Scientology Study Tech In The Real World

[Gadfly]

Actually, although these might be the "official" definitions, they look like PR and bullshit to me.

I am entirely on board with you Paul.

A person who MAKES UP A SUBJECT, as Hubbard did, where none existed before, has the chance to make up terms with meanings that MEAN NOTHING TO ANYBODY. Just because they "exist" doesn't mean that there is any SUBSTANCE to many or most of them outside of Hubbard's (and his follower's) imaginations.

There is no "Scientology" before Hubbard "made it up". It has few referrants in ANY world. From the viewpoint of Korzybski, involving the notion maps defining and describing territories, where is the territory (again outside of minds and imaginations)?

Look at how "normal" subjects and words develop in the real world. It is a dynamic process, usually involving interaction of many people sharing a common experience. These people experience and observe similar or the same "objects and/or relationships". And, they come up with words to describe these "objects and/or relationships". Subjects evolve as some general area of common interests takes on descriptions.

To make up a subject, out of the blue, when there are no previous anythings, and to simply give to it all of these supposed "meanings" is truly ABSURD. This is majorly a case of grandiose FICTION coupled with Hubbard's tricks to "gain agreement and bring about a reality".

He is one helluva hoaxter that Mr. Hubbard.

Bu the way, if anyone wants, you can download the entire Tech Dictionary HERE in PDF Format.

 

[Gadfly]

Definition is necessarily promotional. Establishing definitions is an essential feature of promoting study and discussion of any subject. The definitions you extracted are the official definitions by which all scientologists have had occasion to study and familiarize themselves with the subject.

Mark A. Baker

Except that in almost all OTHER subjects, the words and definitions refer to actual real existing observable "things". Clear, OT, PTS, suppressive person?

Hubbard MADE UP many of these "things" that people consider to exist as "real things" (but many don't, not outside of the imagination of some believer). Real subjects usually relate and connect up to commonly shared observations.

See, the horse comes BEFORE the cart.

With Hubbard he made up all the stuff, and THEN tried to bring about the "commonly shared" by nringng about agreement (thrugh all sorts of indoctirnation rules and trickery).

The horse comes AFTER the cart.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... With Hubbard he made up all the stuff, and THEN tried to bring about the "commonly shared" by nringng about agreement (thrugh all sorts of indoctirnation rules and trickery).

The horse comes AFTER thae cart.

Well. ... his background was in writing fiction.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gadfly]

Well. ... his background was in writing fiction.

Mark A. Baker

His "background" was in writing fiction? Yes, that is common knowledge. What IS your point?

You write that as if it MEANS something of significance, as a response to what I wrote. I don't get it.

Meaning before when? Compared to when it was no longer of the nature of fiction? As I see it his entire LIFE, and just about everything in it, was fiction.

It is not like he "started out" as a science fiction writer, stopped at some point, and then got involved in non-fiction.

His creations have always been largely of the nature of FICTION. His biography, his claims, the imaginary states of OT, the state of Clear, his constant beating of the drum for his amazing self, the way he created fictions (lies) about enemies to slander them and shut them up, his pretentious knowledge about so many things, his being named "source" of various ideas in Scientology (that were not HIS to own), and on and on.

 

[Veda]

From a 1986 interview with ex-"Flagship" auditor and executive, John Ausley:

"[Hubbard] liked gathering a whole group of people together under any cause, then assigning them roles as characters, and watch them act out his own books. He assigned them character roles, 'You're a this, or this'..."

There are people who were told, "You're a this," who hold dearly to the particular "this" they were assigned. They will rationalize endlessly in order to hold onto the "this."

There are people who were told, "You're a Scientologist," who will hold on to that "this" for the rest of their lives.

Taking that away from them is like taking a little kid's baseball cards away from him.

 

[Gadfly]

From a 1986 interview with ex-"Flagship" auditor and executive, John Ausley:

"[Hubbard] liked gathering a whole group of people together under any cause, then assigning them roles as characters, and watch them act out his own books. He assigned them character roles, 'You're a this, or this'..."

There are people who were told, "You're a this," who hold dearly to the particular "this" they were assigned. They will rationalize endlessly in order to hold onto the "this."

There are people who were told, "You're a Scientologist," who will hold on to that "this" for the rest of their lives.

Taking that away from them is like taking a little kid's baseball cards away from him.

Yeah, I found that people often get VERY messed up with Hubbard's ideas on "beingness". Be a this, be a that, so you can then involve yourself in a "do" and get a "have".

I always pushed it one step further. I wanted to exist as the quiet behind the motion. I didnt want to assume ANY beingness. But lots of people did and do. Boy, do they!

I found it preferable to exist as THAT which assumes the beingess. Why bother with it? Any beingness is a "pretend". Just "be yourself" - where your "self" is your field of awareness. It is so very much simpler this way. Minimal complexity.

This is so absurd, especially when one considers that Scientology is promoted as a spiritual practice. A "beingness" could be likened to an artificial personality, like an ego. It is an ADDED thingie, that is not necessary. People "adopt them" or attach them to oneself. In Buddhism and Hindu subjects, there is the spirit or field of awareness, and IT assumes identifies (beingnesses). They are all fake. They are each an illusion. Yet Scientology encourages people to assume and tack on "beingnesses" to themselves. I have said it before, the practice of Scientology pushes one in the OPPOSITE direction of spiritual practices like Buddhism and meditation, where the aim is to get GET RID OF beingnesses, and to exist as the unconditioned field of awarness. Scientology causes most people to confuse oneself with the manufactured beingness.

I am this! I am that! Blah-blah-blah, ad nauseum.

I mean it. Really, while I can see some value in be-do-have, like for actors maybe, it forces many people into strange "valences" that they often would be far better off having never assumed. I suppose it might be okay if they kept in mind that they were pretending, but they don't. They usually BECOME the mock-up.

Like Hubbard's nonsense in The Life Orientation Course, where the student "discovers one's HAT for life". What?

Do you find it, like under a rug? Was it hiding somewhere? Some of his ideas are just so DUMB, and force people into weird mental behaviors that are quite unneccesary, and which actually add chaos and confusion to any person's mind, where none need exist.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

His "background" was in writing fiction? Yes, that is common knowledge. What IS your point?
...

My Point is that he was accustomed to making things up. My Point was stated wryly. Not sure why you evidently missed My Point. My Point was not subtle.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Student of Trinity]

The word scientology has been defined. It does not mean what you evidently want it to mean. Any attempt to redefine it in the manner you wish simply adds to the existing confusion. It does not serve to clarify.

The term has been defined differently, many times, by different people. The particular definition I advocate is one of those already in widespread use, both by the Church of Scientology and by its critics. Standardizing on it, therefore, cannot add to the existing confusion, but can only reduce it.

If people are asked to standardize on this definition of a term, they are not thereby being asked to change their actual beliefs, not in the slightest. The change of language would be a slight mental inconvenience to the group of people who have hitherto been accustomed to other definitions. What I suggest is that the inconvenience would be justified in the cause of bringing down the cult.

From your other statements, Mark, it would seem that you are well aware of the arbitrary nature of terminology. So I cannot understand your current naive appeal to your "tech dictionary" as being somehow authoritative. If there is a group of people who are accustomed to using the tech dictionary's definition of "Scientology", so what? There is nothing to stop all these people from switching to another definition, except unwillingness to accept inconvenience. I acknowledge the inconvenience, but I submit that refusing this inconvenience does real harm.

Insisting on the tech dictionary definition helps the cult. Giving it up entails only mental inconvenience. Don't you think it would be worth it?

 

[Dulloldfart]

Actually, although these might be the "official" definitions, they look like PR and bullshit to me.

Paul

Just to flesh out the "PR and bullshit" a bit, from the top:

SCIENTOLOGY, 1. it is formed from the Latin word scio, which means know or distinguish, being related to the word scindo, which means cleave. (Thus, the idea of differentiation is strongly implied.) It is formed from the Greek word logos, which means THE WORD, or OUTWARD FORM BY WHICH THE INWARD THOUGHT IS EXPRESSED AND MADE KNOWN: also THE INWARD THOUGHT or REASON ITSELF. Thus, SCIENTOLOGY means KNOWING ABOUT KNOWING, or SCIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE. (Scn 8- 80, p. 8) 
SCIENTOLOGY as a word comes from scio and logos; scio/scindo OK; he's inventing the subject so the word can mean whatever he decides and I can't object to that.

2. Scientology addresses the thetan. Scientology is used to increase spiritual freedom, intelligence, ability, and to produce immortality. (HCOB 22 Apr 69) 
"Scientology addresses the thetan" (as opposed to Dianetics addressing the body initially and then something about the spirit in relationship to the body when someone decided it was too medical and not religious enough). I think this is all PR, coming from when he lost control of Dianetics in the early 50s so started a new subject (Scn) and dissed Dn. Until he got control of Dn again. Realistically Dn is a subset of Scn, even though there is a distinction made. But this is 1969 era, when the need to assert Scn's "spirituality" occurred.

"Scientology is used to increase spiritual freedom, intelligence, ability, and to produce immortality." Yeah, right.

3. an organized body of scientific research knowledge concerning life, life sources and the mind and includes practices that improve the intelligence, state and conduct of persons. (HCOB 9 Jul 59)
"an organized body" : yup, fair enough.
"of scientific research knowledge": I don't think anyone here is going to offer arguments to support that.
"concerning life, life sources and the mind and includes practices": yup, OK
"that improve the intelligence, state and conduct of persons." Well, I agree there are some things in the 25+ million words of Scn, many of which were stolen without credit from men of good will, which could do that. But on the whole, I would say not.

4. a religious philosophy in its highest meaning as it brings man to total freedom and truth. (HCOB 18 Apr 67)
"a religious philosophy": arguably so, even if so couched for base purposes
"in its highest meaning": hyperbole
"as it brings man to total freedom and truth": utter falsehood, not even meriting the label of hyperbole.

5. the science of knowing how to know answers. It is a wisdom in the tradition of ten thousand years of search in Asia and Western civilization. It is the science of human affairs which treats the livingness and beingness of man, and demonstrates to him a pathway to greater freedom. (COHA, p. 9)
"the science": ahem
"of knowing how to know answers.": hyperbole
"It is a wisdom in the tradition of ten thousand years of search in Asia and Western civilization.": oh come on
"It is the science": there's that s-word again
"of human affairs which treats the livingness and beingness of man,": OK (but it should be "treats of" and not "treats").
"and demonstrates to him a pathway to greater freedom.": I would agree that the practice of auditing, in some contexts, is to an extent "freeing" in that it releases charge and gives more options in how to react to stimuli. But the definition makes it sound like the whole subject does this, when the whole subject is a gigantic trap created (apparently) mainly for the purpose of Hubbard's aggrandizement.

6. an organization of the pertinencies which are mutually held true by all men in all times, and the development of technologies which demonstrate the existence of new phenomena not hitherto known, which are useful in creating states of beingness considered more desirable by man. (COHA, p. 9)
"an organization of the pertinencies which are mutually held true by all men in all times": hyperbole, another of Hubbard's sweeping generalizations.
"and the development of technologies which demonstrate the existence of new phenomena not hitherto known": that's probably true in some cases.
"which are useful in creating states of beingness considered more desirable by man.": OK. But sticking your finger down your throat when you've eaten bad food is useful in creating a state of beingness considered more desirable by man too.

7. the science of knowing how to know. It is the science of knowing sciences. It seeks to embrace the sciences and humanities as a clarification of knowledge itself. Into all these things-biology, physics, psychology and life itself-the skills of Scientology can bring order and simplification. (Scn 8-8008, p. 11)
"the science of knowing how to know. It is the science of knowing sciences. It seeks to embrace the sciences and humanities as a clarification of knowledge itself. Into all these things-biology, physics, psychology and life itself-the skills of Scientology can bring order and simplification.": I don't even need to break this bullshit down into parts to show how ridiculous it is.

8. the study of the human spirit in its relationship to the physical universe and its living forms. (Abil 146)
I would accept that if it said "A study of. . . ." It is not at all definitive.

9. a science of life. It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all the factors of life. It contains the data necessary to live as a free being. A reality in Scientology is a reality on life. (Aud 27 UK)
Covered already.

10. a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual. (COHA, p. 251)
Yeah, right. And if it doesn't then you're not doing it properly.

11. Scientology is an organized body of scientific research knowledge concerning life, life sources and the mind and includes practices that improve the intelligence, state and conduct of persons. (Abil Mi 104)
Already covered.

12. knowledge and its application in the conquest of the material universe. (HCL 1, 5203CM03A)
Huh? This is far too general.

13. an applied philosophy designed and developed to make the able more able. In this sphere it is tremendously successful. (HCO PL 27 Oct 64)
"an applied philosophy": OK
"designed and developed to make the able more able". Speaks as to Hubbard's intention, which is impossible to be 100% certain of. But judging by his actions, this purpose is not true.
"In this sphere it is tremendously successful.": Er, no it isn't.

14. an applied religious philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge, which through the application of its technology, can bring about desirable changes in the conditions of life. (HCO PL 15 Apr 71R)
Covered above.

-----

Well, since we know what Scientology is NOT, maybe we can come up with some revised definitions that say what it is.

Paul

 

[Gadfly]

My Point is that he was accustomed to making things up. My Point was stated wryly. Not sure why you evidently missed My Point. My Point was not subtle.

Mark A. Baker

Ah, "wryly". Sometimes it is not so easy on the Internet to "see" humor. That is why I always ADD the prompt in my post to make it very clear (such as "sarcasm").

I will brush up on my insouciance.

 

[loose cannon]

Well, since we know what Scientology is NOT, maybe we can come up with some revised definitions that say what it is.

Well in fact, I think that finding a real good definition and then looking at what people who consider themselves scientologists or who are called so by others do would be at least amusing.

But I find the idea of "open source gnosis" much more interesting. I think Clearbird or websites like FreezoneAmerica are good examples of such an approach and that that should be promoted as a real alternative to doing scientology in the Co$, with much more freedom and possibilities. (I don't think that doing almost the same crap like Marty does is not a real alternative.)

 

[Dulloldfart]

But I find the idea of "open source gnosis" much more interesting. I think Clearbird or websites like FreezoneAmerica are good examples of such an approach and that that should be promoted as a real alternative to doing scientology in the Co$, with much more freedom and possibilities. (I don't think that doing almost the same crap like Marty does is not a real alternative.)

Clearbird is pretty much straight Scientology. There's no technical innovation in it. Nor any open source.

PaulsRobot and similar Rub & Yawn sites are innovative, but aren't really open source either. I'm open to suggestions, but I have no intention of "crowd-sourcing" them. Why, willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic. Ahem.

Paul

 

[loose cannon]

Clearbird is pretty much straight Scientology. There's no technical innovation in it.

Not the tech, but as I quoted out earlier in this thread viewpoints of other authors were incorporated.

Nor any open source.

So what are then publicly available materials? Closed source?

PaulsRobot and similar Rub & Yawn sites are innovative, but aren't really open source either. I'm open to suggestions, but I have no intention of "crowd-sourcing" them.

​

Well, your instructions are openly available. No need for you to crowd-source them, but anyone else can actually create his or her own fork and further develop the ideas you have brought.

 

[Veda]

Towards the bottom of the first link, note that Clearbird leads to the Advanced Ability levels (With a Clear depicted, sitting at a table, with an e-meter, a dark cloud labelled "case" hovering over his head): http://www.freezoneearth.org/Clearbird/Clearbird2004/index.htm

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometheus04/files/gradechartCB.htm

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometheus04/powerR6/power/adv_levelsCB.htm

Once you're "Clear" you're, ominously, "at risk."

"Anyone who is Clear but not OT III had better be pushed up to OT 3 first because otherwise he is at risk." 'HCOB' 23 Dec 1971.

I like the Clearbird material. However, Clearbird and Prometheus Reports do seem to have a symbiotic relationship.

This is from the author of the Clearbird materials, under 'KSW and Clearbird':

"We respect Ron's tech for what it is, a complete system that has been tested and adjusted, re-tested and adjusted again, and now existed more or less in its final form for over 30 years." http://the-scientologist.com/clearbird.shtml

And that "complete system" does not end at "Clear."

Onward to Xenu!

If you went ga ga over Clearbird, you'll swoon over Filbert, but it's still re-cycled Hubbard/Xenu Bridge. And there's a market for the Hubbard/Xenu Bridge, not a big market, but a market. Disoriented people, recently out of the Cof$, still want their Hubbard/Xenu Bridge.

Those who toss aside the Hubbard/Xenu Bridge no longer have that market to draw upon.

And, Loose Cannon, if you still believe in "Clear," and have that as a goal, and are still interacting with Scientologists, once you become "Clear," you'll find that you're being advised to continue with your Hubbard/Xenu Bridge. Soon you'll start noticing how people in the supermarket are dramatizing various Implants, then you'll start noticing Body Thetans, lots of them, and then...

 

[loose cannon]

Nothing new to me. But thanks for your effort ;-)

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... From your other statements, Mark, it would seem that you are well aware of the arbitrary nature of terminology. So I cannot understand your current naive appeal to your "tech dictionary" as being somehow authoritative. ...

It's not MY tech dictionary, SoT.

It's the SCIENTOLOGY tech dictionary. At the onset of developing a body of work for exploration and discussion, terminology IS largely arbitrary. However, once the terms have been fixed then from that point on arbitrary RE-definition serves to confuse dialog not clarify.

Shall we re-define the term 'electron' to be a reference to the particle theorized to transmit the force of gravitation because YOU might like that? Is 'momentum' a good choice of word to use for the smallest unit of measurable time?

Word meanings are at root somewhat arbitrary. For meaningful discussion to occur it requires that participants understand the common meanings assigned to words. The words associated with the subject of scientology are defined in the Scientology Technical Dictionary and the Scientology Management Dictionary. These aren't necessarily 'good' definitions, but they ARE the definitions which persons who are FAMILIAR with the subject of scientology have studied and understand. These are the definitions which in fact DEFINE the subject.

Anyone who has made a formal study of the subject of scientology is familiar with these sources. Those who aren't familiar with them are those who have NOT made a study of the subject. It makes no sense for those who are relatively ignorant of a subject to determine the nature and scope of discourse on the topic. You wouldn't tolerate that sort of arrogance from the rankest freshman in one of your physics courses. You should realize that same hubristic intent is what you are proposing here.



Your participation on a message board for ex-scientologists DOES NOT MEAN you are knowledgeable about the subject of scientology, anymore than an individual hanging out on a message board created for popular discussion of topics relating to sciences is thereby knowledgeable about quantum electro-dynamic theory. You have yet to undertake anything like a 'serious study' of scientology. Such exposure as you have had to the subject is both limited and decidedly partisan. Accordingly you are in no position to suggest substantive changes to terminology which impact on differing aspects of the subject.

What you know is physics. Indirectly you have learned something about scientology. Don't confuse your knowledge of physics as thereby imparting special knowledge of the subject of scientology. Your re-definition of defined terms serves no useful purpose in facilitating ongoing discussions of the subject of scientology, the practices of scientology, the church of scientology, or related matters.

I recognize that many of the definitions used in scientology are arbitrary. Such an arbitrary character is an innate aspect of language. However, over a period of six decades the meanings of scientology words have already developed standard usage among scientologists & ex-scientologists. They are well-established and understood broadly among ALL who have actual experience with scientology. Arbitrary re-definition as proposed by a partisan members of a singular minority community who has no actual experience studying the subject is NOT a reasonable proposal. A bit less hubris please.

... Insisting on the tech dictionary definition helps the cult. ...

No, it does not 'help the cult'. No more than reference to a dictionary of christian symbols helps christianity. What it helps is understanding.
Understanding the way that scientology has been taught is an essential part of understanding the cult. Arguably the cult can not be understood except in respect of the terms in which it defines itself. Anything else is a simple appeal to partisanship.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dulloldfart]

Not the tech, but as I quoted out earlier in this thread viewpoints of other authors were incorporated.

They were? I thought it was just the Prometheus Reports that quoted others.

So what are then publicly available materials? Closed source?

Well, your instructions are openly available. No need for you to crowd-source them, but anyone else can actually create his or her own fork and further develop the ideas you have brought.

I was looking on "Open Source" as stuff that many had collaborated on. But yes, by its very nature none of my (released) work is hidden.

If we're being picky, I haven't released my work under an "open source"-type license, and don't plan on doing so. PaulsRobot3 is available under a Creative Commons license so people can download and use it at home and even host it (unchanged) on their own websites, but the license does not extend to making derivative works from it.

EDIT: The specific license is a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Paul

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Clearbird is pretty much straight Scientology. There's no technical innovation in it. Nor any open source. ...

Correction, Paul, Clearbird IS open source; effectively it is an attempt to open source the subject of scientology. CB is free to distribute and invites further development and adaptation of new tech. Just as with the gpl, CB is intended to be itself republished in an unaltered form so as to preserve the original content, but NOTHING in CB precludes others adding their own technical developments to the subject of auditing and passing them on to others.

Open source is about preservation as much as it is about innovation and distribution. Hence the use of existing copyright in an innovative way to protect the rights of users. CB is, for all intents & purposes, Open Source Scientology, in contrast to the strictly closed source version controlled by the Co$.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

-snip-

A bit less hubris please.

-snip-

To a Scientologist, there are few things worse than an uppity "wog," which, incidentally, is a term found in the Scientology 'Technical Dictionary'.

 

[Veda]

They were? I thought it was just the Prometheus Reports that quoted others.

-snip-

I dimly remember Filbert being mentioned, is that correct? Do you happen to recall any of the others? (This saves me from having to re-read the stuff myself.) Thanks.