Scientology is all bad

[Infinite]

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.

Convoluted gibberish. The "mapping" of a language into another does not require a "partner" word. See also "Cognitive Linguistic Mapping" and conceptual metaphor.

Here's a much easier test: show me the mother fucking Clear.

 

[Demented LRH]

The concept of the reactive mind was introduced by Korzybski. As my previous post shows, he made a huge mistake. But Korzybski did not suggest that the engrams could be ersed -- it was Hubbard's idea. One mistake by Korzybski led to another mistake by Hubbard, and the stillborn child, Dianetics, was produced.

A hypothesis based on one mistaken idea is bound to fall, although its demise may not be momentary. But a hypothesis based on two blundres is so horrendous that it cannot survive even the slightest scrutiny in the temple of science.

But it can survive outside that temple if is it is propelled by an innovative marketing campaign.

Hubbard was no marketing genius, but Campbell was. He was responsible for the spread of Dianetics in 1950s and 1960s. Later he became disappointed in Dianetics, but the damage to the most vulnerable members of the society had been already done.

 

[Demented LRH]

Convoluted gibberish. The "mapping" of a language into another does not require a "partner" word. See also "Cognitive Linguistic Mapping" and conceptual metaphor.

Here's a much easier test: show me the mother fucking Clear.

How would you define a mapping without partner word?

 

[Jquepublic]

Bearing in mind that the entire subject is the work of a con-man, how do you differentiate between what is true and what is not true?

What do you expect her to do, forget every word, phrase or concept that she came across in the time she was in?

Not going to happen, not for any of us. Even for the ones who wish it would.

 

[Infinite]

. . . <snip> . . . A hypothesis based on one mistaken idea is bound to fall, although its demise may not be momentary. But a hypothesis based on two blundres is so horrendous that it cannot survive even the slightest scrutiny in the temple of science . . . <snip> . . .

I think I understand what you are saying. Sort of. Speaking of Korzybski and taking the wider point - an hypothesis based on a wrong premise must fail - I love looking at Scientology's Axioms, those building blocks of logic upon which the entire subject is predicated. Logically speaking, its hard to get past Axiom One:

AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

Heh!

First of all, the word "static" is an adjective, not a noun, especially if there is no "wavelengths" or "motion" involved. Accordingly, saying "life is basically a static" is the same as saying "life is basically a purple", ie, meaningless. But, but, but . . . the Scientologists say . . . a word can mean what ever L Ron Hubbard wants it to mean. So, lets accept that a "static" is the word for the Scientology fundamental life form. At this stage it seems fair to question the use of the equivocating "basically" but, hey, it can also mean "at the most basic" and, so what if L Ron Hubbard's syntax was clumsy. He was a nuclear physicist, wasn't he? But, still, lets grit our teeth and move on.

In the addendum definition we are told that this thing - the Life Static - has "no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive." Ohhhh-kay. Lets ignore Einstein and, please, riddle me this: what can the Life Static perceive in the absence of anything to perceive?

So, yes. L Ron Hubbard duplicated Korzybski in that critical errors appeared very early on in his foundation documents. The difference, of course, is that Hubbard knew then that he was just making it all up. He believed that for something to persist it must contain a lie and if there's anything he wanted to persist it was his Scientology.

 

[Student of Trinity]

I don't follow the linguistic mapping argument for nonexistence of reactive minds, either. It seems that the argument could be applied just as easily to elbows as to reactive minds, but obviously elbows do exist. So something big must be missing from the argument as stated.

In fact the concept of linguistic mapping seems like a natural one for explaining what the reactive mind is supposed to be (as far as I understand Hubbard's idea). One big thing that the analytical mind does is map words onto meanings. Okay, says Hubbard: suppose you have a second word-to-meaning mapping engine, in addition to your analytical mind. This second engine is called the reactive mind, and it maps meanings differently.

To a lot of words (Hubbard goes on to say), the reactive mind attaches no meaning at all. So you won't notice your reactive mind at all, when you're dealing with things it considers meaningless. But to some words it attaches very different meanings than your analytical mind does. For instance, where your analytical mind interprets 'french fries' to mean a tasty but fattening food item, your reactive mind may interpret 'french fries' as meaning pain, or embarrassment, or joy. So when you hear the word 'french fries', your reactive and analytical minds feed you divergent meanings, and the reactive mind's irrational but powerful interpretations may affect your behavior.

That's not a crazy theory, by any means. In fact, it is obviously touching on an important truth. But this is by no means Hubbard's discovery. It may have been articulated before him by Korzybski, but I bet it had been expressed by many other people before Korzybski, as well. The truth that it's approaching is important because it plays a big role in human behavior, but the role it plays is so big that it's obvious to most people, and nobody deserves big credit for discovering it.

Moreover, the 'reactive mind' theory doesn't actually approach the full truth very closely. The full truth is that meaning is inherently fuzzy and complex. Every word strikes a rich chord of meanings in every mind, with lots of overtones and undertones of association. No two minds have exactly the same complex set of associations for any one word.

Sometimes there may be only one heavy note, as it were, in the chord: some words are pretty unambiguous for most people, and have very few complex connotations. Sometimes, for some people, there may be two main associations for a word; 'food' and 'pain', perhaps, may both be strongly associated with 'french fries', with all the other associations being much weaker. Those few cases where exactly two divergent associations predominate will fit the 'reactive mind' theory quite well.

But those two-association cases are few. The default case is for there to be many comparably strong associations. To say that each association represents a different 'mind' is to take a very crude model for meaning — one-to-one mapping — and push it to absurd extremes.

 

[Infinite]

How would you define a mapping without partner word?

Here - fill yer boots: http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar...a=X&ei=McgnUIuvNtGQiQeE84HIAg&ved=0CEkQgQMwAA

 

[Bill]

"Keeping Ethical" in Scientology has nothing to do with Ethics. Does it strike you as odd that you should use the words of a conman as if they were true?

Exactly right! Scientology "Ethics" does not have anything to do with actual ethics. The "Conditions" are typical Hubbard super-simplification and bizarre paranoia. Hubbard takes the very complex idea of people getting better and worse and he reduces it down to one of his thought-stopping, over-simplified "scales". Then he added level after level of "Lower Conditions" so he could punish people who he didn't like.

The "Condition Formulas" are the worst. They don't actually work. Good Scientologists try and try to make them make sense by reinterpreting what Hubbard wrote to what he must have meant. Hubbard loved to over-simplify and then tell you a "simple" formula to "solve" it all.

Back when I was a True Believer, I really tried to make it all work. I believed so I tried very, very hard to make his formulas make sense and make a difference. I finally discovered that, if I just ignored all that "Scientology Ethics" crap, I could really make things better and better. It isn't hard to succeed -- but it becomes difficult if you try to use Hubbard's Condition Formulas.

Bill

 

[Div6]

I don't follow the linguistic mapping argument for nonexistence of reactive minds, either. It seems that the argument could be applied just as easily to elbows as to reactive minds, but obviously elbows do exist. So something big must be missing from the argument as stated.

In fact the concept of linguistic mapping seems like a natural one for explaining what the reactive mind is supposed to be (as far as I understand Hubbard's idea). One big thing that the analytical mind does is map words onto meanings. Okay, says Hubbard: suppose you have a second word-to-meaning mapping engine, in addition to your analytical mind. This second engine is called the reactive mind, and it maps meanings differently.

To a lot of words (Hubbard goes on to say), the reactive mind attaches no meaning at all. So you won't notice your reactive mind at all, when you're dealing with things it considers meaningless. But to some words it attaches very different meanings than your analytical mind does. For instance, where your analytical mind interprets 'french fries' to mean a tasty but fattening food item, your reactive mind may interpret 'french fries' as meaning pain, or embarrassment, or joy. So when you hear the word 'french fries', your reactive and analytical minds feed you divergent meanings, and the reactive mind's irrational but powerful interpretations may affect your behavior.

That's not a crazy theory, by any means. In fact, it is obviously touching on an important truth. But this is by no means Hubbard's discovery. It may have been articulated before him by Korzybski, but I bet it had been expressed by many other people before Korzybski, as well. The truth that it's approaching is important because it plays a big role in human behavior, but the role it plays is so big that it's obvious to most people, and nobody deserves big credit for discovering it.

Moreover, the 'reactive mind' theory doesn't actually approach the full truth very closely. The full truth is that meaning is inherently fuzzy and complex. Every word strikes a rich chord of meanings in every mind, with lots of overtones and undertones of association. No two minds have exactly the same complex set of associations for any one word.

Sometimes there may be only one heavy note, as it were, in the chord: some words are pretty unambiguous for most people, and have very few complex connotations. Sometimes, for some people, there may be two main associations for a word; 'food' and 'pain', perhaps, may both be strongly associated with 'french fries', with all the other associations being much weaker. Those few cases where exactly two divergent associations predominate will fit the 'reactive mind' theory quite well.

But those two-association cases are few. The default case is for there to be many comparably strong associations. To say that each association represents a different 'mind' is to take a very crude model for meaning — one-to-one mapping — and push it to absurd extremes.

The identifying characteristc of mammals is the physical presence of a cerebral cortex. This is an overlay to the brainstem functions that correlate more closely to the autonomic nervous system. Given (at least) 2 potential control centers, when a "button" is found that is common (but divergent in meaning) between them, inner conflict can ensue.

 

[Infinite]

What do you expect her to do, forget every word, phrase or concept that she came across in the time she was in?

Not going to happen, not for any of us. Even for the ones who wish it would.

Non sequitur. The question I asked was:

bearing in mind that the entire subject is the work of a con-man, [which she has said herself] how do you differentiate between what is true and what is not true?

Nothing in there about having to forget or do anything. It would be helpful to many here, I'm sure, if someone were to explain the process by which they sorted the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps you meant to reply to my earlier comment where I asked:

Does it strike you as odd that you should use the words of a conman as if they were true?

Again, nothing about having to forget or do anything. Just a pointer to an inconsistency of thought, really.

Overall, I think its helpful for people recovering from their Scientology experience to not use the language because it contains false and dangerous concepts locked into almost every word. Surely you do not think it was a linguistic accident that among the first things a n00b Scientologist learns is that they have to "clear" their "bank". ESMB, of course, is set up for Exes to communicate amongst themselves and interested others. It would be unrealistic and counter-productive here to insist here that the language of Scientology not be used. In fact, I think its essential that the language be discussed as a subject and how L Ron Hubbard deliberately changed a person's language so as to change the way they think. It explains one of the portals into the mind fuck. Using the language also presents many and varied opportunities for the LOLs.

People who talk about things like "continual overts of any magnitude" as if there really were such things are, to me, indicating a belief in something which can be easily reconstructed into objective reality once its pointed out. Perhaps not for the person concerned - they may have too much invested in the belief - but others might be interested. I know I am.

 

[Dilpickle]

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'm not following this.. It sounds like you are saying that the reactive mind would not make a decision about a concept or word it does not know?

 

[Student of Trinity]

Sure, if you've got a cerebral cortex as well as a brain stem, then you have two rather different chunks of meat in your skull. But it's voodoo neuropsychology to jump to the conclusion that this means two minds.

The brain stem has some reflex mechanisms, but it seems very unlikely that it gives rise to any mind at all. Within the cerebral cortex there are zillions of cells, and whatever the heck is going on among them, the concept of 'control centers' seems now to be a hopelessly crude homunculus model that can bear very little relation to what really happens.

Insofar as 'control center' may be meaningful at all for describing complex behavior like parsing sound or vision and interpreting words, there may be many control centers within the cerebral cortex, and there are probably none at all in the brain stem. So the 'two mind' theory seems pretty irrelevant.

 

[Smilla]

An interesting but not necessesailly true quote from John C Lilly:

"The most important things to do in science is to figure out who the human is and how he operates biochemically. We're never going to understand how the brain works. I always say that my brain is a big palace, and I'm just a little rodent running around inside it. The brain owns me, I don't Own the brain. A large computer can simulate totally a smaller computer but it cannot simulate itself, because if it did there wouldn't be anything left except the simulation. Consciousness would stop there. "

 

[Dilpickle]

Bearing in mind that the entire subject is the work of a con-man, how do you differentiate between what is true and what is not true?

I just use what WORKS for me.. if it doesn't work, I toss it out as stuff LRH wished to use to Trap Us and not Free Us. I have unfortunately tried tech that did not work, and got myself in quite a mess.. once I unravelled myself, I took a fresh look and discarded that particular piece of data or process.. I used myself as a guinea pig.. because I could see the value in so much of it. I believe Ron got ahold of some major truths somehow or other.. and being the con man he is, he used the good parts to trap our attention, get us all to practically worship him, and believe EVERYTHING he said, and then boobytrapped it to extract work, time, energy, money etc out of us. He felt he was "winning" because he was becoming idolized and rich.. I think he had a stupendous ego.

Thinking it over, perhaps the BEST thing that could have ever happened to LRH, would have been if folks on the Apollo really LOOKED at him and noticed how out-ethics he was, and put HIM on the RPF.. had him running around poles and admitting his overts.. Maybe THEN he would have woken up and decided to put it all in place for us.. so we could ALL WIN.. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Jquepublic]

Non sequitur. The question I asked was:



Nothing in there about having to forget or do anything. It would be helpful to many here, I'm sure, if someone were to explain the process by which they sorted the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps you meant to reply to my earlier comment where I asked:



Again, nothing about having to forget or do anything. Just a pointer to an inconsistency of thought, really.

Overall, I think its helpful for people recovering from their Scientology experience to not use the language because it contains false and dangerous concepts locked into almost every word. Surely you do not think it was a linguistic accident that among the first things a n00b Scientologist learns is that they have to "clear" their "bank". ESMB, of course, is set up for Exes to communicate amongst themselves and interested others. It would be unrealistic and counter-productive here to insist here that the language of Scientology not be used. In fact, I think its essential that the language be discussed as a subject and how L Ron Hubbard deliberately changed a person's language so as to change the way they think. It explains one of the portals into the mind fuck. Using the language also presents many and varied opportunities for the LOLs.

People who talk about things like "continual overts of any magnitude" as if there really were such things are, to me, indicating a belief in something which can be easily reconstructed into objective reality once its pointed out. Perhaps not for the person concerned - they may have too much invested in the belief - but others might be interested. I know I am.

I get what you're saying, but she's been here what, 2 weeks? If she wants to explain herself or her ideas using a Scn word or phrase then let her. Everyone here is going to get what she's saying. If you want to take that up with her, ask her to explain it. Getting on her case about using "the words of a madman" doesn't result in any benefit and could serve to stop her from TRYING to communicate here.

 

[Smilla]

"No matter what happens to Scientology, no matter who is next in charge, no matter if it splinters into a thousand groups, anyone and everyone who is involved will suffer to the degree they are involved in the perpetual and self-generating self-delusion known as Scientology."

-The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Jquepublic]

I just use what WORKS for me.. if it doesn't work, I toss it out as stuff LRH wished to use to Trap Us and not Free Us. I have unfortunately tried tech that did not work, and got myself in quite a mess.. once I unravelled myself, I took a fresh look and discarded that particular piece of data or process.. I used myself as a guinea pig.. because I could see the value in so much of it. I believe Ron got ahold of some major truths somehow or other.. and being the con man he is, he used the good parts to trap our attention, get us all to practically worship him, and believe EVERYTHING he said, and then boobytrapped it to extract work, time, energy, money etc out of us. He felt he was "winning" because he was becoming idolized and rich.. I think he had a stupendous ego.

Thinking it over, perhaps the BEST thing that could have ever happened to LRH, would have been if folks on the Apollo really LOOKED at him and noticed how out-ethics he was, and put HIM on the RPF.. had him running around poles and admitting his overts.. Maybe THEN he would have woken up and decided to put it all in place for us.. so we could ALL WIN.. That's how I see it anyway.

I agree, Dil. If Hubbard had been held to his own standards, the church of Scientology would never have existed.

 

[Dilpickle]

I get what you're saying, but she's been here what, 2 weeks? If she wants to explain herself or her ideas using a Scn word or phrase then let her. Everyone here is going to get what she's saying. If you want to take that up with her, ask her to explain it. Getting on her case about using "the words of a madman" doesn't result in any benefit and could serve to stop her from TRYING to communicate here.

I'm not sure if I answered the questions yet.. LOL Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what is being asked when so many are tossing around ideas and long involved comments.. If I missed something, just point it out, and I'll do my best to answer

 

[Jquepublic]

I'm not sure if I answered the questions yet.. LOL Sometimes I have a hard time understanding what is being asked when so many are tossing around ideas and long involved comments.. If I missed something, just point it out, and I'll do my best to answer

No problem! I was fussing at Infinite, not you.

It's tough to keep up with an active thread. So many ideas from so many directions! For what it's worth I think you're doing just fine.

 

[Gadfly]

I agree, Dil. If Hubbard had been held to his own standards, the church of Scientology would never have existed.

His own standards?

On what day? Which one?

He said so many different and contrary things, that one can have just about "anything" be "true LRH".

As I see it Hubbard's "standard" was HIMSELF, his FICTIONS, and anything that would support his money-making organization and ego. THAT was his "highest standard". All else was fluff -talk - PR - to keep the charade moving along.

That a few decent ideas might have existed within that larger framework was entirely secondary and coincidental.