Scientology: hard and soft, tech and religion

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I'm all for any sane being putting in some control here. But remember that real control is not done with duress or violence or punishment. The best control is "Start Change Stop" through voluntary compliance. And voluntary compliance is achieved by communicating the following:
A) a vision that is beautiful enough to work towards &
B) a route/plan to achieve that vision which a significant number of people can accept and contribute to.

Positive control that achieves A & B on a voluntary basis is far better than chaos and compulsive stop.

LRH's hyperbolic sales pitch stimulates people in the direction of A.
Obama's hope and change was stimulation in the direction of A.
But Scientology and the Co$ have largely failed at B.
Obama's implementation plan also fails in at B.


Control through Tone 40? Real Tone 40 is wonderful! but few people actually have any idea what it is. It is not shouting or forceful - it is pure love and serenity that genuinely inspires a willingness to cooperate and contribute. Arguments and resistance evaporate. Everyone loves real Tone 40 Control.

The purpose of Scientology Ethics is to eliminate counter intention from the environment. After that's accomplished, the purpose becomes to eliminate *other* intention.

Sounds oh so 'voluntary'.

Zinj
 
Is this a fair analysis?

No. :no:

You are confusing too many separate aspects and combining them in such a way as to fit with your prior assumptions when they represent phenomena for which there is no clear evidence that they in fact conform to those assumptions.

For instance, your comments re "exteriorization" mandates a physical interpretation as if some "physical" thing exteriorizes into a physical environment. Such an assumption is itself faulty. The phenomenon of "exteriorization" as reported by individual scientologists is experienced as a shift in mental state, i.e. a wholly subjective phenomena. There is nothing to map it to any known physical phenomena. Similiarly perceptual experiences relating to "exteriorization" are also mental phenomena and thereby wholly subjective.

One can test such phenomena for an individual's apparent ability, or lack therof, to represent a state of knowledge concerning the current physical environment of that individual. But that does not actually serve as an objective test of the person's experience; it merely serves to test how well his experience maps to his present apparent physical environment.

Until such time as physical science has a proven & tested model for consciousness based wholly on known physical observables there is no refutation possible for such claims. Here the physical sciences can do little more than comment on the observed statistical probabilities occuring in any specific attempt to measure extrasensory phenomena. And that basically just misses the whole point of active spiritual progression. :duh:

If the goal is simply to disprove the full extent of Hubbard's remarks. Nowhere near this much effort is required. His work is full of self-contradictions as well as hyperbolic excess. There are no published records of his actual "research", nor has any attempt been made to replace that absence. Scientifically, he's simply not a credible source.

However, whereas scientology does NOT qualify as a science. It DOES qualify as a technology, specifically a technology for spiritual development and growth. Formal academic work is not an essential element in evolving technologies. All that is required are the progressive development of practices useful for a stated end.

The bases of scientology practice are processes & routines for which a systematic body of data exists, and has existed for several decades, and which supports the use of the tech for the purpose intended, i.e. personal insight & spiritual growth. :)

Moreover, physics has nothing useful to contribute as a tool or technique specifically for the purpose of spiritual growth. :whistling:

Real phenomena underly many of the excessive claims of Hubbard. Such phenomena may be "subjective", but then all MENTAL states are. Even more so the even more subtle "spiritual" states. The subjective experience of "exteriorization" is quite a common occurrence among scientologists. It happens early & it happens often. In deed, I've found in conversations with many non-scientologists that it is not uncommonly reported by others as a "spiritual" experience.

Traditionally such easily lend themselves to transcendent and metaphysical interpretations. If true, they would lie outside the realm of the physical sciences to examine. For physical science to offer a meaningful interpretation of such events it MUST first evolve a meaningful paradigm which accurately describes & predicts the experience of mind from physical antecedents. So far, all scientific extended claims to have done this have been even less substantive than Hubbard's work. :coolwink:

Physics is a powerful intellectual endeavor, but it is limited precisely by the assumptions it makes with regard to the inherent "mensurability" of phenomena. There is no inherent reason that any, much less ALL subjective experiences MUST be "objectively" measurable. To assume this to be necessarily true requires that the being be identical to a physically definite and restricted form, i.e. that very issue which is to be examined.

[n.b. With regard to: There is no inherent reason that any, much less ALL subjective experiences MUST be "objectively" measurable.

In point of fact the reverse is true. All humans experience the world in a wholly "subjective" manner. We interpret a part of our subjective experience as being "objective" and thus "measurable". It's Valentine's Day today. Have you had much success in "measuring" how much you love your spouse? How do those "measurements" correlate with other possible measures? :whistling:]


Mark A. Baker
 

Mystic

Crusader
I'm not sure your intention/meaning with the first sentence unless you are expressing a desire for something to be 'not found out'.

As for the second: I've never been. But I won't be going there until I'm ready to shut it down with aesthetically stimulating rationality.

Oh cute. It said something from its OSA hole.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
"When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe -- never permit an "open-minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us -- win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers survive -- and even they have a hard time. We'll survive because we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and that lets everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. Humor her and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, "You're here so you're a Scientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable."

There's no place for 'soft Scientology' in Scientology except as an appetizer.

Zinj

The way out is the way through. :)

Been there done that.

The above passage is social engineering, propaganda, and one might give many other names. And I detest this passage.

However, it has as the goal making capable auditors. Its probably mostly created fanatics.

This talk of the "narrow taped path".......you have to walk through passages like the above and come out the other side with the goal of
making the world a better place for everyone even those who do not
belong to COS.

It is quite possible, and it seems though from the evidence we have difficult, to come out the other side of the fundamentalist fascism
encouraged by many.

As far as I'm concerned it can still be called scientology.

And that is a burdon.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
For instance, your comments re "exteriorization" mandates a physical interpretation as if some "physical" thing exteriorizes into a physical environment. Such an assumption is itself faulty. The phenomenon of "exteriorization" as reported by individual scientologists is experienced as a shift in mental state, i.e. a wholly subjective phenomena.


Mark A. Baker

To be fair, the Scientology usage of 'going exterior' tends to be a dog's breakfast. Most Wogs who hear a Scientologist use the term would be thinking things like 'Out of Body Experience' etc., while the scientologist may be just describing feeling a little dizzy as 'exterior'.

The 'exterior with full perceptics' version tends to be a lot rarer than the more common hypoglycemic faint one or stunned astonishment.

Zinj
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
As far as I'm concerned it can still be called scientology.

And that is a burdon.

Why would you want to? Are you under some delusion that calling something Scientology is a *selling* point? Even the 'Church' does its best to hide the connections, and, god knows they're not exactly 100 Watt bulbs.

Zinj
 

Veda

Sponsor
The promise of "stably exterior with full perception" made Hubbard millions, justified deception, justified fair game and justified slave labor.

Now, what's left? A bunch of PR types trying to convince people that it really meant something else.

The great disease of Scientology is that it cannot be honest about itself.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Without meaning to disparage the much looser and more eclectic religious views of Freezoners, my opinion at this point is that the doctrinaire Hubbardism of hard Scientology is actually quite unattractive and unimpressive as a religion, and that hard Scientology only gets traction as a religion because of its 'hard' claims for paranormal powers. I'm thinking that nobody actually joins Scientology for Hubbard's rambling and incoherent metaphysics, let alone for Xenu and body thetans; rather, I think people are willing to swallow those things, for the hope of gaining genius IQ, eidetic memory, permanently perfect health, telepathy and telekinesis, stable exteriorization with full perception, and so on.

First, congrats on starting a great discussion. :)

Second, you got a better metaphysics?

Its my opinion that the " hard" claim for supernatural powers is only an apparent attraction.

As, by and large, the so called super powers exist only sporadically from a few, the true believers must have some sort of answer to the questions of
where are these superpowers. In the COS one can't discuss it. Conversations in private probably reflect the usual statements in the FZ that OT isn't
about " parlour tricks", or if demonstrated the individuals demonstrating would be savagely attacked.

This is actually repudiating LRH datums. He defined cleared theta clear and OT.

Some experiences are common. That one might be connected to other beings or entities of various sorts is something USUALLY experienced by those on upper levels.

Going exterior with perception is quite rare.

Going exterior in the classic " 3 feet behind your head" is a very common
experience of scientologists from even beginning auditing.

There is something going on here.

Note that my comment on an earlier post " narrow taped path" is an ironic
reference to LRHs statement that the bridge is exactly that, taking one from wherever to somewhere higher or better, following exact steps.

It is more the metaphysics than the OT powers that get people in. One
won't normally read of such matters early on.
 
Though I have no personal experience on the matter, I'm sure Paul is right that a lot of people I would call hard Scientologists insist strongly that only the hard version is entitled to call itself Scientology. And that a lot of people I would call soft Scientologists are keen to identify themselves with hard Scientology.

After quite a few pages in the thread I linked to above, though, I'm not convinced that soft Scientology is inherently inconsistent on its own terms. So, unless someone has a serious argument that soft Scientology is internally inconsistent, the issue seems to be merely one of who owns the dictionary. To avoid pointless diversions in discussions with hard Scientologists, I'd be perfectly happy to adopt the term 'Scientology-inspired esoterism' in place of 'soft Scientology'. To avoid needless conflicts with people whom I feel no need to attack, though, I plan to use the 'hard' and 'soft' distinction to make clear that I only really object to hard Scientology, not necessarily to anything and everything that identifies itself with the S-word.

As Zinj observes, insistence on names for the sake of names is a sign of serious intellectual limitations, to the point where it's usually not worth trying to carry on a conversation. The distinction I try to draw with 'hard' and 'soft' is, I think, real and useful, despite the fact that people on both sides of the line have interests in blurring or shifting it.

Even the institutional CofS has elements of both hard and soft Scientology in it; the fact that the hard part is really there underneath everything still makes me class CofS Scientology as unambiguously hard, overall. But I'm interested in the way hard Scientology shifts and dodges by putting up a soft front whenever it is pushed for hard proof. The line that you have to get ethics in before the tech can get in, for example. This combines nicely with the fact that the 'tech' is always carefully described as 'workable' rather than something that always works. (Who would buy a car or a laptop that was only advertised as being 'workable'?) The point is that if you can't get the paranormal powers that were promised, hard Scientology can invoke nebulous religious excuses for why the practical, true-for-you, look-don't-listen 'tech' did not, in fact, work in your case.

It's still a bit of trick to have your cake and eat it, too, in this way. I think Scientology must have quite a few techniques going that give it what stage magicians call 'shade' — time to pull a fast one unobserved — so that it can switch between hard and soft faces without getting called out.

The needlessly pervasive special language, for instance, probably serves to give concrete claims a certain religious leeway, and to make nebulous statements sound more substantial than they are. If you can make a person run to a dictionary between your statements, you can get away with a lot of position-shifting while they're off busy looking things up; and this still works quite well even if they don't literally go find a dictionary, but merely concede mentally that they're not quite sure what your words mean in the context at hand. In such a case you can often get away with gradually and surreptitiously changing the meaning of your words, to the point of making a sort of slowly curving pun in which your initial and final concepts share nothing but a name, but you never let the two different concepts appear together in a single sentence. That's a rhetorical technique that I've described as 'topological lying', because you can in principle use it to make totally inconsistent statements without anyone ever being able to point to a particular point at which your story falls apart. By playing language games like this you can kind of shove the lie around, like a bubble under the wallpaper, so that it slides away from any particular point of investigation. It's always in there somewhere, though.

Anyway, that's the kind of technique I find interesting. It's even more interesting as a technique people can use on themselves, even unconsciously. If I'm right, it's one of the nitty-gritty mechanisms of doublethink; and maybe understanding how it works could help people detect it.

What you are actually witnessing is the "church" being shattered into shards of squirrelosity, where no two practitioners of Scientology tech are alike, in or out of the church these days. Many who are "in" are just pretending and going through the motions. Many still in do not trust that what you are calling hard Scientology is real or true, having been altered or made up or edited after Ron's death. Many of those out use snippets of what is useful to them or has meaning and discard the rest. All religions, and religious philosophies must change and grow or die, eventually.

Rather than hard and soft, how about the designations active and passive...those who are applying in some form what they think works from what they have learned about Scientology, vs. those who are Scientologists in name only (more and more all the time) until they blow to freedom.

Freedom to squirrel or quit it alltogether! :happydance:
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
'Huffers' quite often achieve the Scientology state of 'exterior', however, they get silver paint (or glue) on their faces as physical proof of their experience. Scientologists get a 'cert' or C/S notation in their 'confidential' folders.

Zinj
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I'm all for any sane being putting in some control here. But remember that real control is not done with duress or violence or punishment. The best control is "Start Change Stop" through voluntary compliance. And voluntary compliance is achieved by communicating the following:
A) a vision that is beautiful enough to work towards &
B) a route/plan to achieve that vision which a significant number of people can accept and contribute to.

Positive control that achieves A & B on a voluntary basis is far better than chaos and compulsive stop.

LRH's hyperbolic sales pitch stimulates people in the direction of A.
Obama's hope and change was stimulation in the direction of A.
But Scientology and the Co$ have largely failed at B.
Obama's implementation plan also fails in at B.


Control through Tone 40? Real Tone 40 is wonderful! but few people actually have any idea what it is. It is not shouting or forceful - it is pure love and serenity that genuinely inspires a willingness to cooperate and contribute. Arguments and resistance evaporate. Everyone loves real Tone 40 Control.

The general population do not believe A, and find the people who so wish to supply B weird and creepy.
 

Mystic

Crusader
Epic_fail_guy.gif
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Why would you want to? Are you under some delusion that calling something Scientology is a *selling* point? Even the 'Church' does its best to hide the connections, and, god knows they're not exactly 100 Watt bulbs.

Zinj

I know.

Any suggestions?
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
your comments re "exteriorization" mandates a physical interpretation as if some "physical" thing exteriorizes into a physical environment. Such an assumption is itself faulty. The phenomenon of "exteriorization" as reported by individual scientologists is experienced as ... a wholly subjective phenomena. ...

One can test such phenomena for an individual's apparent ability, or lack therof, to represent a state of knowledge concerning the current physical environment of that individual. But that does not actually serve as an objective test of the person's experience; it merely serves to test how well his experience maps to his present apparent physical environment.

What I mean by the 'hard' claim to 'exteriorization with full perception' (or 'perceptics', whatever they are) is precisely the claim that this experience maps the physical environment accurately. That promise is what pulls people in. Merely hallucinating about being outside the body, no matter how spiritually meaningful that experience may be, is not nearly so big a selling point. Disclaiming physically accurate perception is soft Scientology, at least in my book.

I don't need to have a working theory of consciousness to call 'exteriorization with full perception' into the lab. We do not yet understand consciousness, but to date there is absolutely zero hard evidence that it's anything other than a particular class of physical states of the human brain. Exteriorization with full perception would constitute such hard evidence, if it was real enough to work in a properly run lab, and this is what would make it a historically huge scientific revolution.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
What I mean by the 'hard' claim to 'exteriorization with full perception' (or 'perceptics', whatever they are) is precisely the claim that this experience maps the physical environment accurately. That promise is what pulls people in. Merely hallucinating about being outside the body, no matter how spiritually meaningful that experience may be, is not nearly so big a selling point. Disclaiming physically accurate perception is soft Scientology, at least in my book.

I don't need to have a working theory of consciousness to call 'exteriorization with full perception' into the lab. We do not yet understand consciousness, but to date there is absolutely zero hard evidence that it's anything other than a particular class of physical states of the human brain. Exteriorization with full perception would constitute such hard evidence, if it was real enough to work in a properly run lab, and this is what would make it a historically huge scientific revolution.
It would not be difficult to design a meaningful testing procedure to study this, but you would find it very difficult to find any test subjects. In their heart of hearts they know that they do not possess these abilities. If they did, they would have come forward long ago to bathe in their superhuman glory. Scientology sells illusion and delusion, which can be demonstrated very easily. Any volunteers? We have an interested scientist here. Any volunteers? No? I thought not.
 

Thrak

Gold Meritorious Patron
Ask Geir Isene. He's an OT8 and has stated he has some ability to exteriorize.
 

yon8008

Patron with Honors
What I mean by the 'hard' claim to 'exteriorization with full perception' (or 'perceptics', whatever they are) is precisely the claim that this experience maps the physical environment accurately. That promise is what pulls people in. Merely hallucinating about being outside the body, no matter how spiritually meaningful that experience may be, is not nearly so big a selling point. Disclaiming physically accurate perception is soft Scientology, at least in my book.

I don't need to have a working theory of consciousness to call 'exteriorization with full perception' into the lab. We do not yet understand consciousness, but to date there is absolutely zero hard evidence that it's anything other than a particular class of physical states of the human brain. Exteriorization with full perception would constitute such hard evidence, if it was real enough to work in a properly run lab, and this is what would make it a historically huge scientific revolution.

Let's try this:

If you were hoping to find any evidence at all of the hard claims, here is what I would recommend.

1) pick one claim that could potentially be verified. 'Exteriorization with full perception' fits the bill.
2) define a test for it:
---2a) create a "random event generator" that can display a "randomly generated visually perceivable outcome"
--------(example: a random number generator)
--------(example:a randomly colored random basic shape: 8 colors, 8 shapes)
---2b) have the "psychic observer" in one room and the random event generator in another.
---2c) work with the "psychic observer" to work out the system that s/he would be most comfortable with (ie ever 3 minutes there will be a sound to signify that a new random event will be generated - record your impressions).
3) conduct the test
4) analyze (be sure to perform a power analysis - ie evaluate the probability of randomly achieving the result that was obtained.
------------------------
Additional theory:
Once exterior, consider that the exterior viewpoint may move 'in and out of agreement with this physical reality' - like dialing in an old analog radio. So having some 'tuning' or 'feedback mechanisms' might improve results.

Since we're just going to test the claims, for this first experiment, select as subjects those that are most confident in their ability, those that would be comfortable having their results recorded, and those that would like for this experiment to deliver a positive indication of remote viewing. (at this point, take anyone that wants to have a go at it. Ask the OT VIIIs to step up, Ask the Ron's Org OT46s)

(my point: at this stage, don't try to pick up raw meat, deliver some auditing, and run the test - just go straight to those have already attested to a high case level to see if they can do it.)
------------------------

If you wanted to include some auditing focused in precisely at this ability, here is where I'd look:

From the PDC in Dec 1952, through the first 8 ACCs, and up to the Creation of Human Ability - you have got the most hard hitting technical data about how to achieve 'exteriorized with full perception' - possibly throw in a bit of the Responsibility & the state of OT - So Afr. ACC and this is the technology that I would work with.

-------------------------

Final note - a few of the other organizations (secret societies) that I'm involved with - at the higher levels, the training/instruction is about 'what is really going on in this world'. Four of them agree on the principle that 'those who are running the show on Earth do not want people to find out'. They disagree on what level of evil 'these entities' will go to retain their secrecy/power.

Starting with the OT levels, Scientology looks at 'the level of evil' that 'these entities' have gone to in the past.

A common theme is that the route up to regaining these kinds of abilities includes remembering whole track times that these abilities were misused... or whole track times when these abilities were used acceptably but their execution evoked the wrath of certain other entities.

If you were subjected to fates worse than death the last time you flaunted your stuff, and you look around and you see the same bad dudes running things in the here and now, my guess is that you would think twice before flaunting again.

I would not expect anyone to step forward on this suicide mission. Too dangerous right now.

Instead, let's work on ensuring the bill of rights.
 
Top