Scientology: hard and soft, tech and religion
- Thread starter Student of Trinity
- Start date
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Sorry - did you say something?
Winston Smith
Flunked Scientology
Maybe that was LRH back from his "research" in to the next "level?" Ya read all kinds of wierdness on this board.
Mystic
Crusader
No, it didn't say anything. It did, however, spew quite twisted boohooclam group-implant think.
attack without contribution - the fastest route to dodging feelings of worthlessness and stagnation.
Genuine Self-Esteem flows from honest efforts to contribute values for self and others. Even if you fail to find any value in anything, I push forward offering alternative perspectives which may benefit others, and grow in the processes.
In the end, there is only one characteristic that matters: net value creation.
Any net value creator earns his or her happiness through honest efforts that directly and indirectly benefit everyone.
Every net value destroyer is forever seeking a mask to hide his or her worthlessness, camouflaged laziness, and incompetence.
Genuine Self-Esteem flows from honest efforts to contribute values for self and others. Even if you fail to find any value in anything, I push forward offering alternative perspectives which may benefit others, and grow in the processes.
In the end, there is only one characteristic that matters: net value creation.
Any net value creator earns his or her happiness through honest efforts that directly and indirectly benefit everyone.
Every net value destroyer is forever seeking a mask to hide his or her worthlessness, camouflaged laziness, and incompetence.
Mystic
Crusader
Veda
Sponsor
Please don't characterize your "efforts" as "honest." Scientology sales pitch isn't "honest."
Your promotion of a sanitized and unrealistic version of Scientology as Scientology (which is what the CofS does), plus your attempts to manipulate or "play" others, particularly those recently out of Scientology, is neither honest nor beneficial.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=372988&postcount=127
Last edited:
Pick a new name. 'Scientology' is permanently tainted, deserves to be and does not deserve rehabilitation. Nothing wrong with admtting Scientology as an influence, major or minor, although, a certain amount of blushing would be decent.
Zinj
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Only some. Same can be said of Yoga, Vedanta, Tantra, Transcendental Meditation, etc..
Lots of people want "magic powers". No doubt it's why Hubbard used it as a "button" in marketing. He also made free use of the "money" button, and the "relationship" button. That was Hubbard. It wasn't completely off-base, although it could definitely be characterized as "deceptive marketing". Still, religions aren't noted for being held to high standards when it comes to truthfully marketing their services.
The first part of the above is an expression of "faith" not science.
As to your conclusion, I disagree. The actual experience of exteriorization can be a hugely significant "reality shifter", depending on the individual and the nature of his experience(s).
It is in fact quite common among practicing scientologists. The ones either making or implying such alternate claims as those you describe as characteristic of "hard scientology" from my observations tend to be either the least knowing, the most deluded, or by far the the most greatly & openly dishonest.
The easily deluded especially by my observation tended to be the ones most inclined to join the SO without first fully understanding what that entailed. Their ready credulity is not necessarily wholly attributable to the adverse effects of scientology marketing practices.
This is true. It is also reportedly the least commonly reported experience of exteriorization. Thus, it is not an especially good place to start for purposes of scientific investigation.
IMO, it is also one of the least interesting and most insignificant.
Of course. There is also "absolutely zero hard evidence" that it IS a particular class of physical states of the brain. There's just a whole lotta supposition going on.
Hence, adopting such a view prematurely constitutes a "metaphysical belief" akin to "scientism". Moreover, IF it is something other than a particular class of physical states there could be no "hard evidence" that it is "a particular class of physical states of the brain" since it would then lie outside the physical paradigm. At the present the evidence, such as it is, therefore can be seen to be much more supportive of a metaphysical interpretation than of a physical one.
In science the burden of proof for "existence" lies on the researcher. You posit the existence of a physical basis underlying exteriorization phenomena, ergo the burden is on you.
This is true. Nor would it necessarily disprove the metaphysical nature of the phenomena. It would merely mark a demonstration of a particular mental phenomenon as reproducible in clinical trials. It also would show just how little generally is understood currently concerning the spirit/mind/body problem.
Additionally, a failure to establish the truth of the above through lab experiments would NOT disprove the reality of experiential exteriorization. It would merely serve to demonstrate a lack of "hard physical evidence" for the phenomenon. In the case of "purely" metaphysical phenomena, this is exactly what should be expected.
So potentially you MIGHT be able to prove a physical property of "exteriorization with full perception", but you can NOT disprove the metaphysical phenomenon of exteriorization. Nor can you, through resort to physical measurement alone, disprove the metaphysical nature of spirit.
Conversely, all the "spiritual progressives" have to demonstrate is the reality of the experience as a subjective phenomenon. This has already been achieved time and time again with many tens of thousands of individuals over the last 60 years through the proper practice of scientology auditing techniques. QED
Mark A. Baker
Veda
Sponsor
-snip-
The easily deluded especially by my observation tended to be the ones most inclined to join the SO without first fully understanding what that entailed. Their ready credulity is not necessarily wholly attributable to the adverse effects of scientology marketing practices.
-snip-
Both inside and outside the CofS, whether it's the CofS to "wogs," or Freezone to ESMB, a Scientology PR person's least appealing characteristic - or one of them - is the willingness to trash Scientology's most dedicated members, if it is deemed advantageous to the protecting and forwarding of Scientology's "image."
That, and the attempt to be charming
while doing so.
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
I have no interest in disproving the subjective experience of feeling oneself to be outside one's body. In this thread and my previous one, I have stated this several times. The only issue that concerns me is the claim I call 'hard', which is to accurately see the physical world from outside the body. It's fine to keep talking about the benefits and unfalsifiability of exteriorization as a 'soft' subjective experience, but please be clear that this is not conducting an argument with me. I'm not contesting it, and it is not contradicting me.
I call a vivid but inaccurate waking visual experience a hallucination. I don't think that's any bias on my part; that's what most people would call it. I allowed that a hallucination could be meaningful. Objecting to the term itself seems to me to be just refusing to call a spade a spade.
Claiming hard out-of-body perception without in the same breath citing rigorous confirmation of the claim is ipso facto strong evidence of stupidity or fraud, because really having that ability, and not getting it rigorously confirmed, would be mindbogglingly irresponsible. This point has nothing to do with any presuppositions about the nature of consciousness or perception. Whatever we currently know or don't know, physically accurate perception from outside the body would be a revolutionary discovery. What kind of enlightened person would pass up the chance to change history with such an immense discovery — and pass it up so casually as not even to mention the issue?
I call a vivid but inaccurate waking visual experience a hallucination. I don't think that's any bias on my part; that's what most people would call it. I allowed that a hallucination could be meaningful. Objecting to the term itself seems to me to be just refusing to call a spade a spade.
Claiming hard out-of-body perception without in the same breath citing rigorous confirmation of the claim is ipso facto strong evidence of stupidity or fraud, because really having that ability, and not getting it rigorously confirmed, would be mindbogglingly irresponsible. This point has nothing to do with any presuppositions about the nature of consciousness or perception. Whatever we currently know or don't know, physically accurate perception from outside the body would be a revolutionary discovery. What kind of enlightened person would pass up the chance to change history with such an immense discovery — and pass it up so casually as not even to mention the issue?
Gadfly
Crusader
A tulpa? :confused2:
Smilla
Ordinary Human
These have a good ring to them, but I think some of them might be in use.
Raëlians
Villa Baviera
Order of the Solar Temple
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Branch Davidians
Manson Family
Heaven's Gate
Aum Shinrikyo
Peoples Temple
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Do some googling of 'dissociation', 'dissociative states' and 'dissociative disorders' and you'll find some info on what Scientology calls ' exterior with full perception.' It is actually a morbid psychological state, rather than a desirable ability. Depersonalization is a good fit too.
"Depersonalisation Disorder (DPD) constitutes, according to the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistic Manual (DSM) IV, ‘a feeling of detachment or estrangement from one’s self. The individual may feel like an automaton or as if he or she is living in a dream or a movie. There may be a sensation of being an outside observer of one’s mental processes, one’s body or parts of one’s body.’ People who experience depersonalisation may, at the same time, experience de-realisation, the sense that the external world is strange or unreal. (Bold text is my emphasis.)
More here:
http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/departments/?locator=911&context=main
As previously posted:
We have an interested scientist here, who wants to know the truth about 'exterior with full perception.' Anybody want to volunteer as a test subject? Anyone? No. I thought not.
I encourage individuals to use their own rational thought to gain the most benefit possible from every opportunity. I use personal examples and uniquely alternative understandings to offer others another perspective on a subject that is a common interest while making a conscious effort to stay on topic and elevate a dialog.
My promotion is of positive intellectual alternative understandings which I make available for free. I am not offering a sales pitch. I am giving away ideas.
It likely frustrates you to have it pointed out that those who attack the values of others, those who contribute nothing, those who seek to justify their pseudo-self-esteem with destruction (as Hitler did), are losers - pip-squeak humanoids engaged in camouflaged laziness - net value destroyers that should either be ostracized or profitably rehabilitated.
More and more individuals are coming to realize that it is camouflaged laziness, an unwillingness to exert the effort to deliver competitive values to others - and the actions of hiding this reality, that is the source of many of our worlds problems. The answer is to confront value destroyers with the ideas necessary for happy living: only net value creators can ever earn long range happiness, genuine self-esteem, and exciting romantic love.
The ONLY thing that I support is the conceptual process of Fully Integrated Honesty with self-determined rationality - all else that I promote follows from that base. I am in the process of forever becoming more honest, and providing a more complete context for my communications. I create values that others may voluntarily read or skip past.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
In this paragraph you make it perfectly clear who and what you are
Similar threads
