Speculations on the IRS Takeover of the CoS

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Sorry to fully disagree here. First of all, I have formal education in the scientific method, having a scientific background in one top European University, which doesn´t matter which is it. Way BEFORE Scn... I´m also versed in epistemology, and philosophy of science, Kuhn, Hume, Locke, Bacon, Foucalt, and others, just to name a few, having read the SOURCES. Have you read any of those Mike??

Well Paul, you seemed to have started a rather heated debate here. We are a very diverse group here on ESMB with a broad spectrum of views. This is one of the reasons that I love this ‘place’ so much – it is a great opportunity to learn and see things from different perspectives. And, given the way that Scientology has affected people, mostly in a harmful way, it is inevitable that sometimes the discussion get a little heated and the odd insult or personal remark is thrown into the mix. I don’t like to see this, but the reality is that ESMB is far better in this respect than most other forums that deal with Scientology.

Do you mind if I ask what Sciences you studied and at what university? I was most interested in Science and Technology at school and studied Electrical Engineering at Portsmouth University. I’m not really that interested in philosophical discussions, but like to know how things work and what makes the world tick.

I used to be very interested in ‘alternative theories’ but as I studied them, I found that the proponents often had huge gaps in their logic, cherry-picked which evidence they used and didn’t stand up very well to rigorous examination. So, my attitude now is pretty much “Show me the evidence!” whenever I see someone proposing a radically different theory.

The alleged takeover of the CoS by the IRS is something that I looked at in the past, but found not to hold much water, especially in light of subsequent revelations made by Larry Brennan, Mary Rathbun and others.

Third, one can also follow on intuition, or gut-feeling and THEN look for the facts. The more I live, the more I do it. It gets me the best results many times, I´m getting. When I disociated the gut from the head, many problems happened, such as not seeing the OBVIOUS in Scn. (Ignosis, it´s called in another thread). So I recomend an approach of heart-head (reciprocal feedback between these 2, if you get what I mean), and not the traditional western approach of JUST head, who has lead the western man to the monsters created by Western society, one more of them being the Scn. structure.

The trouble with the approach that you mentioned, is that it is all too easy to decide what you want to prove before you get there, only looking for evidence that supports this agenda and ignoring everything that does not agree with it.

This is clearly not proper application of the Scientific Method. Evidence gathering has to come first and conclusions drawn from the available data. And, rigorous examination of the conclusions is very much a part of this. Anyone searching for the truth should welcome a thorough review and be prepared to modify their views if a new perspective is gained.

I don’t think it is fair to blame Scientology on western society. It is pretty much the product of a rather disturbed individual, albeit assisted by some other disturbed / evil-intentioned individuals.

3. I make my point again: It´s the only symbol, together with the RTC symbol surrounded by a fire, (another occult tradition) that was NOT defined by LRH or is not in any tech or admin dictionary with it´s meaning. It´s one of the most expensive facilities, created by the CoS, and it is kind of striking that out of all the symbology existing that one was picked. Besides, if in their inner logic, "OTs" are supposed to come back some day and recover the data, why use a symbol that NO Scientologist knows or can recognize?

This is not actually true. The CoS produced a magazine about 15 years ago, explaining what the CST did (or at least purportedly did), showing some of the titanium capsules. These were marked with the double ring and diamond logo. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of this magazine, but was shown a copy by the DSA at St Hill. In addition, Lars Najbjerg, a CoS supporter, has a webpage dedicated to the CST and the logo can clearly be seen here: http://freezone.najbjerg.info/church-of-spiritual-technology

However, having said that, it is probably true that most CoS members don’t know much about the CST or it’s logo, possibly demonstrating the famous Scientology selective memory.

Axiom142
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
However, having said that, it is probably true that most CoS members don’t know much about the CST or it’s logo, possibly demonstrating the famous Scientology selective memory.

CST registered their logo as a US federal trademark in June 1985, number 37 and 38 on my list at http://fzglobal.org/trademarks.htm, citing its first use in commerce in 1984. It's not exactly a secret. Every CofS promo piece (pretty much) acknowledges "L. Ron Hubbard Library" and has done for years. If you Google that term, the first hit is for CST's Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Spiritual_Technology.

Paul
 

Kutta

Silver Meritorious Patron
Hey Paul, I also like post-modernism. I studied history and literary texts from a post-modernist, post-colonialist perspective. Have forgotten most of the theory now, but recall that using it required a very satisfying intellectual shift. All very academic and far removed from everyday thinking, a sort of academic masturbation, but providing insight nevertheless. Don't know how you would use it in this current debate though.
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
Can LRH's "data series" be used to find fallacies in LRH writings/Scientology?

Of course. As long as you don't include Hubbard's inane ideas about "Ideal Scenes", which are ALL slanted towards Scientology success, and which are additives to the orignal theories of General Semantics, upon which the Data Series is based.

Instead of grading "data" against "Ideal Scenes", which Hubbard tricks folks into doing, grade the data simply as "true" or "false" when compared against observable reality. Hubbard has included a few "ringers" into the Data Series, additives of General Semantics, which make it largely unworkable in any general sense. You can use the idea of an "ideal scene" to "evaluate" some area of life, but be damned sure that the statement of the "ideal scene" is correct and meaningful FOR YOU.

There are two steps to any "eval", and Hubbard makes this quite foggy. First, one grades the data simply aganst "factuality". Are the observations legitimate statements of observable aspects of some reality. Then second, only after having done the first, THEN grade the "facts" against some statement of the relevant "ideal scene".

Hubbard very much biases the Data Series against "survival", and especially of the survival of Scientology. Those are actually "added inapplicable data".
 
Last edited:

rhill

Patron with Honors
Surprisingly, despite the inherently fallacious nature, yes.

A Scientologist using the 'data series' will inevitably recognize the hollow core of Scientology.

Zinj

I don't know about this. I browse over the whole thing and it's pure unadulterated LRH self-serving do-what-I-say-EXACTLY writings, including redefinition of words, his usual paranoia, machine-like instructions for "thinking" with the usual implication it's undisputable, etc. If you think there is something in there which can defeat itself, I don't see it.
 

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
On epistemology and other masturbations

Well Paul, you seemed to have started a rather heated debate here. We are a very diverse group here on ESMB with a broad spectrum of views. This is one of the reasons that I love this ‘place’ so much – it is a great opportunity to learn and see things from different perspectives. And, given the way that Scientology has affected people, mostly in a harmful way, it is inevitable that sometimes the discussion get a little heated and the odd insult or personal remark is thrown into the mix. I don’t like to see this, but the reality is that ESMB is far better in this respect than most other forums that deal with Scientology.

Do you mind if I ask what Sciences you studied and at what university? I was most interested in Science and Technology at school and studied Electrical Engineering at Portsmouth University. I’m not really that interested in philosophical discussions, but like to know how things work and what makes the world tick.

I used to be very interested in ‘alternative theories’ but as I studied them, I found that the proponents often had huge gaps in their logic, cherry-picked which evidence they used and didn’t stand up very well to rigorous examination. So, my attitude now is pretty much “Show me the evidence!” whenever I see someone proposing a radically different theory.

The alleged takeover of the CoS by the IRS is something that I looked at in the past, but found not to hold much water, especially in light of subsequent revelations made by Larry Brennan, Mary Rathbun and others.



The trouble with the approach that you mentioned, is that it is all too easy to decide what you want to prove before you get there, only looking for evidence that supports this agenda and ignoring everything that does not agree with it.

This is clearly not proper application of the Scientific Method. Evidence gathering has to come first and conclusions drawn from the available data. And, rigorous examination of the conclusions is very much a part of this. Anyone searching for the truth should welcome a thorough review and be prepared to modify their views if a new perspective is gained.

I don’t think it is fair to blame Scientology on western society. It is pretty much the product of a rather disturbed individual, albeit assisted by some other disturbed / evil-intentioned individuals.



This is not actually true. The CoS produced a magazine about 15 years ago, explaining what the CST did (or at least purportedly did), showing some of the titanium capsules. These were marked with the double ring and diamond logo. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of this magazine, but was shown a copy by the DSA at St Hill. In addition, Lars Najbjerg, a CoS supporter, has a webpage dedicated to the CST and the logo can clearly be seen here: http://freezone.najbjerg.info/church-of-spiritual-technology

However, having said that, it is probably true that most CoS members don’t know much about the CST or it’s logo, possibly demonstrating the famous Scientology selective memory.

Axiom142

Hi axiom,

well, basically majority of exchaning ideas here in this board is mental masturbation, as are most philosophical endeavors. There is so many realities for a person, and then so many different persons over here. And yes, that is good. Nevertheless, me personally, I´m not interested into the WIN stuff, winning arguments just for the sake of winning, and that kind of stuff. If I post here is for 2 reasons: 1. for fun, 2. to de-construct what I need to de-construct (or unlearn) from my time inside and possibly to re-construct after, what was GOOD and is WORTH, which is not little. So if 1. (fun) is not accomplished, then my main purpose here is not there. I guess other people have a purpose of to proof, or to abject their agression, or whatever, and ok, you are right, I´m gonna be more tolerant with such ways of expression and what is behind them.

Regarding my background, I don´t want to state much personal stuff over here, for personal reasons, but it was one of the natural sciences (i did many other studies besides, but it´s not the point here), not engineering, after that for 2 years, I created a group with people from the philosophy faculty, and we exchanged, from the scientific, to the philosophic, that was the most interesting part of university back then, while having usually some beers, not as many as not being able to study. One of my favorites was Kuhn, with his Paradigm theory, and I believe since then, that we humans thing in terms of pre-conceived paradigms, and evolve in a paradigmatic way, till the older paradigm comes to a crisis, and we need a new one. For me the Scn. paradigm (mindframe) is not as such, as a whole anymore workable as complete unit...

It was mostly on epistemology, and scientific method, changed my view completely to what I was learning at the U. My favorite was the theory back then above the experimental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I can see what you mean, if you seriously mean that Larry Brennan and Marthy Rathbuns data oppose or conflict, or proof wrong the points I made, then why not go ahead and explicit them? I mean, you guys are funny. You pretend on one hand that one expresses concrete data and logic, and then the response is PURE OPINION or confirme fact! If so great, but express them concretely and oppose my arguments in a TRUE DEBATE. Saying, it´s not so, because so and so, proofed is not so, means NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to me, and it is NOT debating truly. On the other hand, if you say, Larry Brennan said this and that, and did this and the other, which PROOFS this and the other, then I can analyze it and see the conflict in there, if there is, and then evaluate which data oppose which, and which might be more true than other. Otherwise this all becomes a debate of egos, and not a true debate. You get my point?

You say,I used to be very interested in ‘alternative theories’ but as I studied them, I found that the proponents often had huge gaps in their logic, cherry-picked which evidence they used and didn’t stand up very well to rigorous examination. So, my attitude now is pretty much “Show me the evidence!” PERFECT. I can only fully agree to the statement you made in italics. But, then start yourself! See: which alternative theories are you talkng about? Alternative politics theories, alternative theories on the mind, alternative theories on reality, on which topic, by whom, what are the fallacies, why would it be so. Does it mean that many conspiracy theories are rubbish, that conspiracy as such or world government doesn´t exist? Is the purported reality by the media more of a reality? Will we ever have the FULL DATA to make a complete judgement? No, not on all the topics. One has to take secondary sources, and quote them. I did make a list of facts, followed by a connecting the dots, and posed it as a QUESTION, or SPECULATION. I pushed some heavy buttons, and was attacked for that, no much different to the times of the Spanish or OSA Inquisition, I was digitaly burnt on the stake for saying something "improper". :angry: Show me the illogics, and I will more than anything welcome them, discredit me with arrogance, and you will get no attention from me. (not meaning you, just in general). Not interested in talking from button to button, interested in talking from idea to idea, and EXCHANGE and change, and enrich myself. Show me the additional data, and hey, welcome!

But DO it, don´t state that they exist. At least list them, and argue, debate. If you state they exist, don´t proof anything, or say, this is already talked about, but not even deliver a thread, nothing, it is somehow talking from "authority", and i had enough of that, didn´t you?

On your other points:

I don’t think it is fair to blame Scientology on western society.

I fully disagree here. Scientology is the extremism of the industrial age control and production system, cocktailed with some superficial eastern new age ideas, passed through the megalomania of a supreme ego (something very western again) and made into an extreme profit-oriented and money making machine, in other words, the extreme of the actual western society and values, and guess what, it expands mostly and appeals mostly to Westerners, interesting it never found root in India, Brasil, Black Africa, Asia... but it did strongly in Russia, why so? Because the Russian mind is very much appealed by the factors put together in that philosphy, but the Indian is not. Besides, I was not "blaming", I just said, that Scientology is an extreme expression of industrial-age western thought and western filtering of eastern ideas. you can find the same in much of the western new age movements, without the obsessive industrial-age production scheme, but again watered down, and understood from a western view. "I´m me and my circumstances" as a XXth century philospher put it. Why deny it? Or you believe the whole planet has a similar mind structure to the way you think, your operative system? No man, you and me have XP, and a whole majority of the planet is running on Linux!! (mentally speaking) I mean it. :yes: But we westerners are so f... egocentric, we believe everybody else, has the same operative system, and only their soft is changing, while it ain´t the case! (just have a look at brasil, india, china, or most of asia, black africa, and nope, their way of thinking and approaching the mind process is quite different in many ways, as their way of feeling, and communicating)

This is not actually true. The CoS produced a magazine about 15 years ago, explaining what the CST did (or at least purportedly did), showing some of the titanium capsules. These were marked with the double ring and diamond logo. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of this magazine, but was shown a copy by the DSA at St Hill. In addition, Lars Najbjerg, a CoS supporter, has a webpage dedicated to the CST and the logo can clearly be seen here: http://freezone.najbjerg.info/church-of-spiritual-technology

About the logo, all very fine, this was not my point. That the logo is registerd on such and such data, that it was published and so on, is beyond the point I made. I NEVER stated the logo to be secret at all! I stated and repeat here, that the logo is NO LRH logo, nothing else and nothing more. And THAT point, has IMPORTANCE. All LRH symbology, wether you like it or not, was very well thought of by him, and very well agrandized and given importance here, and there, the confederation in the SO logo, the 13 planets and who knows, the org board, with the x divisions, it is all very well tabulated by LRH. The CST logo, has nothing, whatsover, NOTHING, Scientological to it. Two circles, and two diamonds, so what? You guys, didn´t get my point, and are adding things here I NEVER, ever said. I never affirmed it was secret! I affirmed, that it is a weird logo, and has no connection whatsover, but is supposed to be seen from the moon, for the upcoming "OTs" after the nuclear holocaust. Come on, give me a break. Where is the indoctrination on the logo, on which OT level? On which reference? On which dictionary. The whole CST stuff, is completely un-LRH, THAT WAS MY POINT. The incongruence about it. The only similarity of the logo is to two circles crossing, a very repeated rosacrucian symbol and the constantly repeated owl, all over occult traditions. I haven´t stated it was created by the satanist, or any of the sort. Not wether I believe the holocaust will happen tomorrow and Xenu is Obama reincarnated, or the other way round. It just stroke me as completely incongruent, that CST, the top Scientology Church is absolutely non-Scientological in it´s legal structure, in it´s representatives, and in it´s logo, but on the other hand is where all the moneys flow and to where SEVEN YEARS LATER all LRH state was flown to, after LRH Jr. having been to court. All LRH children are silent, why? None of them demanded money from their father´s estate, none of them is making any noise? If you add to it, that it FACTUALLY was created by IRS agents, it makes it even more weird. It was for me like pulling the monkey, and then stepping on the Sherman Tank. I don´t have the answers to it, but I DO have the questions. Hope my point about the logo is more clear now.

LRH´s death, the coup by DM, the creation of CST, are somehow non-coherent topics, full of contradictions, and I made an attempt to connect some dots from a SPECULATION viewpoint. That´s all.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I fully disagree here. Scientology is the extremism of the industrial age control and production system, cocktailed with some superficial eastern new age ideas, passed through the megalomania of a supreme ego (something very western again) and made into an extreme profit-oriented and money making machine, in other words, the extreme of the actual western society and values, and guess what, it expands mostly and appeals mostly to Westerners, interesting it never found root in India, Brasil, Black Africa, Asia... but it did strongly in Russia, why so? Because the Russian mind is very much appealed by the factors put together in that philosphy, but the Indian is not. Besides, I was not "blaming", I just said, that Scientology is an extreme expression of industrial-age western thought and western filtering of eastern ideas. you can find the same in much of the western new age movements, without the obsessive industrial-age production scheme, but again watered down, and understood from a western view. "I´m me and my circumstances" as a XXth century philospher put it. Why deny it? Or you believe the whole planet has a similar mind structure to the way you think, your operative system? No man, you and me have XP, and a whole majority of the planet is running on Linux!! (mentally speaking) I mean it. :yes: But we westerners are so f... egocentric, we believe everybody else, has the same operative system, and only their soft is changing, while it ain´t the case! (just have a look at brasil, india, china, or most of asia, black africa, and nope, their way of thinking and approaching the mind process is quite different in many ways, as their way of feeling, and communicating)

Excellent synopsis of Scientology! :thumbsup:
 

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
On Foucaults ideas on discourse and knowledge

Hey Paul, I also like post-modernism. I studied history and literary texts from a post-modernist, post-colonialist perspective. Have forgotten most of the theory now, but recall that using it required a very satisfying intellectual shift. All very academic and far removed from everyday thinking, a sort of academic masterbation, but providing insight nevertheless. Don't know how you would use it in this current debate though.

What I meant is Foucault (correctly spelled now for our friend above) gave more importance to the discourse and the internal coherence of it, than it´s factuality. I know that post-modernisn hasn´t sickled through to society yet. But fractal realities, and internal realities, and all that kind of stuff, is where modern philosophy was heading after the Frankfurt School and modern philosophs such as Foucault. My point was that what is important is the discourse in itself, as Foucault says, and not so much the verifying of it agains an empiric reality (through the senses). Hence, post-modernism. While modernism has it´s parallel in industrial age, means, what you see is what you get, post-modernism is AFTER modernism, the viewpoint, that there is NO ULTIMATE TRUTH, and that truth is ONLY relative to the observer. What they mean by that, is that ideas are relative to idea systems, and they should be judged from their idea systems, as there will be no ultimate physical proof of them. It is an interesting philosophical approach to knowledge. Some people attacked it, post-modernisn, as beeing to vague, they wanted the black and white truths of Hegelianism, or other CLOSED philosophical systems. But in my view CLOSED philosophical systems can be very dangerous, and they have created most of the HUMAN DRAMA´s in the XXth century. Post-modern aproach to knowledge is not that of an ULTIMATE TRUTH, or VALIDATE TRUTH, but many fractal truths, and we can only compare them from within, not from without. In other words, if i don´t take the full discourse from somebody and understand the meaning from his assumptions and concepts, it is worthless, to state it to be true or untrue.

What is interesting for me, is that there is more than fact prooving evidence epistemology, and that modern philosophy is tending more together with modern physics, and even new age movements (not meaning Scientology here, but others) to stress the IMPORTANCE of the observer, and not of a firm outer reality. So reality is OBSERVER bound, wether you talk Foucault´s ideas on analyzing discourse or Schrödinger´s Physics.

To summarize, if you take this post of mine, or I take the former paragraph of yours, from Foucault´s post-modern view, I need to analyze from within and as a whole, and see if it´s coherent within itself. That would be analyzing a discourse and how a postmodernist would go about it, while a Hegelian (dichotomist so to say) would go for the absolute truths in it.

In the end, none here in the board can PROOF with solid fact ever, wether the CoS was taken over by the IRS, nor can proof, which were LRH´s true intentions, nor can proof many, many things stated here. We can take fair assumptions, and speculate about majority of subjects.
 

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
agree too

The data series are an extremely valuable tool, and are as far as I know developed on their own, and not from something else. I believe they add a new and interesting viewpoint to applied logic.

To me personally they help me see many incongruences about LRH himself, and later about parts of his tech.

They are definitely a worthwhile tool, they were being in, and they still are being out.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
The data series are an extremely valuable tool, and are as far as I know developed on their own, and not from something else. I believe they add a new and interesting viewpoint to applied logic.

To me personally they help me see many incongruences about LRH himself, and later about parts of his tech.

They are definitely a worthwhile tool, they were being in, and they still are being out.

Incorrect. Completely. But then, Hubbard often hid his "sources" very well.

See:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=355672&postcount=219
 

rhill

Patron with Honors

It's pretty much how Scientology as a whole is advertised, isn't?

"Can Scientology do [whatever placeholder]?"
"Yes"

Then one is left wondering how come the world outside Scientology has been moving forward as a whole, and how come the world inside Scientology is always reduced to a mess over the decades.

The fact is if Scientology had the tools to fix itself, it would have done it a long time ago. So clearly it doesn't. Because Hubbard didn't want to. The whole thing is designed to be an extension to Hubbard's narcissistic ego.

I just can't think any real tangible contribution that Scientology brought to the world, aside demonstrating the flaws of attributing implicit benevolence with being "religious."
 

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
Incorrect. Completely. But then, Hubbard often hid his "sources" very well.

See:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=355672&postcount=219

I disagree on that somehow. While Korzybski defined sanity, and infinity valued logic, and all the other terms you state, the very specific definitions on outpoints as far as I know are Hubbards, such as added time, etc.. and that´s the true value of data series.

We shouldn´t go from one extreme to credit everything to Hubbard and then to discredit everything from him. He added and developed on existing data, and was able to gather workable systems and digest them easily for the layman, wether he did it for a hidden agenda, doesn´t change the fact, that there is many workable parts and pieces of tech.

Same on Dianectis, true many ideas are to be found in abreactive therapy, here and there. But Dianetics IS a workable therapy, no doubt.
 

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
It's pretty much how Scientology as a whole is advertised, isn't?

"Can Scientology do [whatever placeholder]?"
"Yes"

Then one is left wondering how come the world outside Scientology has been moving forward as a whole, and how come the world inside Scientology is always reduced to a mess over the decades.

The fact is if Scientology had the tools to fix itself, it would have done it a long time ago. So clearly it doesn't. Because Hubbard didn't want to. The whole thing is designed to be an extension to Hubbard's narcissistic ego.

I just can't think any real tangible contribution that Scientology brought to the world, aside demonstrating the flaws of attributing implicit benevolence with being "religious."

Come on guys! If NOTHING was workable, why did you get involved at all? Is incoherent not to admit that one was attached because some things DID work. If nothing did work, and noticed, what´s then the reason to get involved at all?

Besides, again the thread is about IRS and Scn.
 

rhill

Patron with Honors

Come on guys! If NOTHING was workable, why did you get involved at all? Is incoherent not to admit that one was attached because some things DID work. If nothing did work, and noticed, what´s then the reason to get involved at all?

Well, astrology works! too, there is a lot of people involved in it:

Astrology “works,” it is said, but what does that mean? Basically, to say astrology works means that there are a lot of satisfied customers. There are a lot of satisfied customers because thanks to subjective validation, it is easy to shoehorn any event to fit a chart. To say astrology "works" does not mean that astrology is accurate in predicting human behavior or events to a degree significantly greater than mere chance.

This reminds me an LRH opinion re. "superstitious belief": "The administration of tests now moves out of the psychological area into the prediction of the future. [...] We will fully exploit the superstitious belief of people in prophesy." (HCO PL October 28, 1960, "New Testing Promotion Section")

In any case, you don't answer my question: How come Scientology is such a mess, and the brand is down the drain, after nearly six decades, if Scientology has the tools to fix itself? Can't the data series help you formulate an answer to this?
 
Top