Scientology Logic, OUTPOINTS

Gadfly

Crusader
I have been meaning to go through, and re-read some of the basic Scientology books. Why? For a few reasons. First, to simply read, "study", and EVALUATE what I read, line by line, as I read it, in present time. Second, to notice what I may have misread, read into, and inferred when I first contacted the subject originally. Third, to notice what aspects I still agree with on some level, and why this is (for each specific case).

I read the ethics books, quickly, this morning. I may start a few threads about that.

But here is an interesting LRH quote from the Glossary:

The Eighth Dynamic is the urge toward survival through a Supreme Being, or more exactly, Infinity. This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of Infinity stood upright makes the numeral"8".

Do you see the totally absurd "logic" here? First, Hubbard in other places makes it VERY clear that the whole breaking up of "life" into the various dynamics was ENTIRELY ARBITRARY, and was done as a convenient way to more easily examine and discuss "major divisions of life" - the individual, the family, groups, mankind, etc. THAT aspect makes some sense, and has had some usefulness for me.

But this line is just so amazingly DUMB:

This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of Infinity stood upright makes the numeral"8".

What? Does ANY reader actually find anything meaningful in that statement? Well, there really can't be anymore dynamics past "infinity" or "God". So, it has to STOP at "8", as defined by Hubbard. But, to say that it is called the "8th Dynamic" BECAUSE flipping the infinity symbol "forms an eight", is just so amazingly stupid as a concept. Who actually THINKS with such nonsense? How do YOU, the reader, find ANY value or legitimacy in such a statement? Remember, this dynamic is the "God" dynamic. It has some or much meaning for many people, from their own perspectives about the concept of "God" or "Infinity", whether they are familar with Hubbard's definitions or not.

I remember when I first read that, commenting to myself how intensely DROLL the statement was. Hubbard so often simply made statements, and even linked unrelated assertions together, statements which the uncritical reader simply ACCEPTS. Hubbard stated somewhere as an observation that many people have a tendency to accept things just because it is in print, or stated. He was RIGHT! And, Scientologists often do exactly the same with LRH's writings and claims.

Really, be honest, does or can anyone find any meaning, of any significance, in this amazingly absurd sentence:

This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of Infinity stood upright makes the numeral"8".

What sort of crazy ideas must any person read into THAT to have it possess any meaning of any substance or value? What? The number "8" is somehow intrinsically tied into the very fabric of the universe, on some mystical level, due to some subtle universal link between the infinity symbol ("8" flipped 90 degrees in either direction) and the number "8"?

Well , let's see? The number "7", rotated 90 degrees to the left, is similar to an Egyptian hieroglyph for "air". So, following some strange stream of logic, "air" correlates to "spirit", and thus this Egyptian hieroglyph flipped up makes the number "7"?

Sometimes I get the notion that Hubbard intentionally included extremely ABUSRD ideas into his writings, as a test, to see just what people would accept, without any thought, critical thinking, or analysis, when delivered in a typical "NLP" (neuro-linguistic programming") sort of way.

I may start threads every time I find such a similar example of an assertion made by Hubbard, that is just so ABSURD, just so dumb, and which for whatever reason gets missed by most people who "study" such nonsense.

How can the above possibly make any "sense"? It can't! Of course, as Hubbard also correctly pointed out, thetans can make sense of anything, and do, every second of any day. Creating SIGNIFICANCE is one of the many things thetans do. They MOCK UP and CREATE "meaning". But, as Hubbard obviously knew, all "meaning" is relative, and often quite arbitrary. It seems, part of his "operation" was simply to toss out assertions, since so many people seem to willingly accept just about anything suggested to them with authority. How can ANY even slightly intelligent human being read the above sentence and NOT wonder, "what bullshit is THIS"? The answer to this question can be enlightening.

Most people read meaning into material where NONE actually exists. People create and co-create their own "meaning". Most people are entirely unaware of the fact that they do it, chronically, and in what ways they do it. It would behoove any person to exert a little self-examination in this regard. Few do. But then, there are few books or essays even written on such a topic!

I know that there are MANY more similar statements by Hubbard, where he just tosses out some assertion, claim or statement, that links little to anything, not in a "logical sense", and also often not linked to any possible observations that would or could support what he spits out. He VERY OFTEN speaks at very high levels of abstraction (generalities), which pretend to encompass large numbers of "examples", but he NEVER supplies ANY examples to support his assertion/claim/statement. Read KSW in a new unit of time, with THAT view. It is rife with such utterances!

Other examples? There are MANY! One simply need only open his or her eyes ,and notice the obvious in this regard.
 
Last edited:

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I've read a lot of absurd and amusing Hubbardisms, but, had missed that one :)

Thanks for adding it to my collection

Zinj
 

GreyWolf

Gold Meritorious Patron
You made me look at the numeral 2 and you know what? I can't see anything sexual in that.

Bob
 

Gadfly

Crusader
You made me look at the numeral 2 and you know what? I can't see anything sexual in that.

Bob

Oh, you just aren't looking hard enough! What is your MU?

Rotate the number "2" 90 degrees to the right. There is a large "opening" facing upwards. Do you have some out-ethics that prevents you from seeing that? The "opening" involves the "feminine" principle of "acceptance", "openess" and "receiving". Of course, the first number "1", standing up, so firm, so rigid, so "in your face", is the "masculine principle".

Do some Clay Demos, and some essays. It will ALL "make sense". :confused2:
 

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
I know that there are MANY more similar statements by Hubbard, where he just tosses out some assertion, claim or statement, that links little to anything, not in a "logical sense", and also often not linked to any possible observations that would or could support what he spits out. He VERY OFTEN speaks at very high levels of abstraction (generalities), which pretend to encompass large numbers of "examples", but he NEVER supplies ANY examples to support his assertion/claim/statement. Read KSW in a new unit of time, with THAT view. It is rife with such utterances!

Other examples? There are MANY! One simply need only open his or her eyes ,and notice the obvious in this regard.

OK, How about this one: LRH tried to illustrate aberrated think (the reactive mind thinks in identities) by the use of "A=A=A"

Well, hello!? In an equation, A DOES equal A!

If he wanted to show the aberration of identifying different elements, he would have said "A=B=C" etc.

Am I off base here, or the only one to notice THAT glaring outpoint?
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Oh, you just aren't looking hard enough! What is your MU?

Rotate the number "2" 90 degrees to the right. There is a large "opening" facing upwards. Do you have some out-ethics that prevents you from seeing that? The "opening" involves the "feminine" principle of "acceptance", "openess" and "receiving". Of course, the first number "1", standing up, so firm, so rigid, so "in your face", is the "masculine principle".

Do some Clay Demos, and some essays. It will ALL "make sense". :confused2:

hmm, when I rotate it that way I see an outline of a scrotum with lingam; angle of the dangle being straight down.

Zinj
 

Mystic

Crusader
Anything, that is anything, yes, that's anything spewed by Lips Hubbard = useless information.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
OK, How about this one: LRH tried to illustrate aberrated think (the reactive mind thinks in identities) by the use of "A=A=A"

Well, hello!? In an equation, A DOES equal A!

If he wanted to show the aberration of identifying different elements, he would have said "A=B=C" etc.

Am I off base here, or the only one to notice THAT glaring outpoint?

It would be a tautology, and, it's surprising how down on it Ron is, considering how fond He is of them elsewhere.

Probably my woggishness that has always left me baff when a Scientologist comments that 'that's A=A=A thinking'.

Zinj
 

Gadfly

Crusader
OK, How about this one: LRH tried to illustrate aberrated think (the reactive mind thinks in identities) by the use of "A=A=A"

Well, hello!? In an equation, A DOES equal A!

If he wanted to show the aberration of identifying different elements, he would have said "A=B=C" etc.

Am I off base here, or the only one to notice THAT glaring outpoint?

:thumbsup: Excellent point! Identity type thinking would FAR better be displayed by A=B=C!

Where things "not-equal" are identified falsely to "be equal"!

A=A=A is simply a way to possibly exhibit that things appear just as they are defined!

There is a valid view regarding the sad tendency of many people to identify, in their minds, things that are not actually even associated or related. This comes from the examinations of General Semantics. I find these views very much in alignment with a correct examination of the "poor thinking" conducted by so many people. Where ideas and even words are associated and related in ways that do NOT actually exist (outside of their minds).

But, A=B=C displays THAT concept far better than A=A=A (which doesn't actually display it at all).
 

Div6

Crusader
I have been meaning to go through, and re-read some of the basic Scientology books. Why? For a few reasons. First, to simply read, "study", and EVALUATE what I read, line by line, as I read it, in present time. Second, to notice what I may have misread, read into, and inferred when I first contacted the subject originally. Third, to notice what aspects I still agree with on some level, and why this is (for each specific case).

I read the ethics books, quickly, this morning. I may start a few threads about that.

But here is an interesting LRH quote from the Glossary:

The Eighth Dynamic is the urge toward survival through a Supreme Being, or more exactly, Infinity. This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of Infinity stood upright makes the numeral"8".

Do you see the totally absurd "logic" here? First, Hubbard in other places makes it VERY clear that the whole breaking up of "life" into the various dynamics was ENTIRELY ARBITRARY, and was done as a convenient way to more easily examine and discuss "major divisions of life" - the individual, the family, groups, mankind, etc. THAT aspect makes some sense, and has had some usefulness for me.

But this line is just so amazingly DUMB:

This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of Infinity stood upright makes the numeral"8".

What? Does ANY reader actually find anything meaningful in that statement? Well, there really can't be anymore dynamics past "infinity" or "God". So, it has to STOP at "8", as defined by Hubbard. But, to say that it is called the "8th Dynamic" BECAUSE flipping the infinity symbol "forms an eight", is just so amazingly stupid as a concept. Who actually THINKS with such nonsense? How do YOU, the reader, find ANY value or legitimacy in such a statement? Remember, this dynamic is the "God" dynamic. It has some or much meaning for many people, from their own perspectives about the concept of "God" or "Infinity", whether they are familar with Hubbard's definitions or not.

I remember when I first read that, commenting to myself how intensely DROLL the statement was. Hubbard so often simply made statements, and even linked unrelated assertions together, statements which the uncritical reader simply ACCEPTS. Hubbard stated somewhere as an observation that many people have a tendency to accept things just because it is in print, or stated. He was RIGHT! And, Scientologists often do exactly the same with LRH's writings and claims.

Really, be honest, does or can anyone find any meaning, of any significance, in this amazingly absurd sentence:

This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of Infinity stood upright makes the numeral"8".

What sort of crazy ideas must any person read into THAT to have it possess any meaning of any substance or value? What? The number "8" is somehow intrinsically tied into the very fabric of the universe, on some mystical level, due to some subtle universal link between the infinity symbol ("8" flipped 90 degrees in either direction) and the number "8"?

Well , let's see? The number "7", rotated 90 degrees to the left, is similar to an Egyptian hieroglyph for "air". So, following some strange stream of logic, "air" correlates to "spirit", and thus this Egyptian hieroglyph flipped up makes the number "7"?

Sometimes I get the notion that Hubbard intentionally included extremely ABUSRD ideas into his writings, as a test, to see just what people would accept, without any thought, critical thinking, or analysis, when delivered in a typical "NLP" (neuro-linguistic programming") sort of way.

I may start threads every time I find such a similar example of an assertion made by Hubbard, that is just so ABSURD, just so dumb, and which for whatever reason gets missed by most people who "study" such nonsense.

How can the above possibly make any "sense"? It can't! Of course, as Hubbard also correctly pointed out, thetans can make sense of anything, and do, every second of any day. Creating SIGNIFICANCE is one of the many things thetans do. They MOCK UP and CREATE "meaning". But, as Hubbard obviously knew, all "meaning" is relative, and often quite arbitrary. It seems, part of his "operation" was simply to toss out assertions, since so many people seem to willingly accept just about anything suggested to them with authority.

I know that there are MANY more similar statements by Hubbard, where he just tosses out some assertion, claim or statement, that links little to anything, not in a "logical sense", and also often not linked to any possible observations that would or could support what he spits out. He VERY OFTEN speaks at very high levels of abstraction (generalities), which pretend to encompass large numbers of "examples", but he NEVER supplies ANY examples to support his assertion/claim/statement. Read KSW in a new unit of time, with THAT view. It is rife with such utterances!

Other examples? There are MANY! One simply need only open his or her eyes ,and notice the obvious in this regard.

Yah. WTF?


Hubbard early on in the INTRO material uses "dynamics" as arbitrary divisions.

What you "learn" later is that the entirety of these divisions (and religion itself) were implanted in a viscious attempt to overwhelm beings and force then down to the level of survival of meat bodies. Just take a look at "The 7's" section of the Clearing Course Implant.


Of course, this could account for 7 dynamics...what to do about the "god" problem. This has been a bug-a-boo for many philosophers through time. The Bhagaved Gita marketed Krishna in an effort to sell "god" and keep people sold on a stratified caste society, as an answer to the Bhuddist concept of self-enlightenment.

But to say that the "8th" dynamic is just the infinity symbol put on its side...well! I prefer gods that hide as chariot drivers.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
This is called the Eighth Dynamic because the symbol of Infinity stood upright makes the numeral "8".


Yes, that makes complete & logical sense.

Explanation: 8=8=8
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Interesting point re that "because", Gadfly. It's not like it is a wild one-time typo: it still uses those exact words on the current CofS site: http://www.scientology.org/news-media/faq/pg014.html

I have no recall of picking up on that point before. I had the concept of the "8" being an infinity sign rotated through 90 degrees from reading that sentence, but mentally blacked out the "because" in the middle of the sentence. I can't even think of a simple typo or transcription error whereby what he originally dictated (isn't this from FOT?) was, er, misduplicated.

I agree it's a useful exercise to go over a Hubbard text or lecture line by line after taking out the "everything Hubbard says is almost always true" filter. I did it recently with the "Role of Earth" tape — quite eye-opening.

Paul
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Interesting point re that "because", Gadfly. It's not like it is a wild one-time typo: it still uses those exact words on the current CofS site: http://www.scientology.org/news-media/faq/pg014.html

I have no recall of picking up on that point before. I had the concept of the "8" being an infinity sign rotated through 90 degrees from reading that sentence, but mentally blacked out the "because" in the middle of the sentence. I can't even think of a simple typo or transcription error whereby what he originally dictated (isn't this from FOT?) was, er, misduplicated.

I agree it's a useful exercise to go over a Hubbard text or lecture line by line after taking out the "everything Hubbard says is almost always true" filter. I did it recently with the "Role of Earth" tape — quite eye-opening.

Paul

I have always been a chronic introvert - meaning that I am always examining and analyzing how and in what what I think, observe, conceptualize, etc. For most of my life I have tried to look at myself from "outside" myself. In some regards, that has been helpful.

Having done this much more than most, as it seems to me, I have come to understand how others tend to do the same, albeit quite under their own radar most of the time.

People have a horrible tendency to either "fill in the blanks" or to "cross out" words and data that doesn't "fit in". It is a common human trait.

Your leaving out and giving no significance to the "because" in the above sentence is one such example. Many examples come to mind, and I really need to set down and display some of this from Scientology - because most people do make certain common mistakes most of the time - just as they did and do omitting the "because" in the above sentence.

Most people IGNORE words or data that doesn't "fit in" or "make sense" along some preconceived line of "logic". Not just with Scientology. Most people are horribly dull as far as awareness of what his or her own mind does in such regards. One needs to first notice ones tendency towards such ommissions and additives, if one is to ever correct such a chronic deficiency in thinking and observation. Hubbard's system does NOT encourage such an ability. In fact, it suppresses such a notion.
 

AngeloV

Gold Meritorious Patron
0

Hubbard forgot about the zeroth dynamic which is the urge to survive through an asshole. It's called the zeroth dynamic because if you look at the number zero long enough it looks like an asshole. :moon:

It's the most important dynamic because if the asshole stops working, nothing else matters.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Hubbard forgot about the zeroth dynamic which is the urge to survive through an asshole. It's called the zeroth dynamic because if you look at the number zero long enough it looks like an asshole. :moon:

It's the most important dynamic because if the asshole stops working, nothing else matters.

:roflmao:

But also, and ponder this long and hard, zero rotated in any direction, in any amount of degrees, is still ZERO!!!! Oh my god! The significance of THAT should not pass by unnoticed.
 

the-ghostwhowalks

Patron with Honors
In response to A=A=A

OK, How about this one: LRH tried to illustrate aberrated think (the reactive mind thinks in identities) by the use of "A=A=A"

Well, hello!? In an equation, A DOES equal A!

If he wanted to show the aberration of identifying different elements, he would have said "A=B=C" etc.

Am I off base here, or the only one to notice THAT glaring outpoint?

Hi - I am not defending Hubbard here , but to be fair , Did he not mean Anything = Anything = Anything ? He is trying to point out the "identification" with "everything" action of the "dianetic" reactive mind . However I believe you are correct . A=B=C is a far better way of describing it than A=A=A due to the mathemtical conotation , besides, Dianetics was supposed to be an analysis of the mind from an "engieering" point of view ! I suppose however , a "true blue " scio may quote the HCOB "conceptual understanding " On this one ! :)
 

Div6

Crusader
Hi - I am not defending Hubbard here , but to be fair , Did he not mean Anything = Anything = Anything ? He is trying to point out the "identification" with "everything" action of the "dianetic" reactive mind . However I believe you are correct . A=B=C is a far better way of describing it than A=A=A due to the mathemtical conotation , besides, Dianetics was supposed to be an analysis of the mind from an "engieering" point of view ! I suppose however , a "true blue " scio may quote the HCOB "conceptual understanding " On this one ! :)

Well, if you realize that Dianetics was simply an over-simplicifcation of Korzybksi's Science and Sanity, then perhaps the context will be somewhat clearer. Hubbard borrowed heavily from the works of others, indeed, some may say he was an opportunist in that respect.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Well, if you realize that Dianetics was simply an over-simplicifcation of Korzybksi's Science and Sanity, then perhaps the context will be somewhat clearer. Hubbard borrowed heavily from the works of others, indeed, some may say he was an opportunist in that respect.

Or duplicitous. I don't think Dianetics is an 'oversimplification'; I think it's a deliberate misstatement and tendentious misdirection.

Zinj
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
:roflmao:

But also, and ponder this long and hard, zero rotated in any direction, in any amount of degrees, is still ZERO!!!! Oh my god! The significance of THAT should not pass by unnoticed.

Or, you can print it really large on a piece of paper and do the Origami Buttplug Rundown

And, that aint nuthin.

Zinj
 
Top