The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
I've mentioned often that I left Scientology after I read Plato. It was an immediate thing.
I was reading Plato and then it hit me--"Oh, ooh, ooooh!" and then that was it for me and Scientology.
I didn't have a prolong period of doubt or any moral dilemma--it was simply over.
It was just like the time when I used to date a massage therapist. I left her when she no longer kneaded me.
But I don't think I've ever stated exactly what it was that made me see things differently.
So I'm writing it here, and perhaps this may someday help someone else understand how Scientology is not just "not for them" but rather "not
for anyone."
I have to state my view of Scientology at the time in order to make it all understandable.
This is after being in for years and seeing all the ups and downs, yet still remaining faithful.
I thought Scientology was the best way for mankind to progress and actually prevent wars and atrocities and increase the level of
civilization.
This is because I believed auditing was helping most people gradually overcome personality problems.
Although I was not OT, I thought the OT levels was where a person overcame his or her propensity for violent behavior, and as the
resurgent Theta of more and more OTs permeated through society the world would increasing become more sane and peaceful.
(OK you guys, stop that giggling)
Of course I had seen a lot of "overt products" and I believed that this was bound to happen just because of Mus by staff and public.
So I knew it would be a trial and error process of expanding Scientology. The problems didn't bother me.
Even the injustice.
I believed the people at the top, the "higher-ups", though human and capable of mistakes, at least knew the score and were
trying to do their best.
I used to write KRs and correct situations. I was always trying to protect Scientology from the "lower-downs".
I just chalked it all up to the ebb and flow process of a new idea disseminating through society.
As for Plato, I had read ABOUT his famous Allegory of the Cave. I knew and understand what I read about it.
But as I would learn later, reading Plato is not the same as reading about what Plato said.
Briefly (and now I am committing the same sin), this video is the best version of the beginning of the Allegory of the Cave.
http://youtu.be/69F7GhASOdM
It is just the beginning, and doesn't get to the point. It really is best for people read it for themselves.
when I first heard someone else's version of the Allegory of the Cave I actually thought that it was a good explanation of what we
were trying to accomplish in Scientology.
But then I read Plato for myself.
I don't want people to think that I am looking at Plato like we looked at LRH and that people shouldn't verbally explain Plato
because it would alter source. Not at all.
My point is that people should read Plato because it will hit them right where they are at; they SHOULD have their own interpretation.
The other reason is context.
If you read the Allegory of the Cave it is Book VII of "The Republic." (A Book is another name for a chapter) So it is Chapter VII.
Reading it in context changes everything.
But the thing that ended Scientology for me, in context with the first seven chapters, was Book VIII.
In this chapter, Plato gives his view of the spiritual world and what we would call God, and life and the cosmos.
Plato is not asserting a Truth here, he is just saying what he thinks.
It is referred to by philosophers as Plato's "Divided lines."
Plato is explaining to Glaucon (Plato's actual brother) his view and so Plato draws one vertical line and three horizontal lines dividing the vertical line into four sections, with a right side and a left side to each section..
To explain it easier I have to start at the bottom.
The left side are objects or things. The right side is the psychological, or better yet, the cognitive state where one needs to be in order to apprehend (to grasp mentally or to understand) the objects on the left side.
At the bottom are images. In Plato's day that would be shadows, or drawings, etc. And in order to grasp these images mentally one has to have imagination.
Imagination here means the faculty to view one thing and be able to see it as something else. So I see a drawing of a boat, that is, lines on paper, and I see it as representing a boat.
This is at the bottom, and is the lowest form of mental activity.
Plato's point is not against creativity, but in thinking and viewing the world through shadows. Movies and TV are the modern version.
The next section on the object (left) side are sensible things, that is, things we perceive with the senses.
In all philosophy, thanks to Plato, sensible things means things with perceive with our sense, not thinks which make sense.
On the right side of the things we perceive with our senses, the cognitive state one needs to understand sensible things is Trust.
The reason is that if we perceive something we need to trust our senses that what we see is real.
So far we have:
Sensible things---------------Trust
Images------------------------Imagination
The next step up are mathematical objects, and the cognitive state to comprehend this is Understanding.
The idea is that just as a shadow of a hand is an image of the sensible thing called a hand, the world of sensible things, that is, everything we perceive with our senses are also a shadow of mathematical objects.
In order to see the mathematical objects one needs understanding.
The Egyptians would look at one of their massive structures which they labored and toil and they would see the structure. But Plato would look at it and see a pyramid--a mathematical structure.
And that takes understanding, not just trust in yourself that what you see is what you see.
So:
Mathematical Objects----------Understanding
Sensible things----------------Trust
Images------------------------Imagination
Now it gets cooler.
Above mathematical objects, that is, the things that mathematical objects are a figurative shadow of, are called Forms.
Plato's Forms are that aspect of reality beyond that which we can see. And it is even more real that what we do see.
In a sense, what we see is a shadow of the Forms.
The Forms are absolute entities, unchanging and eternal.
The Forms of Justice, Beauty, Truth, Good, are all absolute Forms.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder because when one sees something they consider beautiful it is because they are seeing a shadow of the Form of Beauty.
The same with Justice, and Truth, etc.
Now here is the catch---the cognitive state one has to be in to comprehend the Forms is Intellection.
Intellection here means grasped by the intellect. The only way one can understand or perceive the Forms is in the mind.
Forms-------------------------Intellection
Mathematical Objects----------Understanding
Sensible things-----------------Trust
Images------------------------Imagination
When I read this my mind went "ping. ping. ping. ping. And each ping was a Scientology concept that I believed in disintegrating.
All those Scientology concepts, one on top of the other, supported my belief in Scientology. But when I read Book VIII the whole chain came undone.
So I said to myself, "Oh, Scientology is all wrong."
The one thing that set of the chain reaction was the idea in Plato that as a person gets higher and closer to Truth (Truth with a capital T) he gets smarter!
The one Scientology contradiction that I could never resolve was how come so many of the OTs I knew and saw were SO FUCKING STUPID!
(Don't get me started!)
And there was so much more too, which is too long and too deep to go into.
But that's what did it for me.
And I became a Platonist.
I would highly recommend for everyone to read Plato.
Not because it is "The Truth"; not because it is the only way; and not because it has all the answers.
I would recommend that people read Plato in a relaxed, contemplative state of mind.
And then perhaps one can just find that so many of life's little confusions may just become clearer.
I don't expect anyone will get the same thing I got out of it because I doubt anyone has the same thoughts as anyone else.
But I do think everyone will get something.
There is so much more I could go into, like above all this is the Idea of the Good (which Plato's followers called the "Logos")
Idea of the Good (Logos)
Forms-------------------------Intellection
Mathematical Objects----------Understanding
Sensible things---------------Trust
Images------------------------Imagination
And this is why and where St Augustine said he was able to understand the Holy Trinity, that is, God (The Idea of the Good), Christ (the Logos takes the form of a man), and the Holy Spirit ( Intellection, or the ability to apprehend the Logos).
And this is also why Christianity spread so fast through the Greek speaking part of the Roman Empire as they were mostly Platonist.
The original title was not "The Republic." It was "Paideia" (I'm not sure about the spelling).
In Greek it roughly translate to the education of a citizen.
The book is about epistemology, education and justice.
There will be a test on Friday.
The Anabaptist Jacques
I was reading Plato and then it hit me--"Oh, ooh, ooooh!" and then that was it for me and Scientology.
I didn't have a prolong period of doubt or any moral dilemma--it was simply over.
It was just like the time when I used to date a massage therapist. I left her when she no longer kneaded me.
But I don't think I've ever stated exactly what it was that made me see things differently.
So I'm writing it here, and perhaps this may someday help someone else understand how Scientology is not just "not for them" but rather "not
for anyone."
I have to state my view of Scientology at the time in order to make it all understandable.
This is after being in for years and seeing all the ups and downs, yet still remaining faithful.
I thought Scientology was the best way for mankind to progress and actually prevent wars and atrocities and increase the level of
civilization.
This is because I believed auditing was helping most people gradually overcome personality problems.
Although I was not OT, I thought the OT levels was where a person overcame his or her propensity for violent behavior, and as the
resurgent Theta of more and more OTs permeated through society the world would increasing become more sane and peaceful.
(OK you guys, stop that giggling)
Of course I had seen a lot of "overt products" and I believed that this was bound to happen just because of Mus by staff and public.
So I knew it would be a trial and error process of expanding Scientology. The problems didn't bother me.
Even the injustice.
I believed the people at the top, the "higher-ups", though human and capable of mistakes, at least knew the score and were
trying to do their best.
I used to write KRs and correct situations. I was always trying to protect Scientology from the "lower-downs".
I just chalked it all up to the ebb and flow process of a new idea disseminating through society.
As for Plato, I had read ABOUT his famous Allegory of the Cave. I knew and understand what I read about it.
But as I would learn later, reading Plato is not the same as reading about what Plato said.
Briefly (and now I am committing the same sin), this video is the best version of the beginning of the Allegory of the Cave.
http://youtu.be/69F7GhASOdM
It is just the beginning, and doesn't get to the point. It really is best for people read it for themselves.
when I first heard someone else's version of the Allegory of the Cave I actually thought that it was a good explanation of what we
were trying to accomplish in Scientology.
But then I read Plato for myself.
I don't want people to think that I am looking at Plato like we looked at LRH and that people shouldn't verbally explain Plato
because it would alter source. Not at all.
My point is that people should read Plato because it will hit them right where they are at; they SHOULD have their own interpretation.
The other reason is context.
If you read the Allegory of the Cave it is Book VII of "The Republic." (A Book is another name for a chapter) So it is Chapter VII.
Reading it in context changes everything.
But the thing that ended Scientology for me, in context with the first seven chapters, was Book VIII.
In this chapter, Plato gives his view of the spiritual world and what we would call God, and life and the cosmos.
Plato is not asserting a Truth here, he is just saying what he thinks.
It is referred to by philosophers as Plato's "Divided lines."
Plato is explaining to Glaucon (Plato's actual brother) his view and so Plato draws one vertical line and three horizontal lines dividing the vertical line into four sections, with a right side and a left side to each section..
To explain it easier I have to start at the bottom.
The left side are objects or things. The right side is the psychological, or better yet, the cognitive state where one needs to be in order to apprehend (to grasp mentally or to understand) the objects on the left side.
At the bottom are images. In Plato's day that would be shadows, or drawings, etc. And in order to grasp these images mentally one has to have imagination.
Imagination here means the faculty to view one thing and be able to see it as something else. So I see a drawing of a boat, that is, lines on paper, and I see it as representing a boat.
This is at the bottom, and is the lowest form of mental activity.
Plato's point is not against creativity, but in thinking and viewing the world through shadows. Movies and TV are the modern version.
The next section on the object (left) side are sensible things, that is, things we perceive with the senses.
In all philosophy, thanks to Plato, sensible things means things with perceive with our sense, not thinks which make sense.
On the right side of the things we perceive with our senses, the cognitive state one needs to understand sensible things is Trust.
The reason is that if we perceive something we need to trust our senses that what we see is real.
So far we have:
Sensible things---------------Trust
Images------------------------Imagination
The next step up are mathematical objects, and the cognitive state to comprehend this is Understanding.
The idea is that just as a shadow of a hand is an image of the sensible thing called a hand, the world of sensible things, that is, everything we perceive with our senses are also a shadow of mathematical objects.
In order to see the mathematical objects one needs understanding.
The Egyptians would look at one of their massive structures which they labored and toil and they would see the structure. But Plato would look at it and see a pyramid--a mathematical structure.
And that takes understanding, not just trust in yourself that what you see is what you see.
So:
Mathematical Objects----------Understanding
Sensible things----------------Trust
Images------------------------Imagination
Now it gets cooler.
Above mathematical objects, that is, the things that mathematical objects are a figurative shadow of, are called Forms.
Plato's Forms are that aspect of reality beyond that which we can see. And it is even more real that what we do see.
In a sense, what we see is a shadow of the Forms.
The Forms are absolute entities, unchanging and eternal.
The Forms of Justice, Beauty, Truth, Good, are all absolute Forms.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder because when one sees something they consider beautiful it is because they are seeing a shadow of the Form of Beauty.
The same with Justice, and Truth, etc.
Now here is the catch---the cognitive state one has to be in to comprehend the Forms is Intellection.
Intellection here means grasped by the intellect. The only way one can understand or perceive the Forms is in the mind.
Forms-------------------------Intellection
Mathematical Objects----------Understanding
Sensible things-----------------Trust
Images------------------------Imagination
When I read this my mind went "ping. ping. ping. ping. And each ping was a Scientology concept that I believed in disintegrating.
All those Scientology concepts, one on top of the other, supported my belief in Scientology. But when I read Book VIII the whole chain came undone.
So I said to myself, "Oh, Scientology is all wrong."
The one thing that set of the chain reaction was the idea in Plato that as a person gets higher and closer to Truth (Truth with a capital T) he gets smarter!
The one Scientology contradiction that I could never resolve was how come so many of the OTs I knew and saw were SO FUCKING STUPID!
(Don't get me started!)
And there was so much more too, which is too long and too deep to go into.
But that's what did it for me.
And I became a Platonist.
I would highly recommend for everyone to read Plato.
Not because it is "The Truth"; not because it is the only way; and not because it has all the answers.
I would recommend that people read Plato in a relaxed, contemplative state of mind.
And then perhaps one can just find that so many of life's little confusions may just become clearer.
I don't expect anyone will get the same thing I got out of it because I doubt anyone has the same thoughts as anyone else.
But I do think everyone will get something.
There is so much more I could go into, like above all this is the Idea of the Good (which Plato's followers called the "Logos")
Idea of the Good (Logos)
Forms-------------------------Intellection
Mathematical Objects----------Understanding
Sensible things---------------Trust
Images------------------------Imagination
And this is why and where St Augustine said he was able to understand the Holy Trinity, that is, God (The Idea of the Good), Christ (the Logos takes the form of a man), and the Holy Spirit ( Intellection, or the ability to apprehend the Logos).
And this is also why Christianity spread so fast through the Greek speaking part of the Roman Empire as they were mostly Platonist.
The original title was not "The Republic." It was "Paideia" (I'm not sure about the spelling).
In Greek it roughly translate to the education of a citizen.
The book is about epistemology, education and justice.
There will be a test on Friday.
The Anabaptist Jacques