Understanding valid antecedents of Scientology

[Leon]

This thread has certainly become very informative and interesting, I think it is mainly thanks to the input from mark and Ted and trinity. These guys are a lot more sussed in formal science than I ever was or am and I find their contributions very helpful.

For myself I never cared a hoot whether Scio was a religion or a science or anything else. It is itself, and in many ways it defies categorisation. The thread was started on a hunt for the valid antecedents to Scio. I said nuts to the idea that it had its origins in the recognised founders of psychology and its related subjects. I reckon the antecedents lie in Crowley and levi and all of their predecessors - the alchewmists and Francis Bacon and all going back to Greek mystery schools perhaps. Plato and even Pythagoras.

But overall, I regard the antecedents as being of little importance. What matters is what you do with it in present time. That is what determines the value you get out of it. Not the religion-ness of it nor the science-ness nor its degree of acceptance by academia nor anything else. We all knew - I certainly did - and we spoke about it openly in the early 1970's - that Hubbard was intent on compensating himself for his failures and shortcomings at university and in the navy during the war. It was open conversation and we all had a good laugh about it and carried on with the subject. That was where the value lay for us.

There are active threads on this board at present picking nits about the axioms. Surely everyone knows that these are not real "axioms" but just suppositions that Hubbard wrote down in order to give some structure to his own thoughts. I mean, the sheer repititiousness and verbosity of some of them show that clearly, so why is this sort of thing an issue with people? All of Hubbard's early writings on the basics of the subject and its philsophy and so on, all of these are what Ouran describes as "a finger pointing at the moon". And when you find people so intently debating the finger and whether it is a real finger or suitably shaped to point at anything etc etc then you know that they are all missing the point entirely. It's about the moon, not the finger. And this is being done on this thread too by several posters.

Complaints are made about Scio's circularity and about how its "failings" get "blamed on the preclear". My own take on this is that I always knew - even long before I'd ever heard of Scio - that the person I was and the shortcomings and failures I was prone to were all of my own creation. One of the reasons I "got sucked into" Scio is that these knowingnesses were part and parcel of the subject too. I think this is part of the reason I did well in my auditing and studies.

I remember back in '71 arguing with a Class 8 fella that a preclear was inherently responsible for his own case. he disputed it. Ironically he (who was raised as a jew BTW) went on to become a born-again Christian. I'm still here.

When "failures" of the subject get referred back to the person doing the subject it is really not far off the mark. The only error lies in using blame as the medium with which to communicate it.

Who cares whether it is a science or not. Or a religion or not. Or if BTs "really exist" or not. What is a thetan anyway? Just a viewpoint that insists it is individualised from others. A thetan is not a thing that can be measured - it's a no-thing. And so is not part of the realm of science at all. Scientology is what it is. Whether you lose by it or succeed with it - that winning or losing is merely a reflection of what you are doing with it.

So is it the subject? Or is it you? The choice is yours. When you buy a mirror you'll see nothing in it other than your own face.

 

[Terril park]

I was simply referring to him mentioning that earlier, it didn't occurr to me that this might be offensive or something, it wasn't meant that way. Of course I don't agree with Terril and others who share his views, that doesn't mean I've got anything against him. I respect his "Buddhist approach" of getting his points accross. My post was not meant to tell others how stupid they are to "worship" Hubbard, I was just trying to point out glaring contradictions re LRH.

No offence taken.

 

[Terril park]

So some people are only overlooking my awful BT infestation because of my grudging recognitions that not all of Scientology is all kinds of bad all at once? Well, if I'm giving "aid and comfort to the enemy", I'm afraid I can't help it. Hairsplitting academic nuances aren't for everyone, because they're usually just not that important; but they're what I do. I'm not going to be able to do anything else well enough to do more good that way.

If people find me somewhat sympathetic to Scientology as a subject, I think that's mainly just that my purpose here is more about gathering information than about judging it. My professional interest is in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and that makes me think about the general relationship between theories and reality. Since my branch of physics is one where the border between science and pseudoscience can get a bit fuzzy, I'm also interested in pseudoscience in general. Scientology is minuscule as a religion, but as pseudoscience it is one of the largest and longest running operations in history.

I have no sympathy for the Church of Scientology. I'm happily watching it collapse. I do have a lot of sympathy for Scientologists. I may be a detached scientific observer of Scientology, but I'm a religious person myself, and I certainly don't consider people stupid for dedicating years of their lives to the cause of their belief. Scientology has been a big part of a lot of people's lives, and to me that in itself gives it value. I believe the years people spent in Scientology could have been better spent elsewhere, but given that they were spent in Scientology, they cannot simply have been wasted. When I hear people say they found good things in Scientology, I am happy to affirm that those things were good. My criticism is to ask whether the good things really came from Scientology.

I find your posts valuable and fascinating.

 

[Veda]

I regard the antecedents as being of little importance.

And so, the thread has been successfully derailed. Don't feel bad. These "earlier sources" threads are often pounced upon by Scientologists eager to change the topic. At least the first few pages were on topic, and contain some useful links.

Why such a thread? Because the "positives" of Scientology are what usually attract a person, and often keep a person involved. A thorough examination of these "positives" and their actual origins can have a freeing effect.

As noted by Alan Walter, "The recognition of multiple sources is vital."

 

[Veda]

I find your posts valuable and fascinating.

Frankly, I doubt that you've even read one, thoroughly, and in its entirety. But by all means continue with your schmoozing. After all, it is your speciality.

 

[Dulloldfart]

What is a thetan anyway? Just a viewpoint that insists it is individualised from others. A thetan is not a thing that can be measured - it's a no-thing.

Hubbard changed his mind about the definition of a thetan through the years. Sometimes he was talking about the totally immaterial thing he also labelled "static," and sometimes he was talking about the not-so-immaterial thing involving the body's electronic structure sometimes called the human aura.

We had this conversation three years ago in this post. Maybe you should read it again.

Paul

 

[Mystic]

L. Ron Hubbard, being an artificial entity conjured by a small group of satanic beings in the lower levels of Bardo (Hubbard's parents need to be investigated for satanic practices), didn't experience what we normally refer to as a "mind". He was more of just a garden-variety "programmable" entity. With so many beings talking through their entity, yes, it would "change its mind" often about this, that and many others. His sources pulled information from any source around the multiple lower unenlightened levels of consciousness which they deemed at least somewhat applicable for their purposes, including the incarnate levels.

 

[Leon]

And so, the thread has been successfully derailed. Don't feel bad. These "earlier sources" threads are often pounced upon by Scientologists eager to change the topic. At least the first few pages were on topic, and contain some useful links.

Why such a thread? Because the "positives" of Scientology are what usually attract a person, and often keep a person involved. A thorough examination of these "positives" and their actual origins can have a freeing effect.

As noted by Alan Walter, "The recognition of multiple sources is vital."

"What matters is what you do with it in present time. That is what determines the value you get out of it."

 

[Terril park]

And so, the thread has been successfully derailed. Don't feel bad. These "earlier sources" threads are often pounced upon by Scientologists eager to change the topic. At least the first few pages were on topic, and contain some useful links.

Why such a thread? Because the "positives" of Scientology are what usually attract a person, and often keep a person involved. A thorough examination of these "positives" and their actual origins can have a freeing effect.

As noted by Alan Walter, "The recognition of multiple sources is vital."

Oh shut up about your constant comments about thread derails!

Just about every pro tech post that appears you derail to
attacks.

Here's the thing. Many times I've asked for phone/skype PM conversation. Always refused.

Got no problem on your attacks re CO$ and and other matters.


Yet you attack me personally.

You insist on anonimity.

Not that I have objections to the data you present per se.

So lets talk.

You refuse it will be posted here.

You should understand that that my primary focus is not
bashing.

Over to you.

 

[Ulduz]

Let’s go over their names. Freud and Jung are just as stupid as LRH is; I studied psychoanalysis, and I can prove to anyone that it is bullshit. Pavlov is a great scientist; however, I do not see anything in LRH’s “scientific works” borrowed from him. I do not know who Rogers and Rank are, so I pass. Korzybski did come up with the idea of engram, which LRH borrowed from him. But all other psychologists came to conclusion that this idea is of zero value. Frankly, I do not see any value in Dianetics -- Clears still wear glasses, sore throats are not cured, etc. The Management Series is a complete disaster -- the methods described in it are so bad that, except for the Church of Scientology, not a single company uses them.

 

[uniquemand]

Let’s go over their names. Freud and Jung are just as stupid as LRH is; I studied psychoanalysis, and I can prove to anyone that it is bullshit. Pavlov is a great scientist; however, I do not see anything in LRH’s “scientific works” borrowed from him. I do not know who Rogers and Rank are, so I pass. Korzybski did come up with the idea of engram, which LRH borrowed from him. But all other psychologists came to conclusion that this idea is of zero value. Frankly, I do not see any value in Dianetics -- Clears still wear glasses, sore throats are not cured, etc. The Management Series is a complete disaster -- the methods described in it are so bad that, except for the Church of Scientology, not a single company uses them.

The idea that the conditioned response/reflex could be targeted to discover chains of incidents creating that response/reflex can be directly related to the idea of dogs salivating at a bell, or whatever other conditioning is applied. That concept was Pavlov's. It is not true that psychology/psychologists ignored Korzybski. In fact, modern Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy directly credits Korzybski with their foundational concepts. Albert Ellis, founder of REBT, was a student of General Semantics, and it permeates his work quite obviously.

Psychoanalysis has been essentially dismissed, in favor of modern theories and methods, but that doesn't mean there was no value in it. There are 12 or 13 different schools of psychoanalysis, some of which are quite operational to this day, and recognized by the APA as quite valid, though most people, today, are training in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, etc. All of these methods represent big steps forward, but would be completely dishonest to deny their debt to Freud, Jung, Korzybski, Pavlov, Maslow and numerous others.

Scientology is a whole system. As a whole system, it is an utter failure as a psychotherapy, as most of its policy and activity undermine any possible benefit from the parts that are effective and humanitarian. The results of Scientology are more money in the hands of the Church and ruined lives. The reason people give so much time and money to the Church, though, is because of the effectiveness of some parts, used as bait, though they do not lead to the claimed results. It is worthwhile to study the antecedents, because they point the lights on the parts that are worthwhile, and on what could form the basis of a very valid school of thought on the matter, regardless of Hubbard's misuse of them.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Scientology is a whole system. ...

For those, who like the church, choose to accept it as such. Others aren't as limiting in their assumptions.


Mark A. Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

For those, who like the church, choose to accept it as such. Others aren't as limiting in their assumptions.


Mark A. Baker

Don't you think it is nearly impossible to use one piece of Scientology without buying into and using other pieces. No piece stands alone.

Bor example, let's say that you don't accept any of the OT levels.

But that you are only auditing people on the grades.

You are using a meter, which means accepting the principles of why it works and what the reads mean.

You are using TRs, which means you are accepting a whole lot of Hubbard's data on communication.

And the list goes on.

I don't see how anyone can accept just a piece of Scientology without accepting, whether knowingly or unknowingly a whole lot more.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

L. Ron Hubbard, being an artificial entity conjured by a small group of satanic beings in the lower levels of Bardo (Hubbard's parents need to be investigated for satanic practices), didn't experience what we normally refer to as a "mind". He was more of just a garden-variety "programmable" entity. With so many beings talking through their entity, yes, it would "change its mind" often about this, that and many others. His sources pulled information from any source around the multiple lower unenlightened levels of consciousness which they deemed at least somewhat applicable for their purposes, including the incarnate levels.

Yes, but aren't we all that way?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[uniquemand]

For those, who like the church, choose to accept it as such. Others aren't as limiting in their assumptions.


Mark A. Baker

Others have a break with desired reality, IMO.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

"What matters is what you do with it in present time. That is what determines the value you get out of it."

Another tactical retreat. It seems to be that whenever you are countered you switch the subject to another point.

I believe that an unexamined life is not worth living as Socrates once said.

And I think that using an unexamined mental technology on oneself is a very dangerous thing.

That is why the antecedents and other current practices are important, as well as how Scientology has evolved and changed from its antecedents.

You look up the derivation of words, don't you?

It sound like this is your argument--ignore what it is--just concentrate on how you feel about it in present time.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Jachs]

Let’s go over their names. Freud and Jung are just as stupid as LRH is; I studied psychoanalysis, and I can prove to anyone that it is bullshit. Pavlov is a great scientist; however, I do not see anything in LRH’s “scientific works” borrowed from him. I do not know who Rogers and Rank are, so I pass. Korzybski did come up with the idea of engram, which LRH borrowed from him. But all other psychologists came to conclusion that this idea is of zero value. Frankly, I do not see any value in Dianetics -- Clears still wear glasses, sore throats are not cured, etc. The Management Series is a complete disaster -- the methods described in it are so bad that, except for the Church of Scientology, not a single company uses them.

"and I can prove to anyone that it is bullshit"

Ok id like to hear it.

On the parallels with Pavlov and Hubbard.

"Ethics" Conditioning with rewards and penalties, where the reward is if you do what is expected you wont get electrocuted.

If you go against what is expected you get zapped.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Don't you think it is nearly impossible to use one piece of Scientology without buying into and using other pieces. No piece stands alone.

I take your point but the strict answer would be 'no'. For one example, the arc triangle could be used separately as a useful piece of tech. Also, recognition of how the tone scale works in people can be used independently. Word clearing is a useful piece of tech, similarly clay demos. Many other bits 'n bobs can be extracted and used separately to some valid purpose and success.

More can be accomplished by combination of useful bits; e.g. arc & tone scale is one 'natural' pair. Similarly, clearing concepts in the course of a tone scale based conversation using arc works well. Someone I know has been having tremendous benefit lately from applying just such simple pieces of tech in a 'real life' situation.

One of the misconceptions I consider to be too prevalent among many ex's is that everything they ever encountered within scientology is somehow one aggregate and inseparable mass. No doubt many experienced it that way. The church & especially the SO certainly enforce such a viewpoint. Many who share such an attitude spent lengthy periods being indoctrinated deep within the church under the 'tutelage' of the SO.

However, truly nothing could be further from the truth. The materials themselves do not require any such 'all or nothing' attitude. As they themselves are written they lay out the various aspects of scientology tech each in a separate manner. Even the courses are strung together from distinct, individual, and largely unrelated issues.

The infamous KSW is used to defend such an attitude, but it is a policy directive of the church. not a matter of tech. Moreover, KSW was written precisely to support the creation of a cult centered on the person of lrh. As such, it can readily be dismissed as somehow necessary in itself for the use of any scientology tech.

There is absolutely no cohesive structure or pattern to be found in the written materials of scientology, either written or spoken. Hubbard did everything higgily-piggily. There is nothing approaching an over-riding architecture to the subject. To find something resembling that you have to look at one of the books produced by an ex-scientologist, something like Clearbird, or Gerbode's Metapsychology. Hubbard was definitely not an 'architect of ideas'. He grabbed things and wrote them down as he thought of them. He never went back to systematize his subject. The axioms were his closest attempt at such an endeavor, and they are 'early on the chain' and deeply flawed. His life's work lacked cohesion.

Hubbard may have expressed the desire that his material be treated as if it was the Entirety of Wisdom as Codified and Revealed by A Great Master. He certainly built up a cult which enforced that viewpoint on those who got too deeply embedded within it.

However, nothing in the materials themselves warrant the consideration or conclusion that the whole forms a singular piece.

Nor, frankly, is that an healthy attitude to possess with regard to either scientology or any other subject.

When any group is 'selling' all or nothing it's a damn good indicator that they are attempting to avoid clear thinking and analysis of the subject matter which they advocate. Most likely they don't themselves fully understand their subject and are unwilling openly to acknowledge the same. What is being attempted is a papering over of the faults in the topics, rather than addressing the lapses & limitations of the subject or expression of the material. Such behavior serves as a good warning to keep an eye out for the exits.


Mark A. Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I take your point but the strict answer would be 'no'. For one example, the arc triangle could be used separately as a useful piece of tech. Also, recognition of how the tone scale works in people can be used independently. Word clearing is a useful piece of tech, similarly clay demos. Many other bits 'n bobs can be extracted and used separately to some valid purpose and success.

More can be accomplished by combination of useful bits; e.g. arc & tone scale is one 'natural' pair. Similarly, clearing concepts in the course of a tone scale based conversation using arc works well. Someone I know has been having tremendous benefit lately from applying just such simple pieces of tech in a 'real' life situation.

One of the misconceptions I consider to be too prevalent among many ex's is that everything they ever encountered within scientology is somehow one aggregate and inseparable mass. No doubt many experienced it that way. The church & especially the SO certainly enforce such a viewpoint. Many who share such an attitude spent lengthy periods being indoctrinated deep within the church under the 'tutelage' of the SO.

However, truly nothing could be further from the truth. The materials themselves do not require any such 'all or nothing' attitude. As they themselves are written they lay out the various aspects of scientology tech each in a separate manner. Even the courses are strung together from distinct, individual, and largely unrelated issues.

The infamous KSW is used to defend such an attitude, but it is a policy directive of the church. not a matter of tech'. Moreover, KSW was written precisely to support the creation of a cult centered on the person of lrh. As such, it can readily be dismissed as necessary in itself to the use of scientology tech.

There is absolutely no cohesive structure or pattern to be found in the written materials of scientology, either written or spoken. Hubbard did everything higgily-piggily. There is nothing approaching an over-riding architecture to the subject. To find something like that you have to look at one of the books produced by an ex-scientologist, something like Clearbird, or Gerbode's Metapsychology.

Hubbard may have expressed the desire that his material be treated as if it was the Entirety of Wisdom as Codified and Revealed by A Great Master. He certainly built up a cult which enforced that viewpoint on those who got too deeply embedded within it.

However, nothing in the materials themselves warrant the consideration or conclusion that the whole forms a singular piece.

Nor, frankly, is that an healthy attitude to possess with regard to either scientology or any other subject.

When any group is 'selling' all or nothing it's a damn good indicator that they are attempting to avoid clear thinking and analysis of the subject matter which they advocate. Most likely they don't themselves fully understand their subject and are unwilling openly to acknowledge the same. What is being attempted is a papering over of the faults in the topics, rather than addressing the lapses & limitations of the subject or expression of the material. Such behavior serves as a good warning to keep an eye out for the exits.


Mark A. Baker

Okay.

"However, nothing in the materials themselves warrant the consideration or conclusion that the whole forms a singular piece."

I'll buy that.

My next question concerns my opinion that Scientology produces, little by little a detrimental effect on the individual. But that is for another thread.

Anyway, if you want to prove its workability to just about everybody, take the Tone Scale, ARC Triangle, and word clearing, and try to get some rational thinking on that TSA thread!

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Anyway, if you want to prove its workability to just about everybody, take the Tone Scale, ARC Triangle, and word clearing, and try to get some rational thinking on that TSA thread!

The Anabaptist Jacques

Some obsessions require 'case cracking' tech.

On the 'positive' side, it could be worse.


Mark A. Baker