming would be replaced by Scientology is essentially the reductionist position, i.e the view that humans -- like everything else -- are essentially the sum of their parts and everything about humans can be explained in terms of physical processes.

The arguments against reductionism usually claim that certain things (consciousness, evolution, the abiogenesis, the creation of the universe, etc.) require some organizing principal that is not explainable solely in terms of the behaviour of the lower-level processes. In this view, consciousness dictates the behaviour of processes within the body rather than arising from processes within the body.

The arguments against reductionism typically focusses on gaps in our knowledge. As gaps in our knowledge shrink, this pool of arguments shrinks.

The more we learn about the brain and consciousness, the more the reductionist view has held up.

While it is possible that neuroscience will suddenly conclude that Hubbard was right and we aren't just bits of dead stars (which is both more accurate and more poetic than "mud") but it does not presently seem likely.

as to gaps in our knowledge, no less a pioneer than einstein said "we don't know a tenth of one percent about anything"

indeed as our knowledge grows exponentially so to does our ignorance

but again, airplanes, atom bombs and air conditioners are achieved with honed intellect but not the spirit.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
i wish i could find where i told of tending my lifelong best pal and ace henchman as we wrote his closing chapter dying of cancer. quite intense especially that day he napped after lunch and as i sat beside him the stillness of the moment filled a most indescribable serenity as to make me wonder if i were in the presence of an angel and on which side of the pale my chum's nap would end. it was this and i quickly inquired of perhaps his dream. his dessicated face was painted with astonishment and he spoke of being in the room, in every corner of the room...

and all the rest of that day he was of the most easy spirited temperment, his prone and shriveling body virtually immobile he was yet as vibrant and alive as ever i had known him

quit unevaluating the unevaluable and fukkin' live the life of it ya dumbass hibernian mackrelsnapper outethics papist rumguzzler

I'll take that as a compliment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QdY4gfR7iY
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I assumed that the "man is mud" position you were claiming would be replaced by Scientology is essentially the reductionist position, i.e the view that humans -- like everything else -- are essentially the sum of their parts and everything about humans can be explained in terms of physical processes.

The arguments against reductionism usually claim that certain things (consciousness, evolution, the abiogenesis, the creation of the universe, etc.) require some organizing principal that is not explainable solely in terms of the behaviour of the lower-level processes. In this view, consciousness dictates the behaviour of processes within the body rather than arising from processes within the body.

The arguments against reductionism typically focusses on gaps in our knowledge. As gaps in our knowledge shrink, this pool of arguments shrinks.

The more we learn about the brain and consciousness, the more the reductionist view has held up.

While it is possible that neuroscience will suddenly conclude that Hubbard was right and we aren't just bits of dead stars (which is both more accurate and more poetic than "mud") but it does not presently seem likely.

There are two basic tendencies in the universe. Entropy (towards dissolution and chaos) and Syntropy (towards order and coherence). Life seems to be syntropic.
 
There are two basic tendencies in the universe. Entropy (towards dissolution and chaos) and Syntropy (towards order and coherence). Life seems to be syntropic.

Aren't there some tendencies in the universe that start towards dissolution and then find out they have become coherent and then go back the other way and do a few twists while the onlookers wait with great fascination to find out which way are they gonna go...this way or that way.....and the onlookers wonder which way they themselves are going....some coherently wondering and some not quite so much...depending on....etc.

Just wondering.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Aren't there some tendencies in the universe that start towards dissolution and then find out they have become coherent and then go back the other way and do a few twists while the onlookers wait with great fascination to find out which way are they gonna go...this way or that way.....and the onlookers wonder which way they themselves are going....some coherently wondering and some not quite so much...depending on....etc.

Just wondering.

Yes, I think some of them trade stocks, bonds, futures, forex, and the bet on ponies...
 

petal

Patron Meritorious
If ron being a psychologist for 30 odd years, and his research was rejected by the AMA (dianetics)
He could of turned to religion and spritual belief as he belives as a mental illness and so the whole of dianetics turned to psychology thinly disguised with a slant of spiritual layer. Thus supplying a stream of customers who will be cured of there mental illness with scientology. The end result will be a person whos belief will be reduced to non existance, including there bank account.
petal:p
 
And, if I'm not mistaken, lilies are, like us, composed of mud. :)

consider the lilies of the field, they toil not neither do they reap yet solomon in all his glory was not so brilliantly arrayed. if the lord care so for the grasses of the field which are nothing, which are here today and tomorrow are cast into the fire how much more will he care for you who are everything?

mud?

say as you will

but sight unseen i'll warrant you for doing better than you say
 
Top