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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sheesh! This is news?
Have you ever even read the basics?
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.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.
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.).
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.Firstly, a belated welcome from me to ESMB.
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.
I thought “Awakenings” was a wonderful flic, and Williams and Di Niro were terrific together.
Peace.
Face
I would like to hear what kind of Scientology material was useful to you.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
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.
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
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.
... 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 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
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