Scientology: hard and soft, tech and religion

yon8008

Patron with Honors
Start with the parts you avoid as tho they were Kryptonite.

Interesting: I don't see any parts of Scientology that I avoid. I am an individual first, and recast everything to the maximum advantage of all people based on my perspective. I encourage others make self-determined evaluations of everything. There are no viewpoints that I am actively resisting, and only a few that I haven't duplicated. So what is this mystery 'secretive' aspect of Scientology that you postulate I am avoiding like kryptonite. Out with it so that I can learn a new perspective.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Zinj,
I can admit to being tendentious (Biased) - thanks for the new word.

But it's unclear if you are simply brushing off my statements by admitting that YOU are "marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tendentious ) or if you were using a fault shifting vaguly invalidative evasion.

Actually, my point is that Scientology's 'jargonism' is tendentious. It implies what's not in evidence and a good Scientologist accepts the *implication* in lieu of any referent.

There is no 'clear'. There is no 'OT'. There are no 'SPs' as *defined* by Ron. Ron's Jargon describes a fantasy world inhabited by the unwary.

Zinj
 

Veda

Sponsor
Interesting: I don't see any parts of Scientology that I avoid.

Perhaps, then, you are oblivious.

I'm not here to bottle feed you.

The information is available if you wish to examine it.

But you'll have to do your own homework.

As a super intelligent Neo-thinker that should be easy enough.
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
Actually, my point is that Scientology's 'jargonism' is tendentious. It implies what's not in evidence and a good Scientologist accepts the *implication* in lieu of any referent.

There is no 'clear'. There is no 'OT'. There are no 'SPs' as *defined* by Ron. Ron's Jargon describes a fantasy world inhabited by the unwary.

Zinj

Unwary: Not alert to danger or deception
I would agree that many people in Scientology may not be alert to the danger or deception with which they are dealing.

Comparison of all data in Scientology to Reality and Actuality is vital - by LOOKING you can decide whether any particular statement was literal valid, metaphorically valid, used for hyperbolic effect only, or what. The evaluation of each datum is the responsibility of each individual.

Scientology fails to emphasize this point sufficiently, but it is contained within The Logics.

When individuals fail to find out if and HOW any particular datum is true in THE REAL WORLD, and accept some confused idea about it, they may perhaps become 'good scientologists' but they betray themselves.
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
Perhaps, then, you are oblivious.

I'm not here to bottle feed you.

The information is available to you if you wish to examine it.

As a super intelligent Neo-thinker that should be easy enough.

Oblivious: I am always willing to consider that there is something that I don't even know that I don't know.

A link or a hint would have sufficed. Too much information is more the challenge that availability.

Thanks for the compliment, I don't expect acquiring a new perspective will pose too much difficulty. I change my mind daily as new data is obtained.

If you have a perspective you think I might benefit from, I sincerely ask that you help me in finding it. I am already actively seeking as much new information on a daily basis as I am able - allowing others to expand my search is a pleasure.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Oblivious: I am always willing to consider that there is something that I don't even know that I don't know.

A link or a hint would have sufficed. Too much information is more the challenge that availability.

Thanks for the compliment, I don't expect acquiring a new perspective will pose too much difficulty. I change my mind daily as new data is obtained.

If you have a perspective you think I might benefit from, I sincerely ask that you help me in finding it. I am already actively seeking as much new information on a daily basis as I am able - allowing others to expand my search is a pleasure.
Deleted.
 
Last edited:

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
When individuals fail to find out if and HOW any particular datum is true in THE REAL WORLD, and accept some confused idea about it, they may perhaps become 'good scientologists' but they betray themselves.


Welcome to the end product that Lcon envisioned for his adepts.


It's all to obvious that Scn is setup so as cause it's pupils the difficulty and confusion of determining what is actually useful as opposed to utter bullshit. The only rapid way of doing so is to step away and do some research.

The 'observe if it's true' option that your posts supports is intolerable as by the time one has progressed far enough to have figured out all of the bullshit parts (90% of it)... a quarter of his life has passed and half or more of his fortune has been depleted.

The prudent choice is to extensively research, (all available information from OTHER sources), of any offered spiritual help that comes with a price tag and or offers INCREDIBLE SOLUTIONS.... BEFORE taking it up or giving one red cent to that group or person.
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
I and others have provided many dozens of links and hints.

You've managed to overlook them all.

Gosh.

Here is a little scale of viewpoint

0) Scientology is irrelevant - a non-subject - no further analysis warranted.
1) Scientology is totally destructive, a life/time/money-sucking trap, and should end at all levels: Organizationally, the tech, the subject. And everyone currently interested in it should stop that and look elsewhere for whatever it is they are looking for.
2) Scientology is almost completely destructive, the tech is akin to raisins in poop, and not worth digging into, the organization/RTC/etc is a global liability.
3) Scientology organization/CoS/RTC/etc is separable from the Technology, which has an likely meaningless/fraudulent unreal 'hard' line - and a likely workable 'soft' aspect - possibly/probably available for cheaper elsewhere.
4) Scientology organization/CoS/RTC/etc is not so bad, mistakes and mismanagement have occurred, but man is basically good.
5) The Technology works, "at least up to the point that I've gone so far".
6) The technology is incredible: It All Works - (asserted, with or without personal experience and results).
7) LRH, The Church of Scientology, and the Tech are all infallible.
8) The stated goals of LRH/Scientology (as opposed to their actual goals) are valid and worth pursuing - and the route of that pursuit should be totally open-ended, self-determined, and without artificial/arbitrary barriers.

Its not really a linear scale. Your sentiments on each of the following could be plotted on a scale:

- The value/workability of each aspect of the technology/subject matter, and the technology/subject as a whole
- LRH as a mouthpiece
- CoS/RTC/DM as a management vehicle

And for each of these, we each have our own level of personal experience, and familiarity with other people's experience.

-----------------------
Before reading on this forum I really had not considered: 0, 1, 2, or 3 above. All of which I can now appreciate.
Also, as a result of this forum, I have evolved a better statement of my position which numbered 8 above.

If there is some other perspective that you think is valuable, and it is not at least partially represented on the list above, I would be interested in it. But I have made efforts to read EVERY post in this thread and the previous thread. I'm not saying that I didn't miss something, and if you think that I have, please help me find it... if you think that I might be worth the effort.

My guess now is that you simply have not read my posts (admittedly they are longer than most), jumping to conclusions or not making an effort to understand my unique positions, and then asserting that I've missed something in your posts.

Oh well, honesty as a process moves us each forward as individuals. Those that don't make the effort to progress into the future by discovering and integrating new viewpoints, end up obsolete and irrelevant in a stagnated glory-days past, out of touch with the ever new, ever exciting, ever expanding present.
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
Welcome to the end product that Lcon envisioned for his adepts.


It's all to obvious that Scn is setup so as cause it's pupils the difficulty and confusion of determining what is actually useful as opposed to utter bullshit. The only rapid way of doing so is to step away and do some research.

The 'observe if it's true' option that your posts supports is intolerable as by the time one has progressed far enough to have figured out all of the bullshit parts (90% of it)... a quarter of his life has passed and half or more of his fortune has been depleted.

The prudent choice is to extensively research, (all available information from OTHER sources), of any offered spiritual help that comes with a price tag and or offers INCREDIBLE SOLUTIONS.... BEFORE taking it up or giving one red cent to that group or person.

Agreed. And as you have said, my total expenditure to CoS is $25 for a Hubbard Dianetics Seminar - everything else has been study of second hand materials - integrating the data ON MY OWN - and working with friends I have made outside of the church who were either trained in the church and left or have studied outside the church as I did.

But the most obvious real world solution to the destruction of lives wraught by the current system is not to vilify the current system into the ground - it is to PUT SOMETHING BETTER THERE!

For the 5000 True-Believer Scientologists left in the world, creating something that delivers better results, at cheaper prices, will be the final nail in the coffin for the Church of Scientology. Until someone/something is able to do that CoS will have insufficient incentive to change (eventually it's own impending collapse will be seen as real and the cash machine will grind to a hold). But then what happens? Will we just have another revision of the same?

The only long term solution is to capture the goal lines! Build a BETTER GAME! And build that new game with a built in OPEN-END growth opportunities - so that anyone who disagrees on some point is free and able to experiment and get better results and win out over any stagnated static.

May the BEST VALUE prosper and flourish!
- Yon
 
Last edited:

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I found a Scientology dictionary, on a Belgian anti-Scientology site — it was near the top of the Google page. It was a lot more complete than the version on the CofS site, and although it included a few terms about critical groups, its definitions of Scientology terms appeared neutral.

It's true that all these terms have definitions, and the definitions are not merely gobbledegook. A few are inadequate because they use further jargon terms that are not defined as used. 'Computation', for instance, appears in the definition of 'service facsimile', but no ordinary definition of 'computation' really makes sense in the way it is used here, and 'computation' is not in the Scientology dictionary. Mostly, though, the definitions appear to be adequate.

There is still a serious problem with Scientologese, and in fact it seems to be the very problem I was suspecting. Scientologese has got the hard/soft bait-and-switch baked right in, because it works to erase any distinction between entirely hypothetical Scientology concepts, and ordinary, concrete reality. It does this by including terms that refer entirely to hypothetical entities like engrams, as well as terms that refer entirely to real concrete things like the laughter or happiness of 'very good indicators'. And there are a lot of of Hubbardian neologisms that vaguely encompass both hypothetical and real, like 'flow', which seems to slide back and forth between meaning such concrete things as cash transfer, and such hypothetical things as keying in an engram. So you can slide between using a word as a mere label for manifestly real things, to using it to invoke a hypothesis, without even noticing the change. This is how Scientologese is, as Zinjafar says, tendentious.

In other words, the bad part of Scientologese is not the special terms for unique hypothetical concepts, but the special terms that extend to ordinary things as well. Their use lends credence, subliminally, to all the other terms. It's a lot harder to question whether engrams are real, when you've gotten used to talking about them in the same language you use to talk about your bank account. Conversely, it's harder to form the recognition that you've spent a thousand dollars for a few minutes of euphoria, when the language you use for everyday life is the same terminology used to assert that those euphoric 'releases' are proofs of precious 'case gain'.

Hubbard evidently loved to coin his own terms for things, and he seems to have given Scientologists his own special terms for practically everything, not just for the new concepts he invented. This is not just a harmless quirk.
 

Mystic

Crusader
21mybl0.gif
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
I found a Scientology dictionary, on a Belgian anti-Scientology site — it was near the top of the Google page. It was a lot more complete than the version on the CofS site, and although it included a few terms about critical groups, its definitions of Scientology terms appeared neutral.

It's true that all these terms have definitions, and the definitions are not merely gobbledegook. A few are inadequate because they use further jargon terms that are not defined as used. 'Computation', for instance, appears in the definition of 'service facsimile', but no ordinary definition of 'computation' really makes sense in the way it is used here, and 'computation' is not in the Scientology dictionary. Mostly, though, the definitions appear to be adequate.

There is still a serious problem with Scientologese, and in fact it seems to be the very problem I was suspecting. Scientologese has got the hard/soft bait-and-switch baked right in, because it works to erase any distinction between entirely hypothetical Scientology concepts, and ordinary, concrete reality. It does this by including terms that refer entirely to hypothetical entities like engrams, as well as terms that refer entirely to real concrete things like the laughter or happiness of 'very good indicators'. And there are a lot of of Hubbardian neologisms that vaguely encompass both hypothetical and real, like 'flow', which seems to slide back and forth between meaning such concrete things as cash transfer, and such hypothetical things as keying in an engram. So you can slide between using a word as a mere label for manifestly real things, to using it to invoke a hypothesis, without even noticing the change. This is how Scientologese is, as Zinjafar says, tendentious.

In other words, the bad part of Scientologese is not the special terms for unique hypothetical concepts, but the special terms that extend to ordinary things as well. Their use lends credence, subliminally, to all the other terms. It's a lot harder to question whether engrams are real, when you've gotten used to talking about them in the same language you use to talk about your bank account. Conversely, it's harder to form the recognition that you've spent a thousand dollars for a few minutes of euphoria, when the language you use for everyday life is the same terminology used to assert that those euphoric 'releases' are proofs of precious 'case gain'.

Hubbard evidently loved to coin his own terms for things, and he seems to have given Scientologists his own special terms for practically everything, not just for the new concepts he invented. This is not just a harmless quirk.

By Looking at the Scientology dictionary for the definitions of terms and attempting to decide which terms are 'real' and which are 'hypothetical', you are making a number of assumptions. You're missing some context.

Is an Engram Real?

There is a 'hypothetical engram' - it consists of "a mental picture of pain and unconsciousness that reacts upon consciousness automatically when certain restimulators are present in the present time environment."

This is not something to be THOUGHT ABOUT - the context for this concept is - "now lets see if there is anything like that?" And sure enough, if you look, you will find it as a real experience that you have had hundreds of times. Does it mean that 'the reactive mind is real'? NO, but, after you have had first hand personal experience with an engram keying in, you know that there really is some phenomenon that seems to be modeled by the words 'engram', 'reactive mind', and 'key-in'. If you don't know the theory, you wouldn't know what to look for. If you do know the theory, you can likely find hundreds of examples from your life. If you can't find any examples from your personal life, my guess is that Scientology would be a waste of time for you. It's an awareness thing - if someone can't LOOK for himself to A) find out what the theory says, and B) see if it is real by simply comparing the theory to his personal experience - then he is not going to get anywhere investigating the subject.

Read Dianetics, or Watch The Visual Guidebook to the Mind (D:VG2M) that was provided to you for free earlier in these threads. Once you know the theory, then Decide for yourself whether or not the PHENOMENON which is MODELED by the theory of Dianetics is REAL TO YOU.

Scientology has done a piss poor job of making itself understandable. Confusions abound. If someone wants Scientology to work, s/he would need to find the right context in which to place each datum. Pick up one datum, compare it to the real world, find the context in which it is real and valid.

You might say, "but that is obviously self-deception and self-hypnosis", yes and no - it is the process of extracting the raisins from the poop - it is the process of undoing LRHs confusions - it ends you up with your own understanding of the subject, that compares to reality, and works: up to the level that you have seen it work. The only reason to go to this effort is because you believe the stated goals of the subject are valuable and worth working towards. This process is what LRH instructs that people do, but somewhere along the line it was dropped out. I put it back in for my own personal study because it seemed like ... the most important datum in all of Scientology.

Anyone who hasn't done this, likely has misconceptions that result in a difference between expectations and results. Doing it, you would set your expectations based on your results.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I found a Scientology dictionary, on a Belgian anti-Scientology site — it was near the top of the Google page. It was a lot more complete than the version on the CofS site, and although it included a few terms about critical groups, its definitions of Scientology terms appeared neutral.

It's true that all these terms have definitions, and the definitions are not merely gobbledegook. A few are inadequate because they use further jargon terms that are not defined as used. 'Computation', for instance, appears in the definition of 'service facsimile', but no ordinary definition of 'computation' really makes sense in the way it is used here, and 'computation' is not in the Scientology dictionary. Mostly, though, the definitions appear to be adequate.

There is still a serious problem with Scientologese, and in fact it seems to be the very problem I was suspecting. Scientologese has got the hard/soft bait-and-switch baked right in, because it works to erase any distinction between entirely hypothetical Scientology concepts, and ordinary, concrete reality. It does this by including terms that refer entirely to hypothetical entities like engrams, as well as terms that refer entirely to real concrete things like the laughter or happiness of 'very good indicators'. And there are a lot of of Hubbardian neologisms that vaguely encompass both hypothetical and real, like 'flow', which seems to slide back and forth between meaning such concrete things as cash transfer, and such hypothetical things as keying in an engram. So you can slide between using a word as a mere label for manifestly real things, to using it to invoke a hypothesis, without even noticing the change. This is how Scientologese is, as Zinjafar says, tendentious.

In other words, the bad part of Scientologese is not the special terms for unique hypothetical concepts, but the special terms that extend to ordinary things as well. Their use lends credence, subliminally, to all the other terms. It's a lot harder to question whether engrams are real, when you've gotten used to talking about them in the same language you use to talk about your bank account. Conversely, it's harder to form the recognition that you've spent a thousand dollars for a few minutes of euphoria, when the language you use for everyday life is the same terminology used to assert that those euphoric 'releases' are proofs of precious 'case gain'.

Hubbard evidently loved to coin his own terms for things, and he seems to have given Scientologists his own special terms for practically everything, not just for the new concepts he invented. This is not just a harmless quirk.

Hmmm.

You seem antagonistic. Got no problems with that.

The Scientology technical dictionary , def of computation:-

" techninally,that abberated evaluation and postulate that one must be
in a certain state in order to succeed. The computation thus may mean
that one must entertain in order to be alive ot that one must be dignified
in order to succeed or that one must own much in order to live. A computation is simply stated. It is always aberrated. A computation is as insidious as it pretends to align with survival. All computations are
nonsurvival. Computations are held in place wholly to invalidate others."

Being in academia you may find this relates to things you have experienced.

Rather than looking at ideas to make them wrong, try looking to see what might be right about them, or what you may learn from them.

This def above has no relation to so called bait and switch.

" Flow " is fairly straightforward. Tech dict. 1] an impulse or direction of energy particles or thought or masses between terminals."

Engrams? Try Traumatic incident. Then prove engrams don't exist!

You said:-

Conversely, it's harder to form the recognition that you've spent a thousand dollars for a few minutes of euphoria, when the language you use for everyday life is the same terminology used to assert that those euphoric 'releases' are proofs of precious 'case gain'.

You are clearly looking at scn ideas to make them wrong. You should try to see what is valuable about them before making conclusions.

You are failing in that regard.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
This definition of computation didn't happen to be in the version of the dictionary I found online (Google's top hit for 'Scientology dictionary'). I concede that it's a reasonable one, though a bit awkward, since the normal meaning of 'computation' has nothing to do with that. Evidently the minor criticism I made of the dictionary I found, that it was occasionally incomplete, does not apply to better versions.

But I made it as a minor criticism, and acknowledged that even the version I had found was a pretty thorough dictionary. My main complaint about Scientologese was that as well as introducing technical terms for its original concepts, it introduces special terms for ordinary real things, in such a way as to blur or hide the distinction between concrete reality and the hypotheses of Scientology. This is a serious problem in itself, independent of whether Scientology is good, bad, or indifferent. Even if Scientology did everything it claimed, this would be a legitimate criticism of its use of language, and a call for clarification and improvement by radically pruning the hedge of jargon.

As I've said before, I do not doubt that good things can be found in Scientology. I do doubt that anything as extremely good as Scientology's extreme claims can be found there; I also doubt that the good things that are to be found in Scientology are unique to Scientology. I strongly suspect they can be found elsewhere, and with fewer strings attached. I therefore have a hard time seeing how Scientology could really be attractive to an informed and unbiased outsider, other than through the false extreme claims that I call 'hard' Scientology. I admit this attitude of mine is a form of antagonism, but it's not just a mindless prejudice that Scientology is all bad. It's the viewpoint that 'soft' Scientology is operating in a very competitive space, with lots of alternatives offering comparable benefits, so that merely having some good in it is not good enough to make Scientology worthwhile. The bar is higher than that.

Let me put the language issue this way. From an honest non-fundamentalist Scientologist's point of view, what would be wrong with radically purging the dictionary, by replacing as many terms as possible — hopefully, all of them or nearly all — with more ordinary ones of common speech? What would really be lost, that wouldn't be outweighed by the gain in transparency?

The antagonistic guess is, that the only actual loss would be that an awful lot of Scientology would suddenly sound either ridiculous, or banal. If it wouldn't, then that sounds like awfully good reason to drop the cumbersome jargon.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Very nice post

Hmmm.

You seem antagonistic. Got no problems with that.

The Scientology technical dictionary , def of computation:-

" techninally,that abberated evaluation and postulate that one must be
in a certain state in order to succeed. The computation thus may mean
that one must entertain in order to be alive ot that one must be dignified
in order to succeed or that one must own much in order to live. A computation is simply stated. It is always aberrated. A computation is as insidious as it pretends to align with survival. All computations are
nonsurvival. Computations are held in place wholly to invalidate others."

Being in academia you may find this relates to things you have experienced.

Rather than looking at ideas to make them wrong, try looking to see what might be right about them, or what you may learn from them.

This def above has no relation to so called bait and switch.

" Flow " is fairly straightforward. Tech dict. 1] an impulse or direction of energy particles or thought or masses between terminals."

Engrams? Try Traumatic incident. Then prove engrams don't exist!

You said:-

Conversely, it's harder to form the recognition that you've spent a thousand dollars for a few minutes of euphoria, when the language you use for everyday life is the same terminology used to assert that those euphoric 'releases' are proofs of precious 'case gain'.

You are clearly looking at scn ideas to make them wrong. You should try to see what is valuable about them before making conclusions.

You are failing in that regard.

Excellent, Terril! I knew that S of T did not know that he did not know and I might be the one responsible for getting him to find the Scientollogy dictionary. I think your post sums up his situation optimally. You went very "A to B". (There is another term for S of T to look up). If he really wants to learn more, you have told him perfectly how to do so and if he just wants to come here only to confim that his original feelings were correct and dismiss the subject without properly studying and trying out the principles then both you and I did our best to help him, but I think you did it better.
Lakey
 
This definition of computation didn't happen to be in the version of the dictionary I found online (Google's top hit for 'Scientology dictionary').

That is hardly surprising. Lord knows who wrote the scientology dictionary you chose as a reference. Even the "official" Co$ dictionary has serious flaws as a reference being only a partial compilation of material from LRH lectures, books, bulletins & policies which are commonly unknown, ambiguous, are misunderstood by students of scientology. It's adequate for the purpose of study but not truly "definitive".

Scientology terms derive meaning from the way LRH used them in his books & lectures. The context of usage is very much dependent on the way LRH uses a term in a given book or lecture. These things changed as his views about things changed.

LRH was principally an ORAL communicator. Even his writing reflects his speech patterns. If you want to know what the terms mean in Co$ scientology usage you will need to study the materials that LRH created. In particular, actually listening to his many tapes is important to understand the way in which he communicates. LRH was not academic in his formal presentation. Informality of speech & writing was his natural mode of expression.

In order to study the LRH material it will also help you tremendously if you are more than moderately familiar with archaic popular idiom of both the u.s. & u.k. from the late 19th century 'til the mid-20th. LRH makes frequent references to idioms of speech from both sides of the Atlantic which have not been current since the WWII era.

As I've mentioned before, the Clearbird material is easier to understand and contains its own glossary. However, it is much more limited than the full scope of Hubbard's work being targeted to training independent auditors in the fundamentals of basic scientology practice & the auditing of the "lower bridge".

If you simply want to study the key concepts of scientology in a fairly clear & easy to follow fashion: use Clearbird.

If your purpose is to critique Hubbard, then you will have to study his original source materials in their self-contradictory & ambivalent glory fully and directly.

There are no good reliable third party sources extent. Those which exist are deeply lacking and often misleading, sometimes for reasons of polemical intention.


Mark A. Baker
 
Let me put the language issue this way. From an honest non-fundamentalist Scientologist's point of view, what would be wrong with radically purging the dictionary, by replacing as many terms as possible — hopefully, all of them or nearly all — with more ordinary ones of common speech?

Nothing would be wrong with it. However, apart for some "academic" interest in the study of Hubbard's contributions to scientology this endeavor would be largely pointless. If I may remind you neither, Hubbard, the Co$, nor those persons actually using scientology technology for varying reasons have as a high priority an academic study of the contributions of LRH to the practice of scientology.

For the actual purposes of those with a legitimate interest in the field of spiritual technologies generally and scientology technology specifically, it would be far better to write NEW materials which seek to organize what is valuable about the practices of scientology in a more consistent & clear fashion and so as to eliminate those aspects of traditional scientology which are self-contradictory or simply lacking utility.

Clearbird has been one such attempt at this. :)

Additionally new materials can seek to incorporate additonal data which are not at present as a part of the standard scientology repetoire but which experienced practitioners have found to be useful in promoting the aims of the subject of scientology.


Mark A. Baker
 
Top