Scientology Logic, OUTPOINTS

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
A=A=A

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 ! :)

You know, it's been so long since I read the Dianetics book, and I don't have one to hand here. Can anyone cite the pertinent passage from the book? I don't recall the Anything=Anything=Anything statement, but if that is true, then it would make more sense.

I read Dianetics, practically in one weekend, over 30 years ago. It made sense to me at the time, and is what got me into Scn. (Although it seemed he did beat a lot of points to death.)

Now the only Scn books I have are Blown for Good, My Billion Year Contract and Madman or Messiah!:eyeroll: (I didn't throw out the LRH books, I just didn't take them with me when I left.)
 
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.

Wasn't the Bhagavad Gita already written before Bhuddism got going? And wasn't Bhuddism partly a rejection of some of the practices arising from ideas in the BG?
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
You know, it's been so long since I read the Dianetics book, and I don't have one to hand here. Can anyone cite the pertinent passage from the book? I don't recall the Anything=Anything=Anything statement, but if that is true, then it would make more sense.

I read Dianetics, practically in one weekend, over 30 years ago. It made sense to me at the time, and is what got me into Scn. (Although it seemed he did beat a lot of points to death.)

Now the only Scn books I have are Blown for Good, My Billion Year Contract and Madman or Messiah!:eyeroll: (I didn't throw out the LRH books, I just didn't take them with me when I left.)

The concept of ‘A=A=A’ comes up three time in DMSMH. From the 2007 (paperback edition):

1. page 77 – “The analytical mind’s computations might embrace the most staggering summations of calculus, the shifty turns of symbolic logic, the computations requisite to bridge building or dress making. Any mathematical equation ever seen came from the analytical mind and might be used by the analytical mind in resolving the most routine problems.

But not the reactive mind! That’s so beautifully, wonderfully simple that it can be stated, in operation, to have just one equation: A=A=A=A=A.”


2. page 223 – “Recall that the reactive mind can only think on this equation, A=A=A, when the three As may be respectively a horse, a swearword, and the verb “to spit”.”

3. page 405 – “The better one can tell differences, no matter how minute, and knows the width of those differences, the more rational he is. The less one can tell differences and the closer one comes to thinking in identities (A=A), the less sane he is.

Hubbard is clearly indicating that the reactive mind ‘thinks’ in identities, i.e. equates everything with everything else. So, that is not in question, but where he lets himself down, is by using the equation ‘A=A=A=A=A’ or variations thereof.

When I first saw this, I thought that it would make far more sense as ‘A=B=C=D=E’ because ‘A=A=A=A=A’ is clearly true in any sort of standard mathematical notation and thus suggests that the reactive mind is logical which is the opposite of what was intended.

Perhaps this is not a big deal, but given that Hubbard claimed to have an engineering background and claimed to have carried out a scientific study of the mind and spirit, this is a glaring inconsistency especially if he wanted to be taken seriously by the scientific or medical communities (which he wasn’t).

Axiom142
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
I did observe the stupidity of the the eighth dynamic having to work only sideways. He certainly didnt have a scientific mind, or logical one.

An Arab gentleman once explained to me the logic behind the numbers.
Originally the 'arabic' numberals were logical. 1 was like an upside down V, as the continentals still write it, 2 was more like a Z, and three more angular. So it's one angle, two angles and three angles etc. The shapes have evolved away from there but it was once totally logical. 8 on it's side or not, with two squares not circles is eight angles.

Now I know that has very little to do with sewing a cuttlefish onto your curtains, but it had to be said.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I did observe the stupidity of the the eighth dynamic having to work only sideways. He certainly didnt have a scientific mind, or logical one.

An Arab gentleman once explained to me the logic behind the numbers.
Originally the 'arabic' numberals were logical. 1 was like an upside down V, as the continentals still write it, 2 was more like a Z, and three more angular. So it's one angle, two angles and three angles etc. The shapes have evolved away from there but it was once totally logical. 8 on it's side or not, with two squares not circles is eight angles.

This article gives some useful data (and pictures) on the symbols here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals

Paul
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Does anyone know if Korzybski himself ever displayed the concept of "identity thinking" as a formula of any type? I have read through sections of Science & Sanity, and I don't recall ever seeing such a formula. If it existed, I would like to see it.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
The concept of ‘A=A=A’ comes up three time in DMSMH. From the 2007 (paperback edition):

1. page 77 – “The analytical mind’s computations might embrace the most staggering summations of calculus, the shifty turns of symbolic logic, the computations requisite to bridge building or dress making. Any mathematical equation ever seen came from the analytical mind and might be used by the analytical mind in resolving the most routine problems.

But not the reactive mind! That’s so beautifully, wonderfully simple that it can be stated, in operation, to have just one equation: A=A=A=A=A.”


2. page 223 – “Recall that the reactive mind can only think on this equation, A=A=A, when the three As may be respectively a horse, a swearword, and the verb “to spit”.”

3. page 405 – “The better one can tell differences, no matter how minute, and knows the width of those differences, the more rational he is. The less one can tell differences and the closer one comes to thinking in identities (A=A), the less sane he is.

Hubbard is clearly indicating that the reactive mind ‘thinks’ in identities, i.e. equates everything with everything else. So, that is not in question, but where he lets himself down, is by using the equation ‘A=A=A=A=A’ or variations thereof.

When I first saw this, I thought that it would make far more sense as ‘A=B=C=D=E’ because ‘A=A=A=A=A’ is clearly true in any sort of standard mathematical notation and thus suggests that the reactive mind is logical which is the opposite of what was intended.

Perhaps this is not a big deal, but given that Hubbard claimed to have an engineering background and claimed to have carried out a scientific study of the mind and spirit, this is a glaring inconsistency especially if he wanted to be taken seriously by the scientific or medical communities (which he wasn’t).

Axiom142

Thanks (and also to whoever else mentioned this), it 's a very good point. La La Lou Lou; good post.
 
Top