what is true for you?

[VaD]

I never got Hubbard's "What's true for you is true for you," until I had an incredible Satori experience of my own nature. This was an experience of what Zen calls the "thusness" or "suchness" of one's own nature. I got that I was the way I was. That was ineffable. And, it was subjective. My nature was true for me and this understanding was liberating. However, my nature was not true for other people. Therefore, the outcome of this Satori experience was to grant other people their own beingness as a function of having granted myself my own beingness.

Said another way, a profound gesture of self-acceptance made it easier for me to accept others. I realized that we all have a subjective struggle. It is hard work to come to the spiritual realization that what is true for you is true for you. As a corollary, what is true for you is not true for others.

Groups of like-minded people form where people have a common experience of what is true for them.

Where Scientologists err is in asserting that their subjective experience of the Tech is scientific, objective, and is therefore binding upon all of Humanity. For example, the belief that the reactive mind is universal to all humans. The reactive mind is in fact mocked up and therefore cannot ultimately be true for anybody. Therefore, why audit the grades? Who or what is being audited?

LRH universalized what was true for him and that was a mixed bag like most things in life. For instance, LRH universalized his homophobia into a doctrinal taboo against gay people. LRH could rather have had it be true for him that he did not like homosexuals and stop there. Instead, Hubbard exempted himself from his own aphorism of "What is true for you" by declaring himself Source and establishing KSW. Therefore, what was true for LRH became true and binding upon all Scientologists via KSW. Gays and SP's become 1.1's because Hubbard was unwilling to look at his own considerations about gay people and those who disagreed with him. If LRH had been audited on a question like, "What comes up for you about those who disagree with you?" the hateful Fair Game the PTS/SP doctrines may have never been created by the man.

The only safe space that LRH allowed to remain in of CoS was inside of a session for which one had to donate money. Hubbard knew how to game it all to his advantage. His policies often disagreed with his lofty ideals.

/////

Very nice post!
Genuine, too!

 

[Student of Trinity]

A problem with 'true for you' is that it really discourages you from ever thinking, "I was deceived," or even just, "I was wrong." It implicitly sets up the false assumption that there are only two alternatives: either "I thought it was true then, so it must really be true", or else "I blindly accept authority". Most people don't want to blindly accept authority, so with only those two choices in mind, they end up blindly accepting their own past decisions, even if those decisions were actually hasty or shaky.

In reality, there is not even any such thing as authority over personal belief. Everyone decides for themselves what to believe, even those people who refuse to admit that this is what they are doing, and prefer to pretend, for instance, that accepting the literal text of the entire Bible doesn't count as deciding for themselves, just because it is a once-for-all package deal decision, instead of piece-by-piece.

So, far from being a liberation from authority, the 'true for you' principle actually enslaves you to your own past conclusions, so that if somebody fools you once, you'll actually help keep yourself fooled from then on. I think one is much better off assuming that objective truth exists in principle, but that everyone has to decide for themselves what it is, as best they can; and they can be mistaken.

 

[VaD]

"That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true"

"works" as a terminating thought for both sane AND insane.

Even plainly insane person can justify having seen and talked with Xenu or having been Caesar in his past life (and any stuff like that) with that "axiom".

 

[Voltaire's Child]

A problem with 'true for you' is that it really discourages you from ever thinking, "I was deceived," or even just, "I was wrong." It implicitly sets up the false assumption that there are only two alternatives: either "I thought it was true then, so it must really be true", or else "I blindly accept authority". Most people don't want to blindly accept authority, so with only those two choices in mind, they end up blindly accepting their own past decisions, even if those decisions were actually hasty or shaky.

In reality, there is not even any such thing as authority over personal belief. Everyone decides for themselves what to believe, even those people who refuse to admit that this is what they are doing, and prefer to pretend, for instance, that accepting the literal text of the entire Bible doesn't count as deciding for themselves, just because it is a once-for-all package deal decision, instead of piece-by-piece.

So, far from being a liberation from authority, the 'true for you' principle actually enslaves you to your own past conclusions, so that if somebody fools you once, you'll actually help keep yourself fooled from then on. I think one is much better off assuming that objective truth exists in principle, but that everyone has to decide for themselves what it is, as best they can; and they can be mistaken.

Personally, if someone told me something was only true insofar as I'd experienced it myself- and they told me this outside of a cultic setting- I would assume that they thought I should not take people's word for things but that I should consult my own experiences. So, thinking would NOT be discouraged. Quite the opposite.

 

[programmer_guy]

Richard Feynman on doubt, uncertainty and religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0&feature=related

Some background info on Richard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

 

[Mystic]

This Hubbard-thing was just great at mucking things up. This "true for you...." piece of schoidt he came up with is a marvelous invalidation of Truth. It reduces Truth to but an opinion...which is exactly what he intended...or, rather, was programmed to intend.

Hubbard-thing attempted to removed Truth from its Universality to but a human opinion.

Truth is integral with the Universes.

We experience it daily.

Hubbard-thing never did.

 

[Student of Trinity]

Personally, if someone told me something was only true insofar as I'd experienced it myself- and they told me this outside of a cultic setting- I would assume that they thought I should not take people's word for things but that I should consult my own experiences. So, thinking would NOT be discouraged. Quite the opposite.

There's no big problem if you take it that way, negatively: where it disagrees with my own experience, from there on I don't believe it.

But the problem is that people don't join groups in order to not believe things. We're looking for stuff to believe, not reasons to stop believing stuff. So in practice this 'true for you' principle morphs too easily into the poisonous, positive form: 'if it seems true to you, then it must really be true'.

That would only be a good principle for infallible people. For real people, I think it's really bad. If you get fooled once, then you can't change your mind very easily, because it seemed true to you (once), and therefore it really was true (you're supposed to figure).

If I'm just a fallible mortal doing my best to discern truth that's much bigger than me, then it's no big deal for me to admit I made a mistake, and change my mind. But if I'm this super-OT being who actually determines what is true, then deciding that I was wrong in the past seems as though it would be a lot harder. It would be like admitting I committed a crime or something: I made the wrong thing be true! Instead of just an honest mistake.

Anyway, that's what I mean.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

It seems to me that Hubbard never thought things through.

He wasn't a philosopher in that sense, he was just an Atlantic City barker for his own dukedom.

If what is true for you is what you yourself have observed (and I believe that is what he meant--that you shouldn't let anyone convince you to doubt what you have observed), then we should all believe that the sun goes around the earth, the world is flat, etc.

His "what is true for you is true for you" is problematic anyway you look at it.

It negates the need for reasoning.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Student of Trinity]

That's a good point. The world being round, or orbiting the sun, certainly don't immediately seem to be true.

In fact, if you really think long and hard and carefully, and maybe even do some hard work, you can personally experience convincing evidence that the earth is round and orbits the sun. Though to personally experience the evidence for all the important truths revealed by science, for instance, would probably require more work and time than most people can afford to expend in one lifetime.

But still, the principle of personal experience is, in principle, valid. It's just that a whole world of difference hangs on how you say it.

If you declare it solemnly and grimly, and immediately emphasize how enormously difficult it is to really check out anything for yourself, then you're speaking great wisdom.

If you toss the 'true for you' line off, with a beaming smile and a drumbeat for your cause, you're telling a whopping lie. Because you're implying that it's easy to check for yourself whether something is true, and that's horribly wrong, and leads only to delusion piled on deception.

It's kind of like the distinction Dietrich Bonhöffer drew between cheap and costly grace. I guess there are cheap and costly forms of epistemology, too.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

That's a good point. The world being round, or orbiting the sun, certainly don't immediately seem to be true.

In fact, if you really think long and hard and carefully, and maybe even do some hard work, you can personally experience convincing evidence that the earth is round and orbits the sun. snip.

Being convinced of something is not the same as experiencing something.

Being convinced of something that you have not experienced yourself is an act of reasoning, not experience.

Hubbard almost always spoke of reasoning in a negative way.

His comments about syllogisms and Aristotle, or Plato, or Kant.

The data series is not about reasoning, it is categorizing.

Hubbard always attempted to dissuade his followers from reasoning and replace it with his categorization of concepts or processes which he then claimed were real things: SPs, study phenomenon, tone scale, whys and whos.

After years of this, he followers were and many still are, putty to his proclamations and claims to knowledge.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[olska]

If what Hubbard actually wrote was indeed

That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true.

a discussion of that would have to include a discussion not only of how you define "true" but also of what qualifies as personal "observation" -- does it mean only "subjective" and very personal experience? does it extend to our observations and then forming of opinions of what we've seen (or not seen) in the behavior of others? does it also include what we've read, heard, or seen on news reports? how much does it depend on our clinging to the opinions of those we like or admire just because we like or admire them?

Jenna Elfman (celebrity scientologist) refused to give money for AIDS charity because, according to her, AIDS was a "state of mind" or some such absurdity (I don't have the quote handy--sorry). Must of been her "truth" because she didn't have it (no subjective experience) and didn't know anyone who had it (objective observation) or was convinced that those who did have it were faking (opinion formed from absorbing the opinions of others?).

Despite all the information out there in the world about Hubbard and his enterprise called "scientology" that would clearly show him to be a manipulator whose agenda was to capture and use people rather than "free" them, some still cling to their view of Hubbard and his methods as a "savior" because their particular subjective experience was only positive.

In life (easily observed right here on this board) you find people who refuse to consider the validity of anything put forth by people they "don't like," refuse to discount, question, or debate anything put forth by people they "like," and quickly without question jump on the bandwagon to agree and validate anything (no matter how unfounded, silly, strange, or even destructive) put forth by people they "like."

Believing that each person clinging to and defending their own "truth" is a valid way of life negates the value of education and leaves us vulnerable to charismatic charlatans and smart advertisers and leaves us awash in superstition, as:

It rained here yesterday and I KNOW it was because I prayed about it and then did a rain dance. Also I KNOW that the reason it's been mostly sunny and pleasant in Southern California is because all those OTs out there are postulating that beautiful weather. And I KNOW the reason the San Adreas fault hasn't broken and caused the biggest ever earthquake in the history of mankind is because those same OTs are holding it together. I just hope they don't let go of the top of the volcano that lies under Yellowstone Park!

... but hey, to each his own...

 

[Voltaire's Child]

There's no big problem if you take it that way, negatively: where it disagrees with my own experience, from there on I don't believe it.

But the problem is that people don't join groups in order to not believe things. We're looking for stuff to believe, not reasons to stop believing stuff. So in practice this 'true for you' principle morphs too easily into the poisonous, positive form: 'if it seems true to you, then it must really be true'.

That would only be a good principle for infallible people. For real people, I think it's really bad. If you get fooled once, then you can't change your mind very easily, because it seemed true to you (once), and therefore it really was true (you're supposed to figure).

If I'm just a fallible mortal doing my best to discern truth that's much bigger than me, then it's no big deal for me to admit I made a mistake, and change my mind. But if I'm this super-OT being who actually determines what is true, then deciding that I was wrong in the past seems as though it would be a lot harder. It would be like admitting I committed a crime or something: I made the wrong thing be true! Instead of just an honest mistake.

Anyway, that's what I mean.

Thing is, we were not just talking about the cult and LRH's history, we were talking about the concept. So I did kinda want to address it from the latter standpoint.

There are things that are true whether we know about them or not. Most things, I guess. But unexamined information that is taken at face value without having checked into it can be a problem. I do find it ironic that Hubbard's statement is a sort of anti cultic thinking thing yet what he set up is anything but evidence of anti cultic thinking. It's sort of like CofS' advertising bromide of some years ago: "Think for yourself" - well, DO they ever? Not really!

Now as to ESOTERIC matters- those aren't verifiable the way the theory of gravity is verifiable. I could even say they're never verifiable at all. So on those, since they're subjective (if we even believe in them) one has to go by one's experience (real or imagined), I think.

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

How about this?

Hubbard's "Truths" - all subjective. BUT since these "truths" are Tech, they're 100% standard - that is to say, they work 100% of the time if they are applied 100% standardly - so that makes them truths in the same manner physical universe scientific facts.

In light of the above, here's one way that Christians deserve credit. To "make it" as a Christian requires a "leap of faith". You know it, they know it, EVERYONE knows it. If you accomplish this leap and obtain some kind of inner peace or key to heaven (same thing?), fine.

The Christians admit from the get-go that it's a leap.

Hubbard from the get-go decrees facts, based upon "thousands of case studes" by a medical doctor, nuclear scientist, world explorer, humanitarian, etc., etc., etc. - all BULLSHIT!!!