The Dianetics Fiasco

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
The Symposium is also a great one. It's the one about love. It works both as a really beautiful literary work and great philosophy.
 
Cool.

I was a very uneducated person when I got in Scientology. And I stayed in until I got an education.

Specifically, what made me see through Scientology was reading Plato.

The Anabaptist Jacques

For my part I was already familiar with Plato before I encountered the subject of scientology along with several other key areas of philosophy & literature. In my view that general familiarity with other approaches to human thought played a significant role both in helping me to identify those aspects of the subject of scientology which were useful to me as well as identifying that material which was either unimportant or counter-productive.


Mark A. Baker
 

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
For my part I was already familiar with Plato before I encountered the subject of scientology along with several other key areas of philosophy & literature. In my view that general familiarity with other approaches to human thought played a significant role both in helping me to identify those aspects of the subject of scientology which were useful to me as well as identifying that material which was either unimportant or counter-productive.


Mark A. Baker

I don't think I'll ever understand this. Hubbard's writing is just so transparently idiotic. What's not gibberish or paranoia is a cliche. Even the word Scientology is absurdly dumb to anyone who cares about language (as in Steve Martin's parody, MindHead). It puzzles me about Robert Vaughn Young too. Of course, when he left, he seemed pretty clear about the value of Hubbard's work.

I don't know. Apart from the parlor games (auditing, TRs) that have nothing to do with anything (they could very easily be detached from Scn "theory" and be exactly as "effective"), all Scientology is at bottom is a pile of truly worthless books written by someone who knew a very little bit about a lot of things and thought he understood the universe. It would be pathetic if so many people didn't seem to think there was an intellect there worth paying attention to.

(ETA: I don't mean to imply that you -- or anyone else -- is stupid. I guess I just think you have a blind spot. Which is pretty judgmental. But lots of smart people do. I'm sure that your point of view seems as glaringly obvious to you as mine does to me. That doesn't mean that I don't think I'm right.... ;) )
 
Last edited:
For my part I was already familiar with Plato before I encountered the subject of scientology along with several other key areas of philosophy & literature. In my view that general familiarity with other approaches to human thought played a significant role both in helping me to identify those aspects of the subject of scientology which were useful to me as well as identifying that material which was either unimportant or counter-productive.


Mark A. Baker

And Plato help me to see that none of Scientology was useful to me. In fact, Scientology had reduced my desire to learn by giving me "all the answers."

Plato made me realize that I was asking the wrong questions.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/news.advertising

But thanks to recent breakthroughs in brain science, companies can now actually see what goes on inside our minds when we shop. Teams of academic and corporate neuromarketers have begun to hook people up to functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machines to map how their neurons respond to products and pitches.

Last year, the journal Neuron published an article titled Neural Predictors of Purchases by a group of scholars from three leading US universities. The researchers described how they had used brain imaging to monitor the mental activity of shoppers as they evaluated products and prices on computer screens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing
The neuromarketing concept was developed by psychologists at Harvard University in 1990. The technology is based on a model whereby the major thinking part of human activity (over 90%) including emotion proceeds in subconscious area that is below the levels of controlled awareness.


You might want to look up Neuromarketing.


IMO, this is not just a subject of one subconscious mind but merely various parts of the human brain that work together and affect each other. However, the other memory parts of the brain are not directly accessable to the "conscious" part of the brain.
 

secretiveoldfag

Silver Meritorious Patron
I don't think I'll ever understand this. Hubbard's writing is just so transparently idiotic. What's not gibberish or paranoia is a cliche. Even the word Scientology is absurdly dumb to anyone who cares about language (as in Steve Martin's parody, MindHead)... all Scientology is at bottom is a pile of truly worthless books written by someone who knew a very little bit about a lot of things and thought he understood the universe. It would be pathetic if so many people didn't seem to think there was an intellect there worth paying attention to.

Those who think Hubbard is an idiot and who realise that Dianetics is idiotic and the whole thing is a money-grubbing scam have always been in the vast majority even in SciFi's days of glory.

So what is it that makes other people blind to these indisputable facts and vulnerable to the scam? If we could understand that we might be on the way to finding the vaccine.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I didn't mean to imply that. The brain is a physical object; "the mind" is an abstraction whose workings we describe with symbolic language.

Thanks for the applause though! That post was a bit more withering than I intended. I'm generally tolerant of other people's ideas -- I even like kooks. But it baffles me that, 60 years on, we still have disagreements about Dianetics. That book is ridiculous nonsense, full stop. I can see someone being taken in by it as a kid, but for God's sake, it's not even charmingly kooky. It's just garbage. I mean, I understand that it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be widely read, but sometimes I just want to shake people and tell them to read a goddamn book.

Just in case you missed it, did you happen to know that in the late 1950's Hubbard did one of those filmed "Clearing Congresses" at which he confessed that Book I (DMSMH) did not produce a Clear as had been stated so often with certitude throughout the book?

But that didn't stop Scientologists from selling it for the next 50 years as 100% workable tech. And Scientologists to this day would tell you that Dianetics Book I produces a Clear even though their cult founder later admitted the fraud.

There's a thread on it with the video clip.

Not surprisingly, Mark Baker weighed in on my posting Hubbard's confession with what a Scientologist would call "not-is"--the effort to make an unpleasant truth go away thru the use of force. It is also known as "attack tech".

Here is what Baker had to say about Hubbard admitting that Dianetics was a fraud.

Sheesh! This is news? :eyeroll:

Have you ever even read the basics?

It's cool how that works. Mark is never the effect of Scientology because he knows all. He read Plato before Scientology and therefore deftly maneuvered thru the Bridge with only wins to report. And when Hubbard's own fraud confession is posted, Baker again knows it all already. And in typical Scientology fashion, he attacks the messenger as not knowing Scientology. But, quite inconvenient to Baker's theoretical attack is the fact that Baker's training/auditing/experience in Scientology is a tiny fraction of my own. The guy just doesn't make sense at any level whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Every concept in your mind is an "artificial construct". Cripes. But then if you actually STUDIED Korzybski, and those who have followed with the studies of General Semantics, you might know that.

ANY "model of an atom" is an "artificial construct". The theories of gravity are ALL "models" and fundamentally "artificial constructs".

While there might not "be" a conscious mind or a sub-conscious mind, there are most certainly aspects of any human mind that FUNCTION in that manner. Just as there are not "really" atoms swirling around a central nucleus, or "electron energy clouds vibrating" at a certain distance from a "nucleus" (as defined in various scientific models), there most certainly are "things" there that "function" somewhat in alignment with the models.

Just because someone can't devise (with an "s") an experiment does not mean that such a division of mind doesn't exist. It simply means that nobody can devise such an experiment. I don't judge the limits of reality on whether some Earth scientist can devise an experiment or not. :duh:

Also, some would say that the act of division, of separating reality into compartments and categories, and of "focusing on details", is wholly a FUNCTION of a mind, and that this separation doesn't actually exist "in reality". But, that is another discussion.

I never gave a hoot about Korzybski's notion of a "reactive mind", but his theories on "levels of abstraction", "identity thinking", "incorrect associations of meaning" and MUCH more very well examine and delineate HOW any conceptual mind functions.

One could just as well say that "there is no conceptual thinking mind" because "all division of mind is incorrect". There is no doubt that, for anyone who takes the time to LOOK and examine, that the human mind FUNCTIONS in one way to create concepts, meanings, significances and associations of such things. And THAT is only one small part of what any mind can and does do. But, if we abide by the above statement, we shouldn't even waste our time with such concerns, because it is "impossible to divide the mind because it is impossible to device an experiment showing that such division exists". Phooey.

Concepts are "models" of some aspect of "reality". The notion of a "reactive mind" and many similar notions, aim to explain, examine and help understand the mental, emotional and physical BEHAVIOR of some aspect of a human being.

Just as an "atom" or "electron" doesn't really "exist" as conceived by any scientist past or present in any of their "models" or "equations", such "ideas" help us understand the world around us. Some ideas do so better than others.

Personally, I have experienced (many) positive things from Dianetic auditing, and I have observed MANY others benefit from "dianetic assists" aimed at resolving this-lifetime losses or traumas. There are so very MANY things markedly wrong with Hubbard and Scientology, in its theories and practices, besides "Dianetics", that to me, it is sort of a waste of time going after "dianetics". But, to each his own. You will not EVER convince a person that "dianetics is stupid" when someone has personal beneficial experiences of such. But such people CAN be convinced that Fair Game is stupid, that "forced disconnection" is stupid, that "continual lying and manipulation" is stupid, or that "OT abilities have NEVER been shown to exist".

I suppose some people enjoy discussing Dianetics and how "modern psychologists and psychiatrists" might discuss it. There are a great many things for any person to become "interested in". "Aiming interest" is another aspect of any "mind".

Hubbard had MANY "figments of his imagination". At least the "reactive mind" had some correlation to something even slightly "real". That is not so with a great many OTHER figments of Hubbard's imagination (such as his Hubbard's personal history, Hubbard's "achievements", OT abilities, the state of Clear, the goals of Scientology, etc.).
Atoms are not artificial constructs, they can be photographed. Textbooks on physics contain photographs of atoms. The phrase “artificial construct” means something that cannot be detected by experimental means, which does not apply to the atoms.

“Just because someone can't devise (with an "s") an experiment does not mean that such a division of mind doesn't exist. It simply means that nobody can devise such an experiment. I don't judge the limits of reality on whether some Earth scientist can devise an experiment or not“.
From a philosophical perspective you presented the views on reality of the idealists. Dr. Sacks and I are positivists, so this position is not acceptable to us. The positivists consider everything not requiring experimental verification as metaphysical garbage. But I am not going to indulge in philosophical discussions here because it was not the goal of my article.

So far what I observed as the result of Dianetics auditing is either a complete waste of time (and money) accompanied with zero mental and physical gains (that would be my case and the cases of majority of my ex-Scientologist friends) or the hallucinations that I described in my article. None of my acquaintances claims that he/she received any benefit from Dianetics auditing.
This does not mean, of course, that I accuse you of lying about your perceived benefits from the auditing. It could simply mean that some other factors contributed to the improvement in your condition.
As I said in my article, studies done at NYU have shown that Dianetics is a quackery that has nothing to do with true science. There are several articles about Dianetics at the NYU.edu website, they explain a lot of things about Hubbard’s pseudoscience. I believe that one of them says that some people feel better after the Dianetics sessions because they pre-condition themselves.
Finally, about Korzybski -- although he introduced the idea of an engram, he never said that some kind of auditing could be used to remove the engrams.

 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Firstly, a belated welcome from me to ESMB. :thumbsup: :clap:

Interesting information from your discussion with Dr. Sacks...thank you for sharing it with us.

As of yet, to my knowledge, there is nothing close to a uniformly accepted “Standard Model” of the Mind.

Having known, interacted with and personally seen El Ron in action your characterization of El Ron as "suffering from mental retardation" and a “complete idiot” is most inaccurate, unsubstantiated and, in my view, completely wrong. El Ron had deep character, personality, mental and psychological flaws but not the ones that you have flatly stated.

I am not and El Ron apologist, defender or fan…just read some of the over 30,000 words I have posted on ESMB about my life and times with El Ron.

I am glad you are out and here and I look forward to hearing more of your “Take” on Scn. :yes:

I thought “Awakenings” was a wonderful flic, and Williams and Di Niro were terrific together.

Peace.

Face :)
Thank you for the warm welcome. Your articles about Hubbard are of great interest to me because you met him in person; I will be reading them soon.
My cousin, who is a clinical psychologist, diagnosed Hubbard posthumously with mild mental retardation. In a near future I will present her findings to this group.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
For my part I was already familiar with Plato before I encountered the subject of scientology along with several other key areas of philosophy & literature. In my view that general familiarity with other approaches to human thought played a significant role both in helping me to identify those aspects of the subject of scientology which were useful to me as well as identifying that material which was either unimportant or counter-productive.


Mark A. Baker
I would like to hear what kind of Scientology material was useful to you.
When I was reading the Dianetics Series, I found a description of a very valid psychological method that is used to combat one’s fears about negative events in his life. The problem with this method is that Hubbard did not invent it, he “borrowed” it from the works of the Chicago University psychologists. As usual, Hubbard did not credit the source. You might find a few diamonds in the piles of Hubbard’s shit, but he did not invent anything of value by himself.
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well hubbard did say he was the finder of lost tech..

he just didnt say where or whose.
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
:coolwink:
Thank you for the warm welcome. Your articles about Hubbard are of great interest to me because you met him in person; I will be reading them soon.
My cousin, who is a clinical psychologist, diagnosed Hubbard posthumously with mild mental retardation. In a near future I will present her findings to this group.

You're quite welcome. :yes:

I look forward to your presentation here of her findings. Outside of Psychology 101 over 40 years ago, I have never studied and only read sparringly the subject.

El Ron certainly, from my layman's understanding of the terminology of Psychology, was sufferring from some types or forms of neurosis, psychosis, accute phobias, paranoia and Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Incomplete Personality Disorder.

Now, I don't have the smarts to know how all that fits together for analytical purposes but I do feel quite strongly, from watching Hisself in action that--whatever his “Clinical Diagnosis” would be--all of that was fueled and driven by a diabolically brilliant and evil persona.

Face :)
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
:coolwink:

You're quite welcome. :yes:

I look forward to your presentation here of her findings. Outside of Psychology 101 over 40 years ago, I have never studied and only read sparringly the subject.

El Ron certainly, from my layman's understanding of the terminology of Psychology, was sufferring from some types or forms of neurosis, psychosis, accute phobias, paranoia and Narcissistic Personality Disorder or Incomplete Personality Disorder.

Now, I don't have the smarts to know how all that fits together for analytical purposes but I do feel quite strongly, from watching Hisself in action that--whatever his “Clinical Diagnosis” would be--all of that was fueled and driven by a diabolically brilliant and evil persona.

Face :)

I like what Face had to say....and agree.
And a slightly different take. I went from near God like reverence of Ron to over many many years a rather strong unfavorable opinion of him.

Retarded... even slightly? I don't think so.

Made some 'mistakes' due to various ( as kindly as I can muster ) some personality disorders? Yep.

Yet, to me, the most telling remark ( from above ) is "....all of that was fueled and driven by a diabolically brilliant and evil persona ".

Bright people were there. Bright people observed him. For years and years.
I got to go with their observations instead of those who only " knew of " or " heard about " or " read some stuff " or " heard from " .
 

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
Thank you for the warm welcome. Your articles about Hubbard are of great interest to me because you met him in person; I will be reading them soon.
My cousin, who is a clinical psychologist, diagnosed Hubbard posthumously with mild mental retardation. In a near future I will present her findings to this group.

I wouldn't be surprised to find some kind of mild learning disorder or developmental disability. (When someone says "retardation," a lot of people imagine something like Down's Syndrome and get very defensive.)

Despite a lifetime of play-acting, he never did seem to understand what grown-up research and intellectual inquiry were about. I don't think that was entirely a con. There was something missing.
 
... Here is what Baker had to say about Hubbard admitting that Dianetics was a fraud. ...

More to the point, your earthshaking 'revelation' is hardly 'news'. Hubbard pointed it out himself in his own books decades back. Any one with a general familiarity with the original basic books of scientology knows this already.

The only thing 'new' here made crystalline clear by your posting is that you evidently suffer from an extreme case of 'hurt feelings' for not receiving the sort of widespread accolades you imagine you deserve.

Give it a rest. It's not about you. None of it.


Mark A. Baker
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
If one believes in demonic posession, the demon can, in theory, be brilliant despite the host being retarded.

Another way to look at things.

I'm not argung that this is THE answer. Just that it is another possible explanation.
 

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
More to the point, your earthshaking 'revelation' is hardly 'news'. Hubbard pointed it out himself in his own books decades back. Any one with a general familiarity with the original basic books of scientology knows this already.

The fact that something isn't "news" doesn't mean it's no longer true, or not very much to the point. You know that's not a real refutation. Scientology uses it all the time in their responses to critics, and it's no more valid in this case than in that.
 
The fact that something isn't "news" doesn't mean it's no longer true, or not very much to the point. You know that's not a real refutation. Scientology uses it all the time in their responses to critics, and it's no more valid in this case than in that.

Nor do I refute hubbard's remarks recognizing either his failures or his misrepresentations. Hubbard was not as he so oft represented himself, or liked to be thought of by others. However, occasionally he did say something akin to the truth. Nothing cited constitutes a 'revelation'.


Mark A. Baker
 

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
Nor do I refute hubbard's remarks recognizing either his failures or his misrepresentations. Hubbard was not as he so oft represented himself, or liked to be thought of by others. However, occasionally he did say something akin to the truth. Nothing cited constitutes a 'revelation'.


Mark A. Baker

Right. And what I'm saying is, is it then not worth mentioning?
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
More to the point, your earthshaking 'revelation' is hardly 'news'. Hubbard pointed it out himself in his own books decades back. Any one with a general familiarity with the original basic books of scientology knows this already.

The only thing 'new' here made crystalline clear by your posting is that you evidently suffer from an extreme case of 'hurt feelings' for not receiving the sort of widespread accolades you imagine you deserve.

Give it a rest. It's not about you. None of it.


Mark A. Baker

Mirror, mirror, on the wall ?
 
Top