Scientology is all bad

[Demented LRH]

Ah.. well, if LRH ever said that the source of engrams is incorrect interpretation of the words, maybe he didn't mean their DEFINITION.. but how we interpret them.. In my example, the analytical mind and reactive mind both knew the DEFINITION of French Fry, but the reactive mind interpreted the VALUE of a french fry by an unfortunate experience and perhaps made limiting decisions because of it. If you eat a french fry and you are allergic to it and almost die, then the analytical mind would say OH.. I better not eat any more of these, and that would be logical. The reactive mind is Illogical.

Lesson #1 -- do not try to guess what Hubbard was trying to say -- that is impossible because he did not know what he was saying.

I was using Korzybski's definition of the reactive mind that I found at an OCMB thread (I have not read his articles).

You gave your own definition of the reactive mind; I do not mind discusing it at some other thread because this thread is all about Scientology.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

It is easy to undestand that the engrams and the reactive mind do not exist if the concept of linguistic mapping is employed. I will present this concept in generality, and then will show how it applies to Dianetics.

The concept itself is very simple. Suppose, you want to map the English language onto the Spanish language. Then the word "I" corresponds to the word "yo"; the word "house" -- to "casa"; the word "information" -- to "dato"; and so on. Each Spanish word has at least one English equivalent, and vice versa.

Let's say that an English word does not have a Spanish equivalent, which is highly unlikely. In this case the mapping cannot be defined, and the word is meaningless to the native Spanish speakers.

Now, we turn our attention to the analytical mind and the reactive mind. The analytical mind of an English-speaking individual uses ordinary English dictionary. Presumably, the reactive mind uses the same dictionary. But what about the mapping from the analytical mind onto the reactive mind?

This mapping could be the identity mapping, which means that the word "I" of the analytical mind is mapped onto the word "I" of the reactive mind; the word "house" is mapped onto the word "house", and so on. But in this case the nalytical mind is indistinguishable from the reactive mind.

Let's assume that this is not the identity mapping. The the mapping goes like this -- the word "I" is of the analytical mind is mapped onto the undefined word of the reactive mind; the word "house" is also mapped onto the undefined word, and so on. ALL words of the analytical mind are mapped onto the same element of the reactive mind, which is the undefined element. But undefined element is also the null element. A set (language) that consists of null elements is empty, which is another way of saying that the reactive mind does not exist.

I think this is all too simplistic.

I think Korzybski was just trying to find a mean between emotivism and logical positivism.

All words have synchronic and diachronic definitions.

So the idea of linguistic mapping is useless.

How can you linguistically map the following:

"Yo, Korsybzki is Derrida's bitch, Ya'll....."

"The opera ain't over 'til the fat lady sings."

Or these two litotes:

"Show yourself a man" and "I do not think him a great man."

You haven't disproved the reactive mind with your argument.

But no one has proven that the reactive mind exists in the first place.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Demented LRH]

But in my example, I do explain how it works. I ought to get a patent LOL

You gave a specific example of what is going into the box, and what comes out of it. To explain how the box works you must lay out the rules allowing a person like me to know IN ADVACE what comes out of the box if I put ANYTHING in it.

True science (physics, chemistry, genetics, etc) is all about predictions of future events.

 

[Bill]

The problem is not with your trying to describe it.

The problem is basing a religious philosophy on axioms.

The Axioms per L Ron Hubbard are neither self-evident nor scientific.

All he does is pack the axioms with his definitions and then, if you accept his definitions, the argument is circular.

It is like Spinoza and his axioms for ethics.

Think it through. It doesn't make sense.

The Anabaptist Jacques

That is the basic, fundamental flaw in Hubbard's work. Everything he has based Dianetics and Scientology on is supposition and opinion. Everything. He states these opinions as if they were scientific and factual, with "Axioms", but absolutely nothing he bases his whole edifice on is proven.

Stone by stone, Dianetics and then Scientology, he built the whole thing up on a foundation of unproven statements. It is a phenomenal piece of work and, if his foundation were true, the results would have been amazing. Scientology's consistent failures should have triggered a review of Hubbard's basic assumptions -- but Hubbard was not a scientist, was not trained in logic, so he just plowed on, deeper and deeper into the pit-o-failure.

Bill

 

[Jquepublic]

If the reactive mind=the subconscious mind, then you can work with it.

My opinion is that Scientology is a psychotherapy and that as such it should only be practiced by a licensed mental health professional. It is not a religion. Dismiss the faith-required aspects and teachings and you have plain old psychotherapy. He stole it, renamed it and went on his crazy ride.

I see all these attempts to dismiss it and I cannot do that. I have seen things happen. I have bad experiences personally with auditing because most of what I got was security checking. About 15 folders' worth of it. And maybe that's part of my assertion that I've never been hypnotized, because believe me when I tell you, I did NOT relinquish control to anyone during a sec check. You learn early on how to keep safe. So what I did, in that case, is play a role. That is, ironically, one of the definitions or manifestations for hypnosis. BUT I was fully cognizant of my role. It was not an unconscious adoption.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

If the reactive mind=the subconscious mind, then you can work with it.

My opinion is that Scientology is a psychotherapy and that as such it should only be practiced by a licensed mental health professional. It is not a religion. Dismiss the faith-required aspects and teachings and you have plain old psychotherapy. He stole it, renamed it and went on his crazy ride.

I see all these attempts to dismiss it and I cannot do that. I have seen things happen. I have bad experiences personally with auditing because most of what I got was security checking. About 15 folders' worth of it. And maybe that's part of my assertion that I've never been hypnotized, because believe me when I tell you, I did NOT relinquish control to anyone during a sec check. You learn early on how to keep safe. So what I did, in that case, is play a role. That is, ironically, one of the definitions or manifestations for hypnosis. BUT I was fully cognizant of my role. It was not an unconscious adoption.

That's what you're supposed to think.

I kid the public.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Infinite]

According to LRH.. there is no "it".. it's just STATIC.. almost impossible to describe.. I'm straining my brain to call it ANYTHING LOL PS: Oh.. if you mean WHAT, WHEN and WHERE after it has considered something.. then it is whatever, whenever and wherever it has considered itself to be. PSPS: Maybe "it" is the awareness of awareness unit with no thought.. just perception. If "it" wants something to perceive, to be aware of, it just creates it. Maybe when there is no creation, it is still aware that it is aware.. but is not focusing on anything.

This is my point about the Axioms. Logically, they make no sense what so ever. It is not until the unfortunate reader of them "dubs in" meaning that any semblance of coherent considerations of them can form. Couple this with that "what's true for you is true" schtick and it becomes immediately apparent that everyone has a subjective understanding of the Axioms - yes, Axioms, not Articles of Faith nor Wish Fulfilment, actual Axioms. The most delightful aspect of discussing things like the Axioms with Scientologists is that it usually doesn't take too long before it becomes apparent that there is no agreement as to what they mean. Thus, according to L Ron Hubbard:

no agreement = no reality ∴ Scientology cannot be real.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I feel like you are speaking French, and I am speaking Spanish.. LOL For some reason, I cannot understand what you mean.. Maybe this will help. My understanding of the reactive mind, is that it doesn't concern itself with things it does not have any understanding of.. it ignores them. It only comes into play when something it CAN understand wakes it up and it feels the need to store that information for future use.. in terms of protecting itself, or the body, or to win when threatened, or survive when attacked.. etc..

In a very real sense, honey, this is true. It is not only like speaking two different languages, but like living in two different cultural mindsets or two different worlds.

In many ways, you are still thinking and speaking like a Scientologist, while we (for the most part) are not. That's kind of the crux of the whole issue being discussed here. You are assuming and believing some things to be true which many of us assume or believe not to be true One of the main points where our views diverge is the reality or existence of "the reactive mind".

Don't feel like you have to respond to each and every communication, there are no rules about that here and it can get overwhelming, especially when you're a Newbie! Sometimes the discussion of ideas, thoughts and viewpoints fly fast and furious around here... It's kind of fun really, once you get used to it!

However, it's okay just to read along and think, too! Take me for example, I have a lot to say now, (not on all threads and subjects) but I lurked here (read without posting) for a very long time before I said a peep!

Just relax, you're doing fine. You don't have to understand everything everyone says, or get into agreement with them. Just enjoy the journey! And appreciate that most folks here care about you and your well-being, even when we don't think alike or agree on considerations.

EVERYTHING in Scientology is just a consideration, and you and everyone else are always free to examine and change your considerations about things. Just keep claiming that for yourself.

 

[Demented LRH]

I think this is all too simplistic.

I think Korzybski was just trying to find a mean between emotivism and logical positivism.

All words have synchronic and diachronic definitions.

So the idea of linguistic mapping is useless.

How can you linguistically map the following:

"Yo, Korsybzki is Derrida's bitch, Ya'll....."

"The opera ain't over 'til the fat lady sings."

Or these two litotes:

"Show yourself a man" and "I do not think him a great man."

You haven't disproved the reactive mind with your argument.

But no one has proven that the reactive mind exists in the first place.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I would not say that the idea of linguistic mapping is useless because it is used to produce the software packages that translate texts from one language to another (I made reference to such software at another post).

You gave examples of idioms which are very hard to translate into another languages. But the IBM linguists claim that their newest software that uses more advanced linguistic mapping can do that.

I do not know what Korzybski was trying to achieve with his definition of the reactive mind because his field is of no interest to me. I read excerpts from his articles where he discusses reactive mind at an OCMB thread and analyzed them. In my view, his definition of the reactive mind is meaningless.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I would not say that the idea of linguistic mapping is useless because it is used to produce the software packages that translate texts from one language to another (I made reference to such software at another post).

You gave examples of idioms which are very hard to translate into another languages. But the IBM linguists claim that their newest software that uses more advanced linguistic mapping can do that.

I do not know what Korzybski was trying to achieve with his definition of the reactive mind because his field is of no interest to me. I read excerpts from his articles where he discusses reactive mind at an OCMB thread and analyzed them. In my view, his definition of the reactive mind is meaningless.

Yeah, I agree.

But keep in mind that just because you made an argument stringing conclusions drawn from statements of abstract things you haven't disproved anything.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[phenomanon]

Oh, FTR I am not through with the Scientology processing=hypnosis point on this thread. I want to know how exactly I was hypnotizing pcs. Not talking about Dianetics, I can see that is hypnosis. Scientology.

I can't stay away from this thread.

I think that the TRs are the intro to hypnosis. TR0 is done by everyone who gets into the subject. It is a requirement. How many hours does the Scn spend focussing his attention on another? And the Other focussing on him? Depending on how long one is "in" the subject , the time spent can be minimal, as with Public PC's just beginning, or hundreds og hours for the highest trained peeps.

TR0 is hypnotic.

Then add to that the "mantra" of the pre-session, where the same words are stated at beginning of every session.

Then add to that the Auditor LEADING the PC to look at certain aspects of his life.

Sure looks like hypnosis at work.

I have been to LRH lectures where he hypnotised the entire audience, had them all nodding off in their chairs, and he would laugh about it afterwards.

There is some tape where he identifies himself as a master hypnotist.

The processes of Scn begin and end with TR0, and TR0 is hypnotic.

At the very least, you who have read LRH's stuff know that he blames and rants about the "psychs' and their use of hypnosis, and the ir treachery on the "whole track" and PDH. Well, how could it be that staring into another's eyes for some period of time would not restimulate hypnosis? C'mon now.

phenomanaon

 

[Infinite]

I took a look at the first article. It is very theoretical, and I do not see how it could be applied to Dianetics.

The mapping that I described is used in all linguistic softwares that translate texts from one launguage to another. Each word in an language is matched with another word in a different langauge. This is one-to-many relation because one word can have more than one equivalent in another language. I know this stuff because, as an IEEE member, I receive one of its magazines, Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.
I am not a linguist, but I use the magazine's materials for stock market analysis. Occassionally, out of curiosity, I read its articles on linguistic mapping.

Oh, okay. An automated process is always going to have null returns on language until such time as consciousness can be reduced to software. But, still, the analogy between language mapping and the reactive mind is FAIL. Like your thinking, though.

What always struck me about the reactive mind is how can it understand enough of the language when it is still in the womb and has yet to learn any of the language. Check out some of the crazy in Dianetics when the embryo gets knocked unconscious by the act of its mother's engaging in sexual intercourse and the Engrams which are formed. Its hilarious.

 

[Jquepublic]

I can't stay away from this thread.

I think that the TRs are the intro to hypnosis. TR0 is done by everyone who gets into the subject. It is a requirement. How many hours does the Scn spend focussing his attention on another? And the Other focussing on him? Depending on how long one is "in" the subject , the time spent can be minimal, as with Public PC's just beginning, or hundreds og hours for the highest trained peeps.

TR0 is hypnotic.

Then add to that the "mantra" of the pre-session, where the same words are stated at beginning of every session.

Then add to that the Auditor LEADING the PC to look at certain aspects of his life.

Sure looks like hypnosis at work.

I have been to LRH lectures where he hypnotised the entire audience, had them all nodding off in their chairs, and he would laugh about it afterwards.

There is some tape where he identifies himself as a master hypnotist.

The processes of Scn begin and end with TR0, and TR0 is hypnotic.

At the very least, you who have read LRH's stuff know that he blames and rants about the "psychs' and their use of hypnosis, and the ir treachery on the "whole track" and PDH. Well, how could it be that staring into another's eyes for some period of time would not restimulate hypnosis? C'mon now.

phenomanaon

I'm not saying the training steps don't have some hypnosis built in. Absolutely the TRs would induce it. DO induce it. I'm talking about the session. You don't do TR0 with your preclears! As for the beginning of the session: routine and ritual don't by themselves induce hypnosis. So there has to be something built into the process that would. If it's true that all Scn auditing = hypnosis then I am asking how that process occurs.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Just posting this very useful essay here for anyone who has not yet read it (Short version):

From: http://exscn.net/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=178

The Scientological Onion

(Excerpted from the Addendum section of L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, 2nd and 3rd editions. This is the shortened version that appears in Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology

Scientology could be described as a "layers of the onion" operation.

The outermost layer of the "Scientological Onion" is not identifiable with Scientology at all, being composed of front groups that conceal their connection to -and control by - the Scientology organization. Front groups might be said to constitute Layer Zero: a place where the tentacles of Scientology can grope incognito.

The first layer of the Scientological Onion is meant to be very visible...

Layer One includes Scientology's pampered clique of celebrities, and various public relations ploys. It reverberates with noble sounding sentiments about creating a better world. Scientology seeks to equate itself, and its founder, with anything broadly viewed as desirable or good. A little further along, this layer would include introductory courses with the stated aim of "knowing oneself" and "being free."

Here exist the potentially beneficial aspects of the many masked Scientology operation. The tragedy of Scientology is that the "positives" are used as "window dressing" and "bait on the hook," when they should have been the core and foundation. Thus the Scientology organization reeks of hypocrisy.

Also, at this much publicized layer, L. Ron Hubbard is presented as an engineer, war hero, nuclear physicist, and the "greatest humanitarian of all time," and the author of "22 best sellers with more to come."

The "first layer" is what Scientology wishes the outside world to know as Scientology. And it is essentially what new converts to the "movement" believe.

It includes most of what is good in the subject: The dream of peace on Earth, the desire to help, practical wisdom, civilized communication, and some potentially beneficial counseling procedures. The word freedom is used a great deal at this layer, and a heart felt desire for greater personal freedom, and freedom for all Mankind, is not unusual to new recruits to Scientology.

(Any inconsistencies or contradictions between the publicly stated aims of the movement, and actual practices or facts, become irrelevant as the individual becomes subject to the Dark Side of Scientology. And the deeper one descends into the "onion" the darker it gets.)

Descending into the "onion" it is necessary to become a Scientologist. This means thinking like a Scientologist. This is the Second Layer where deception eases into "soft" forms of mind-manipulation. Love of Mankind is modified that the awareness that human beings are mere hapless "Wogs"... The desire to help becomes the desire to recruit. The ideal of practical wisdom, based on logic and science, is superseded by the belief in the unfathomable mystery of the "tech." Indeed one is expected to be in a state of awe regarding the "tech," much in the same manner that a peasant woman might regard piece of bone, said to have belonged to a Saint from centuries past.

The publicly promoted "policy" of honesty is modified by an awareness that deception is OK, as long as it serves to achieve the desired Scientological end. And the ideals of civility and democracy become a joke - just something that "panty-waists" and wimps fixate on.

One is slowly being "hatted" as a Scientologist.

(At this point an - unlucky - new Scientologist may be subjected to heavy handed "hard sell" tactics by a sales person or "registrar." Life savings have been lost, inheritances gobbled up, and lines of credit drained, all in a single arduous evening of "hard sell." This is really a premature taste of Layer Four.)

The Third Layer down is composed of never ending, expensive, highly advertised, but confidential "upper levels." These go on and on - and on. Scientology has been selling the promise of "Total Freedom" since before most of its current membership were born. It remains the ever elusive "dangling carrot."

Well known individuals who become involved in Scientology - becoming Scientology celebrities" - do not go deeper into the Scientological Onion than this.

They are also spared the abuses that "less valuable" beings may suffer at the hands of Scientology sales people, "Sea Org" recruiters, or "ethics" officers...

At the upper fringes of the next layer down is local "Org staff," and at the bottom of Layer Four can be found "Sea Org" personnel. This layer employs more pervasive and cruder forms of "persuasion" or "mind control." Here is the "slave labor" supplying Rehabilitation Project Force, the Pavlovian "5 Card System," and the grim but repressed awareness that one is mainly a "post" and a "stat," (i.e. statistic.)

The Fifth layer down includes intimidation of the mass media, use of lawsuits purely for purposes of harassment, and applications of policies and programs, such as those discovered as a result of the FBI search warrants of July 1977. These materials were made available for public view by Federal court order in 1979 and consist of organized applications of the Fair game Law, and related confidential policies and "tech," designed to illegally gain access to private files, infiltrate, harass, lie about, "sue, trick, lie to, or destroy" anyone perceived as an enemy. At this layer also would be secret bank accounts and financial irregularities.

Other aspects of this layer would include "blackmail," including threats to publicize personal information obtained during "religious confessionals" (auditing sessions); and the inducement of duress of various kinds - including frivolous lawsuits - to obtain promises of "silence," and to obtain "signed retractions" of earlier statements.

Here also can be found the handful of individuals who constitute the "Scientology hierarchy": the board of directors of the Religious Technology Center, and its chairman David Miscavige or "DM."
http://exscn.net


Layer Number Six appears to be the core of the Onion. It is a very temperamental and secret place.

Here lie the secrets of L. Ron Hubbard: his bad health, bad habits, undistinguished military service, flunked physics and mathematics classes. Here can be found the actual motivations behind, and sources of, Dianetics and Scientology. Here can be found Mary Sue Hubbard, languishing in prison for crimes committed under her husband's direction, while her husband, in hiding, passes the time writing Science Fiction. Here are all the things you shouldn't know about the founder of the "Science of Knowing How to Know."

L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, 2nd edition:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0942637577/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-0654802-4263319

Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/ambry1.html

 

[Demented LRH]

And what the hell static is, and why it is discussed at this thread? This is one of those "aha moments" that I never had when I was a Scientologist -- I understood what the static is, but I had no idea why anyone would be interested in a concept that is marginal even for a Scientologist?

I was doing Dianetics auditing, and I did not see how the static thing is relevant to it.

================
There are many definitions of the hypnosis, as someone mentioned at this thread. To me this one is the most practical -- in a normal state of mind a PC would not say the things that he said in a hypnotic state.

In a normal frame of mind my friend would not say that he remembers the times when he was a sperm.

I was out of Sea Org when my Sea Org friends told me about the auditing session that made quite a splash -- a female PC slipped into a past life during her Dianetics auditing session and "discovered" that she was raped by a demon (the creature with horns and hooves). She was hysterical and could ot calm down for an hour. She remained scarred for the rest of her life.

 

[Demented LRH]

Oh, okay. An automated process is always going to have null returns on language until such time as consciousness can be reduced to software. But, still, the analogy between language mapping and the reactive mind is FAIL. Like your thinking, though.

What always struck me about the reactive mind is how can it understand enough of the language when it is still in the womb and has yet to learn any of the language. Check out some of the crazy in Dianetics when the embryo gets knocked unconscious by the act of its mother's engaging in sexual intercourse and the Engrams which are formed. Its hilarious.

Yeah, one my PCs claimed that he could remember a moment of intercourse between his mother and her lover, who was not his father!!
How would he know that it was not his father? He just knew it!!

 

[Infinite]

Sorry - if there is a state called STATIC, I haven't experienced it knowingly, so I am the wrong person to try to describe it to you. I'm doing my best off the top of my head LOL

What do you mean when you say you "haven't experienced it knowingly"?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... The problem is basing a religious philosophy on axioms.

The Axioms per L Ron Hubbard are neither self-evident nor scientific. ...

Basing a religious philosophy on axioms strikes me as the only reasonable way to proceed. Much better than a faith based approach to religious dogma & tradition.

However, your objection concerning the axioms of l. ron hubbard is spot on. The problem is those axioms are not axiomatic as that term applies in logic.

BTW, axioms must arise as a self-evident propositions. If a proposed axiom can be shown to be true as a result of other axioms, then it is a theorem, not an axiom. And an item which can be demonstrated as evident through means of scientific methodology is an hypothesis, not an axiom.

Axioms thus may not be proved as deriving from other axioms. A proposition is not an axiom if it is either provably true, provably untrue, or not self-evident.


Mark A. Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Basing a religious philosophy on axioms strikes me as the only reasonable way to proceed. Much better than a faith based approach to religious dogma & tradition.

However, your objection concerning the axioms of l. ron hubbard is spot on. The problem is those axioms are not axiomatic as that term applies in logic.

BTW, axioms must arise as a self-evident propositions. If a proposed axiom can be shown to be true as a result of other axioms, then it is a theorem, not an axiom. And an item which can be demonstrated as evident through means of scientific methodology is an hypothesis, not an axiom.

Axioms thus may not be proved as deriving from other axioms. A proposition is not an axiom if it is either provably true, provably untrue, or not self-evident.


Mark A. Baker

I don't think you can base a religion on axioms.

How can you make the metaphysical self-evident?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Then how can it be self-evident?

For the static to be evident it has to exist in space and time.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Not necessarily true. Your statement is dependent on a conception of consciousness limited to that of the experienced universe of space & time. The static as described by hubbard, should it exist, appears to correspond with the Mahayana conception of root consciousness. Whether hubbard new about this and 'simplified' it for western audiences or not, I've no clue.

In the Buddhist conception the root conscious lies outside of space & time. It is the root from which all mental phenomena spring and is independent of such manifestations, including space & time.


Mark A. Baker