Technical Purity

[Smilla]

Jeezussgodallmightykriste. All these pages of complete garbage and uber-complexity and hogwash. Scientologist is undefinable. Standard Tech cannot be defined - what can it be? (puke puke puke).

Here's a datum for some of you: "Complexity is directly proportional to the degree of non-confront." Have you seen that before somewhere? It's a good datum. Use it sometime.

So there's this guy Hubbard. He was an absolute shithouse criminal and should have been strung up and left to rot. No argument about that. However, he also happens to have put some data together that he dreamed up or stole and that he sort of put into a category/subject thing and marketed. And then he set up an organization to run it all and they turned into criminal shithouses too and should also be wiped off the face of the earth. OK so far? No worries.

OK. Now. It happens that there were many people who got into that subject who themselves were not criminal shithouses but were inherently decent people. They used what they could of the subject to make things better for themselves and others. Most of these good guys were either kicked out of the organisation or left of their own accord. Some of them kept on using the good things they encountered and continued to make things better for themselves and their friends. And indeed, why shouldn't they?

Now it happens to be that somewhere in about 1960 or '61 somewhere Hubbard on a tape lecture said something along the lines of "The only thing you can use this subject for is to make people more self-determined. That is all that you can achieve with auditing, nothing else." [Clearly not an exact quote but the meaning is accurate. I can't be bothered right now to go hunting for the exact words.]

So, skip all the confusing and contradictory shit in the volumes and volumes of crud that Hubbard wrote and take only that one sensible understandable datum, on its own, and then you can immediately see that Scientology is that subject which seeks to make people more self-determined. Is that so fucking hard to understand or communicate? Is it too complicated to grasp? No it isn't. It's perfectly comprehensible by even any average half-witted human, and that would certainly include you all.

And what would Standard Tech be? (gasp! horror!) Well, stick it into the definition and you get : "Standard: a definite level or degree of quality [of technology] that is proper and adequate for [making people more self-determined] a specific purpose)."

We can even simplify that and say "any technology that makes people more self-determined". That will truly be enough to qualify as standard tech for scientology.

What Claire says is good too: All "standard" means is that it's proper and adequate for a purpose. That basically means, I think, close enough, we have enough info to get the job done. The purpose or job being referred to in the case of Scientology is "making people more self determined".

Now why is this so complicated and undefinable?

I take all of the stuff of LRH's and delete everything that does not pursue this line and I scrap it. And I look at what others have written and if I find anything that seems to me to be in line with this purpose then I include it. And all of it qualifies as being "Scientology" because all of it is directed and used to make people more self-determined. And never mind that an absolute of self-determinedness has never yet been attained by anyone - all we are after is an increase of it in the person.

End of story.

"The twenty-first century has seen a distinction drawn between'cerebral narcissists - people who build up their sense of magnificence out of an innate feeling of intellectual superiority' - and 'somatic narcissists - narcissists who are obsessed with the body." (Emphasis mine.)

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

End of story.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

Now it happens to be that somewhere in about 1960 or '61 somewhere Hubbard on a tape lecture said something along the lines of "The only thing you can use this subject for is to make people more self-determined."

-snip-

And what would Standard Tech be? (gasp! horror!) Well, stick it into the definition and you get : "Standard: a definite level or degree of quality [of technology] that is proper and adequate for [making people more self-determined] a specific purpose)."

We can even simplify that and say "any technology that makes people more self-determined". That will truly be enough to qualify as standard tech for scientology.

-snip-

The purpose or job being referred to in the case of Scientology is "making people more self determined".

-snip-

And all of it qualifies as being "Scientology" because all of it is directed and used to make people more self-determined.

snip-

Leon, the Scientologist, doesn't get the joke.

By the way, there is no definition for "Scientologist." Thinking there is a definition - an honest definition - is a joke played on people who call themselves Scientologists.

If there were ever to be a definition of "Scientologist" it might be, "Someone who doesn't get the joke."

And you, Leon, do not get the joke.

Oh, well.

 

[PirateAndBum]

Leon, the Scientologist, doesn't get the joke.

By the way, there is no definition for "Scientologist." Thinking there is a definition - an honest definition - is a joke played on people who call themselves Scientologists.

If there were ever to be a definition of "Scientologist" it might be, "Someone who doesn't get the joke."

And you, Leon, do not get the joke.

Oh, well.

I thought Leon did a very nice job of stating what he's doing with Scientology.

I think we all know that there's plenty of stuff in Scientology that doesn't fit his definition and he certainly acks it.

You're not opposed to others trying to carry on the stated ideals are you (that would include not evaluating for the person)?

Certainly there is more that could be done with the subject from a research point of view. Can what seems to work in it not be used as a point of departure?

I guess you & Leon have been butting heads for a long time. I imagine it's because of the upper level stuff he finds to be useful?

Ron wasn't a Scientologist - I think that was the problem in a twisted kind of way. If the subject had been developed as we all "idealized" i.e. to truly and only benefit people, we wouldn't be here arguing, so if he wants to carry on in his idealized view it doesn't really bother me.

 

[Lulu Belle]

Ron wasn't a Scientologist - I think that was the problem in a twisted kind of way. If the subject had been developed as we all "idealized" i.e. to truly and only benefit people, we wouldn't be here arguing,

good point.

 

[PirateAndBum]

The problem is stripping all the crap out.

It's funny that no one does TROM. It seems to me that Dennis did work out a very simple and complete method of resolving the mind (GPMs included). It's free and can be done solo.

I guess people really do like complex stuff.

Did you ever work with TROM Veda?

 

[Gadfly]

Jeezussgodallmightykriste. All these pages of complete garbage and uber-complexity and hogwash. Scientologist is undefinable. Standard Tech cannot be defined - what can it be? (puke puke puke).

Here's a datum for some of you: "Complexity is directly proportional to the degree of non-confront." Have you seen that before somewhere? It's a good datum. Use it sometime.

So there's this guy Hubbard. He was an absolute shithouse criminal and should have been strung up and left to rot. No argument about that. However, he also happens to have put some data together that he dreamed up or stole and that he sort of put into a category/subject thing and marketed. And then he set up an organization to run it all and they turned into criminal shithouses too and should also be wiped off the face of the earth. OK so far? No worries.

OK. Now. It happens that there were many people who got into that subject who themselves were not criminal shithouses but were inherently decent people. They used what they could of the subject to make things better for themselves and others. Most of these good guys were either kicked out of the organisation or left of their own accord. Some of them kept on using the good things they encountered and continued to make things better for themselves and their friends. And indeed, why shouldn't they?

Now it happens to be that somewhere in about 1960 or '61 somewhere Hubbard on a tape lecture said something along the lines of "The only thing you can use this subject for is to make people more self-determined. That is all that you can achieve with auditing, nothing else." [Clearly not an exact quote but the meaning is accurate. I can't be bothered right now to go hunting for the exact words.]

So, skip all the confusing and contradictory shit in the volumes and volumes of crud that Hubbard wrote and take only that one sensible understandable datum, on its own, and then you can immediately see that Scientology is that subject which seeks to make people more self-determined. Is that so fucking hard to understand or communicate? Is it too complicated to grasp? No it isn't. It's perfectly comprehensible by even any average half-witted human, and that would certainly include you all.

And what would Standard Tech be? (gasp! horror!) Well, stick it into the definition and you get : "Standard: a definite level or degree of quality [of technology] that is proper and adequate for [making people more self-determined] a specific purpose)."

We can even simplify that and say "any technology that makes people more self-determined". That will truly be enough to qualify as standard tech for scientology.

What Claire says is good too: All "standard" means is that it's proper and adequate for a purpose. That basically means, I think, close enough, we have enough info to get the job done. The purpose or job being referred to in the case of Scientology is "making people more self determined".

Now why is this so complicated and undefinable?

I take all of the stuff of LRH's and delete everything that does not pursue this line and I scrap it. And I look at what others have written and if I find anything that seems to me to be in line with this purpose then I include it. And all of it qualifies as being "Scientology" because all of it is directed and used to make people more self-determined. And never mind that an absolute of self-determinedness has never yet been attained by anyone - all we are after is an increase of it in the person.

End of story.

Leon, I like most of what you posted.

But THIS is your own PERSONAL HUGE ABRITRARY:

"The only thing you can use this subject for is to make people more self-determined. That is all that you can achieve with auditing, nothing else."

You yourself have chosen that as YOUR "stable datum", around which you align everything else, both from Scientology and/or elsewhere. That in itself, to me, is very good thing to do, because you thus THROW AWAY a GREAT HORRENDOUS AMOUNT OF SHIT that Hubbard mixed in together with the self-help aspect of the subject. The action of aligning with your self-chosen arbitrary stable datum probably renders it MUCH better and much more useful - well as something (even if not "scientology" as most people define or understand the term).

Fighting over and defending labels and semantic habits is just so inane to me.

But Leon, it is YOUR own VERSION. That is fine, I LIKE your version, but that is what it is. And, calling this new and unique re-organization of the subject materials "Scientology" is ridiculous. It is surely some sort of subject or field, related to some of the materials from Scientology, that resulted from taking some of the good things, mostly regarding auditing, and shit-canning the rest (OEC volumes, OSA N/W orders, justice procedures, KSW, hard sell, and on and on and on and on).

You know, you should toss out everything you EVER read from Hubbard's Data Series, if you haven't already done so, go study Korzybski or Hayakawa (from General Semantics), learn what DIFFERENTIATION actually means, learn what IDENTIFICATION actually is, and then sit back and calmly notice that you are failing to differentiate fully, and also, that you misidentify your personal concotion with the label "Scientology" (which means a great many things, and quite different than how you conceive of it, to a great many other people).

You DO most certainly differentiate between much of the SHIT Hubbard wrote, and the simple use of auditing to help people. THAT is a very good thing. Many people cannot even do that. But, calling the bit that is left over "Scientology", after you correctly have jettisoned a great deal of the nasty and destructive shit, well THAT is plain ridiculous. Oh, you can do it. But many people will view it as off-the-wall.

Now, I have done a similar thing with Christianity. I took these messages of Jesus:

Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You

Selfless Love for All

Forgive Them for They KNOW NOT What They Do

And I used THEM as the stable datum around which to evaluate and align everything in Christianity, and elsewhere. That resulted in my tossing out a great deal of crap and nonsense that was in the Bible. But I am NOT nutty enough to call myself a "Christian", and am not about to try to convince other "Christians" or ex-Christians that I "am one". Get it? :confused2:

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

And your opinion is based on what?

My experiences with him.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

There is no definition for "Scientologist." Thinking there is a definition - an honest definition - is a joke played on people who call themselves Scientologists.

If there were ever to be a definition of "Scientologist" it might be, "Someone who doesn't get the joke."

It's kind of sad.

Every word has diachronic and synchronic definitions.

You're just being emotional.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Leon,

Clearly, clearly, Scientology does not make a person more self-determined.

It makes them Hubbard and Church of Scientology determined.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Idle Morgue]

"The public stays away from orgs in droves which alter technology".

" Lafatty Hubbturd, aka: El Ron Blubbtoad, aka: L "Con" Blubbard

 

[Veda]

I thought Leon did a very nice job of stating what he's doing with Scientology. It's mostly Scientology's window dressing.

I think we all know that there's plenty of stuff in Scientology that doesn't fit his definition and he certainly acks it.

You're not opposed to others trying to carry on the stated ideals are you (that would include not evaluating for the person)?

Certainly there is more that could be done with the subject from a research point of view. Can what seems to work in it not be used as a point of departure?

I guess you & Leon have been butting heads for a long time. I imagine it's because of the upper level stuff he finds to be useful?

Ron wasn't a Scientologist - I think that was the problem in a twisted kind of way. If the subject had been developed as we all "idealized" i.e. to truly and only benefit people, we wouldn't be here arguing, so if he wants to carry on in his idealized view it doesn't really bother me.

What Leon described as Scientology is only a thin sliver of Scientology. It's not Scientology.

This is the table of contents of an e-book. It's a combination, and further development, of two sections in the book 'Messiah or Madman?': The 'Brainwashing Manual' chapter, and 'The Layers of the Scientological Onion' chapter.

'Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Scientology', a.k.a. 'Revisiting the Textbook on Psycho-politics' http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/ambry1.html

Contents

Examining the 'Brainwashing Manual' http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg with the purpose of better understanding Scientology 4

Introduction: A Brief Outline of Scientology Doctrine, Public and Confidential 6

"White Scientology" - The Battle Tactics Doctrine - Brainwashing Manual Tech - Scientology is Multi-layered - Exploiting the Positives: the Cheese in the Trap -

Background 9

Origin of the word "brainwashing." and of the "Russian Brainwashing Manual"
L. Ron Hubbard writing to Scientologists on the subject of the Brainwashing Manual
Departing briefly from the Manual: A look at private tactics later shared with insiders
A publicized statement
A private explanation
Hubbard vs. the "Asiatic Hordes"
Back to the Brainwashing Manual: Excerpts from Hubbard's third public statement on it
Kenneth Goff's 1956 version of the Manual
Scientology's "No-answer answers."

Excerpts from the Brainwashing Manual/Textbook on Psycho-politics 14

"Editorial Note": Hubbard. assuming the guise of the phantasmal "Charles Stickley"
"An Address by Beria": Hubbard, pretending to be Lavrenti Beria, chief of the Russian Secret Police
The Main Text of the Manual: Hubbard, masquerading as an arrogant Russain Brainwashing expert
"Pain-Drug-Hypnosis"

The Layers of The "Scientological Onion" http://exscn.net/content/view/178/105 17

Brainwashing Manual Parallels in Modern Scientology 19

Correspondences between the Brainwashing Manual and the Battle Tactics policy
On “Survival”
On Surviving the Atomic Bomb
On an individual Scientologist influencing leaders
Scientology is devious by design

Front Groups - Layer Zero of the “Scientological Onion” 20

“It is not necessary that the term ‘Communism’ [Scientology] be applied at first…”

Layer One - The publicized portion of Scientology 23

“White Scientology”
Scenario: (An application of “White Scientology”)
“By reason alone”
Auditing

Descending into Layer Two of the “Onion”: The “In-Organization” Strata 27

“…[Scientology] under the guise of [‘White Scientology’]…”
Exploitation of the process of abreaction
Playing one thing off another or “counter-playing”
“Loaded language”: the seemingly enlightened “counter-played” with the manipulative
Tone 4, “entheta,” “theta,” Suppressive Person
The Thought Limiting clichés of Scientology
Publicized, “In-organization” and Confidential Scientology “Ethics”
“…aligning the individual against the desire not to conform…”
Side effects of “critical thoughts”
Dominion over the loyalties of individuals

Layer Three of the “Onion”: The Confidential “Upper Levels” of the “Bridge to Total Freedom” 33

“…avoid the understanding of the layman…”
Highest of the “upper levels” must remain a mystery to the membership
Operating Thetan or O.T.
Aleister Crowley, Head of the O.T.O.
O.T. III, The “Wall of Fire” into which Hubbard “took the plunge” to save Mankind
Exploitation of the paranormal

Layer Four: “…a well trained individual who serves in complete obedience…”
The Sea Organization, the Rehabilitation Project Force, and the Five Card System 36

The Sea Organization: “Custodians of the O.T. Levels”
“…the only loyalty which should exist… is to the State [Scientology].”
Sea Org Ethics under Commodore Hubbard on the Flagship
“Refusal to let them sleep over many days…”
The Rehabilitation Project Force
“Filthy food, little sleep, nearly untenable quarters…”
“…the first loyalty [to himself]… is destroyed…”
“Degradation and conquest…”
The children’s and teenagers’ RPF
“A certain amount of fear…”
The RPF’s RPF
The Five Card “Team Share” System
“The technologies of psycho-politics…”

Layer Five: Confidential Scientology Policy and Tech for “handling” uncooperative outsiders 46

The Fair Game policy and “philosophy”
“…find or manufacture enough threat…”
“Direct the attention of the authorities…”
Scientology’s unscrupulous use of the legal system
“We will no longer put up with our religion being criticized…”
Discourage inquiry
Defamatory data on file; “Culling”: Searching “religious confessional” (auditing) files for embarrassing or intimidating items
Background: The Commodore’s Intelligence Network
The policy of covert attack and publicized PR “defense lines”
Scientology’s Multi-layered Public Relations tech
Scientology Intelligence tech
Data collecting, and Attack or “support” Intelligence
Creating incidents that reflect badly on others
“Data needed by Ops on each located who”
Attack or “support” Intelligence - The Covert Ops study course and checklist
“Persons in his vicinity to whom he is emotionally involved…”
Coerce them into signing prepared “retractions” or “confessions”
Plenty of bogus “documentation”
One justification for unscrupulous covert methods
Treatment of VIPs and celebrities
Goal of talking over “mental health” and “political guidance”
Full knowledge of Intelligence tech must be denied to the general membership
“Deception, chicanery, lying, manipulation and outright criminality”
“She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me”
Scientologists believe in a planet-wide conspiracy against L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology
The Scientology Hierarchy

Layer Six: The Core of the “Scientological Onion” 69

“…virtually a pathological liar…egotism… lust for power, and vindictiveness…”
“We must be like the vine upon the tree…”
The elusive “1000 page” official L. Ron Hubbard biography
“It’s a trap not being able to prevaricate”
Conscience as an “impediment”
The L. Ron Hubbard Fan(atic) club

Epilogue 74

Freeing the Positives

Addendum 76

"Dr. Hubbard's" FBI letters written concurrent with the appearance of the Brainwashing Manual 77

L. Ron Hubbard assumes the identity of Dr. Hubbard Ph.D DD - Patriotic Concerned Citizen
Letter of 29 July 1955
From a letter dated 7 September

A further look at Scientology's Covert Intelligence Tech 79

"Categories of Data Needing Coding"
A glimpse at a covert operation, and of public strata "policy" used as a cover for applied covert policy
An example of public strata "policy" used as "cover" - this time used on Scientologists by Scientology
"Ops Planning"
What to "Vet" or delete from sensitive internal messages that may be scrutinized by outsiders

Bibliography 82

Notes 87


L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?, 2nd edition:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0942637577/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-0654802-4263319


I recommend reading it, and all its links. It will take a few hours.

 

[Veda]

Every word has diachronic and synchronic definitions.

You're just being emotional.

The Anabaptist Jacques

You do not understand the Federal Reserve system, nor do you understand Kant.

 

[Veda]

My experiences with him.

The Anabaptist Jacques

That's fine.

However, 98% of what he says it confirmed with credible evidence and others' credible testimony.

 

[Leon]

Gadfly - and others - Thanks very much for your reply. However when one talks about what is "true" scientology then I hold by the following:

"It seeks to improve the lot of mankind, not by imposing upon it a code of behaviour nor by demanding allegiance to a set of divine commandments, but by uncovering within each individual that which is good and noble, that which is in fact the true basic person stripped of all falsehood, and thereby empowering him or her to the living of a better, more spiritual, life."

This is the core of it, and not the other attendant shit.

Though I grant that, as you say, this may be my own arbitrary, yet I don't think so in truth. I think this is the real core of the real subject.

 

[Gadfly]

Every word has diachronic and synchronic definitions.

You're just being emotional.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Yes, and those definitions and meanings, ANY definition or meaning, exist ONLY in the mind of some person - as an idea. And, these ideas are agreed upon.

There are no "definitions" out there, not outside the mind of any person.

That is why people go so nutty over this sort of thing, because people can and do accept and adopt DIFFERENT definitions, that at times fall away from the usal agreement of most others in some area, group or culture.

For common words, they are defined to be what they are, yes through habits over time, and just about everybody AGREES. This might happen unconsciously, and not be noticed by some or many, but it happens nonetheless. Language (meaning and significance, definitions, labels) is fundamentally a "mental activity" (at least in modern man). Language may have started as something else, but now that it has been internalized, it is very much "mental" (No Smilla, not "that" kind of "mental").

Hubbard made a valid point when he stated somewhere that the people who fall out of agreement too much with the rest of the folks appear as "crazy" or "nutty". That is why people who go off on weird tangents of redefining terms, in their own unique way, are viewed as somewhat nuts.

Anyway, it is easy for me to notice how people get all worked up over this stuff. They simpy 1) accept different significances, 2) align things with different personal choices of what is senior & important, 3) they have chosen (usually unknowingly to themselves) different values, and 4) they act as if all of this stuff is "out there" separate from themselves. Ahhhh, "scientology means this", or "scientology has no meaning".

It gets trickier with Scientology because Hubbard MADE UP MANY WORDS. There was often no diachronic aspect to many of the nomenclature words of Scientology, because they didn't evolve naturally over time through usage by many people - Hubbard made them up and just said, "this is what they mean"!

Geez, Scientology, as a subject, can be studied and examined in terms of its history, the people involved, what Hubbard wrote, what he did, what others did, how the Scientology organization has been involved with conflicts with governments, how it has attacked psychiatry, how following various policies results in actual very nutty behaviors, the history of various splinter groups, where the ideas came from, and on and on and on. What should we call it, "some thingie related to all the above"? :confused2:

When the Village Voice or St. Pete Times writes an article on Scientology, if there were no "definition" of the term Scientology, what the hell would they be talking about?

Again, the basic problem is that different people ATTACH DIFFERENT MEANINGS, IDEAS AND SIGNIFICANCES to the word. That is all that is going on.

Please, if this doesn't make sense to the reader, please pick up a copy of this book and read it (click on the image of the book to go to Amazon):

 

[Bill]

The problem is stripping all the crap out.

Why bother? Living without Scientology is good. If there is any non-crap in Scientology, it's too much work to weed through the crap to find it -- and, the worst part, you have to buy into the crap in order to test it. Life is good without Scientology, why bother looking at Scientology at all?

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

You do not understand the Federal Reserve system, nor do you understand Kant.

thus spoke Veda.



The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Gadfly]

Gadfly - and others - Thanks very much for your reply. However when one talks about what is "true" scientology then I hold by the following:

"It seeks to improve the lot of mankind, not by imposing upon it a code of behaviour nor by demanding allegiance to a set of divine commandments, but by uncovering within each individual that which is good and noble, that which is in fact the true basic person stripped of all falsehood, and thereby empowering him or her to the living of a better, more spiritual, life."

This is the core of it, and not the other attendant shit.

Though I grant that, as you say, this may be my own arbitrary, yet I don't think so in truth. I think this is the real core of the real subject.

Holy Jesus Christ on a Cross Leon, it is YOUR OWN IDEA AND INTEPRETATION of what you consider to be "the real core of the real subject".

Every point of consciousness has a DIFFERENT VIEW of things. Yours is cool except for this additive that youu feel the need to "label" it "Scientology". As Veda said, and he says it correctly, what you accept and use is a small SLIVER of the larger subject materials written by Hubbard. What was left after you did your own job of house-cleaning was a VERY much edited version of the subject. And, THAT is good.

You studied Scientology, didn't you? Do you know what a consideration is? Do you really not get after all these years that what you see as true and what you experience stems largely from YOUR OWN CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT A GREAT MANY THINGS? Yes? No? That is PDC Data 101 - considerations, postulates and agreements.

This is something I realized a long time ago when involved with Scn. Too many people only view considerations as some "negative thing" that holds them back or limits them. That is only half of it. Also, whatever you see and HOW you see it is conditioned by your self-created considerations. That is OK. That is the way it is. There is NO NEED to find proof or support in some "subject" out there. Just acknowledge that YOU, all on your own, have removed a great deal of stuff that you think to be useless crap from the larger subject, have no need to call or label it anything, other than honestly recognizing its roots, and get on with it.

This is all way TOO MUCH figure-figure. This concern for what "it really is" is misguided. In the end, "what is true for you IS what is true for you", and THAT is the only point of importance when it comes to values, meanings and significances.

Yes, there is a close correlation between a great many words and objects of the mind and physical universe that they define, represent or describe. But, there is a whole other realm that is MUCH more arbitrary - the subjective.

Christ, there is a HUGE body of data that Hubbard gave the label "Scientology". What any person considers as "the core" or the "real subject" is ENTIRELY a SUBJECTIVE MATTER. And you know what? That is OKAY. We each have our own unique CREATED set of personal values, and they are of our own making. Accept it and OWN IT. But don't try to keep pretending that "it all exists out there separate" from your own considerations and values about all of this.

Hubbard never talked about what I have been talking about here, other than saying on some tape, "a thetan can entertain any significance" (in other words, a person can conceive of anything in any of an infinite number of ways).

Please read the post directly above from me. I explain more about all of this. It really kills me that this all escapes some people.

As I see it too much of what people fight over involves their OWN arbitrary definitions and meanings. They argue over what is actually linguistics or semantics. I have found that when people get together and REALLY "talk it out", that more often than not, they actually don't have that many disagreements. Of course, that doesn't and can't apply to any sort of "true believer". :confused2:

 

[Leon]

"Every point of consciousness has a DIFFERENT VIEW of things."

Exactly so. It is the core of the subject FOR ME. I have no quibble about anyone else's view, least of all Veda's, and I am free to call it Scientology if I wish since it is at least as much Scientology as anyone else's view of it is.

I don't know what you are going on about here. It is as you said earlier - from the morass of confusion that Hubbard created I take a stable datum and throw out everything that is not in alignment with it. That's a very workable way of dealing with a confusion. And as I pointed out - it is not entirely only MY stable datum - it is what the dear leader declared at that time the stable datum to be.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

"Every point of consciousness has a DIFFERENT VIEW of things."

Exactly so. It is the core of the subject FOR ME. I have no quibble about anyone else's view, least of all Veda's, and I am free to call it Scientology if I wish since it is at least as much Scientology as anyone else's view of it is.

I don't know what you are going on about here. It is as you said earlier - from the morass of confusion that Hubbard created I take a stable datum and throw out everything that is not in alignment with it. That's a very workable way of dealing with a confusion. And as I pointed out - it is not entirely only MY stable datum - it is what the dear leader declared at that time the stable datum to be.

Which dear leader are you talking about? Hubbard or Veda? (I kid the sacred text)

Actually, to a degree you do make a good point here. (Not about the stable datum stuff, but about the definition of Scientology)

Gadfly keeps reminding us that no one can understand anything.

He makes this tautological point about understanding and words.

If he believed it then he might think we are talking about helicopters. (I kid the Tabanidae)

But remember, words do have synchronic and diachronic meanings.

So context is important.

I'm not using these words to sound hoity-toity, but because they are very precise words for a precise point.

When Veda says there is no definition for the word Scientology he is just letting his emotions get the best of him. Because if that was true then everything he said about Scientology would be false.

But when he defines Scientology in a perjoritive way when he names the harmful things and consequences of it, he too is right.

His definition will be one of the diachronic ones.

The Anabaptist Jacques