What's new

Why I left Scientology.

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
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Was a delightfull reading TAJ!

A beautifull , fine, intelligent, enlightening essay at philosphy and Plato!

You nailed why I like to read, and read, and read Plato!
To me he is the greatest!


'' My point is that people should read Plato because it will hit them right where they are at ''

'' 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. ''


You are a good writter TAJ, very sharp mind and pen!

Thanks!

I guess I'll give another reading at Plato! :wink2:
 
Last edited:

JustSheila

Crusader
Nice, TAJ. :thumbsup: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain some of Plato. That was terrific!

I had an experience with Scn from Plato and the Allegory of the Cave, too, but much smaller. And unfortunately, I had no Plato to read then.

I was in the Hollywood Inn, my room, and had been busted from my post and was awaiting Comm Ev.

That same day I received a letter back from Piers Anthony telling me about the Scn attack on Gabe Cezares, former Mayor of Clearwater.

I was freaking out, heart pounding, thought I was going insane.

Then I remembered the cave story. It's only shadows, I told myself, but I was still terrified. At least Plato gave me something solid to hang onto, before I was RPFed later in the week, but I wished I'd had The Republic to read then. I will now, though.

Living under the tunnels of the complex as an RPFer, Plato's Cave Allegory was pretty appropriate and occurred to me often. In retrospect, it may be the one thing that helped me hang onto what sanity I could through that horrible time. My son was real - and getting out of the cave of shadows and back to him ASAP was the one goal nobody could sec check, audit, or penalise out of me. Thanks, Plato.
 
Nice, TAJ. :thumbsup: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain some of Plato. That was terrific!

I had an experience with Scn from Plato and the Allegory of the Cave, too, but much smaller. And unfortunately, I had no Plato to read then.

I was in the Hollywood Inn, my room, and had been busted from my post and was awaiting Comm Ev.

That same day I received a letter back from Piers Anthony telling me about the Scn attack on Gabe Cezares, former Mayor of Clearwater.

I was freaking out, heart pounding, thought I was going insane.

Then I remembered the cave story. It's only shadows, I told myself, but I was still terrified. At least Plato gave me something solid to hang onto, before I was RPFed later in the week, but I wished I'd had The Republic to read then. I will now, though.

Living under the tunnels of the complex as an RPFer, Plato's Cave Allegory was pretty appropriate and occurred to me often. In retrospect, it may be the one thing that helped me hang onto what sanity I could through that horrible time. My son was real - and getting out of the cave of shadows and back to him ASAP was the one goal nobody could sec check, audit, or penalise out of me. Thanks, Plato.

Wow! What a great testimony to Plato.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

I'm writing a book to show people the everyday usefulness of some of the ideas of the great philosophers.

I'm concentrating on Plato and Kant, with a side of Bacon.

I'm still at the point where I'm developing and reading my bibliography, and I expect it will take me a few years to get the product I want.

But I really think if people made use of these ideas their lives would be better and for sure free of such traps as Scientology.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Wow! What a great testimony to Plato.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

I'm writing a book to show people the everyday usefulness of some of the ideas of the great philosophers.

I'm concentrating on Plato and Kant, with a side of Bacon.

I'm still at the point where I'm developing and reading my bibliography, and I expect it will take me a few years to get the product I want.

But I really think if people made use of these ideas their lives would be better and for sure free of such traps as Scientology.

The Anabaptist Jacques



:clap: YAYYY! :clap:

You had me at Plato.....consider your 1st sales pre-order confirmed.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Wow! What a great testimony to Plato.

I'll let you in on a little secret.

I'm writing a book to show people the everyday usefulness of some of the ideas of the great philosophers.

I'm concentrating on Plato and Kant, with a side of Bacon.

I'm still at the point where I'm developing and reading my bibliography, and I expect it will take me a few years to get the product I want.

But I really think if people made use of these ideas their lives would be better and for sure free of such traps as Scientology.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Oh TAJ! How Awesome! :clap: :clap: :clap: It's so NEEDED, and you're definitely the guy for it.

You are to philosophers what Joseph Campbell is to Mythology. :thumbsup:

A side of Bacon... :giggle:

I want to pre-order too!
 
Oh TAJ! How Awesome! :clap: :clap: :clap: It's so NEEDED, and you're definitely the guy for it.

You are to philosophers what Joseph Campbell is to Mythology. :thumbsup:

A side of Bacon... :giggle:

I want to pre-order too!

Thanks! But I wouldn't go that far.

Campbell was a scholar of mythology, I'm only a fan of philosophy.

But I do think that whereas in the past people relied on philosophy to help get them through life, nowadays, especially since it has become so academic, philosophy has turned into a boring, useless, subject.

But it never was and never should be.

I think what of the things that attracted some people to Scientology was its claim that it was an applied religious philosophy.

And then people fall for that because they never saw what real applied philosophy looks like.

Hopefully, I can revive some interest and hopefully help people out.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks! But I would go that far.

Campbell was a scholar of mythology, I'm only a fan of philosophy.

But I do think that whereas in the past people relied on philosophy to help get them through life, nowadays, especially since it has become so academic, philosophy has turned into a boring, useless, subject.

But it never was and never should be.

I think what of the things that attracted some people to Scientology was its claim that it was an applied religious philosophy.

And then people fall for that because they never saw what real applied philosophy looks like.

Hopefully, I can revive some interest and hopefully help people out.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Good plan. May I make a couple of suggestions myself?

Greg Goode's worth a look in my view. He's a New York philosopher who tries to get people to realise emptiness (sunyata) through philosophical enquiry;

http://www.heartofnow.com/

Have to admit I struggle with his stuff (or have so far anyway) but others seem to get more out of his work.

Failing that, there's the work of John Cantwell (Jack) Kiley, an Irish American who describes himself as a "clinical philosopher". I've got his book "Equilibrium" and it's very good.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Thanks! But I would go that far.

Campbell was a scholar of mythology, I'm only a fan of philosophy.

But I do think that whereas in the past people relied on philosophy to help get them through life, nowadays, especially since it has become so academic, philosophy has turned into a boring, useless, subject.

But it never was and never should be.

I think what of the things that attracted some people to Scientology was its claim that it was an applied religious philosophy.

And then people fall for that because they never saw what real applied philosophy looks like.

Hopefully, I can revive some interest and hopefully help people out.

The Anabaptist Jacques

But Campbell didn't write like an academic. He showed how Mythology is not only in living use today, but useful, integral, and even vital to our everyday life. And he showed this in a rational way with everyday examples we take for granted.

That's what you do - and with a bit of humour, too. :thumbsup:
 
Good plan. May I make a couple of suggestions myself?

Greg Goode's worth a look in my view. He's a New York philosopher who tries to get people to realise emptiness (sunyata) through philosophical enquiry;

http://www.heartofnow.com/

Have to admit I struggle with his stuff (or have so far anyway) but others seem to get more out of his work.

Failing that, there's the work of John Cantwell (Jack) Kiley, an Irish American who describes himself as a "clinical philosopher". I've got his book "Equilibrium" and it's very good.

Thanks. But I think I would differ from these guys.

I'm not looking to suggest any theraputic self-examination or anything like that.

I want to get people interested in reading Plato so they can find for themselves how he applies to them.

Kant is a little different. Nobody will read Kant.

He is very, very, difficult to follow.

But his views, that is, his technical views on epistemology, ethics, and morality seem to me to be exactly what is missing in people's understanding of the world.

And Bacon is pure practical wisdom.

Bacon is the Father of modern science yet he wasn't a scientist.

He was the equivalent of the Supreme Court Chief Justice in England.

That's why he came up with the analogous term "Laws of nature" and "Scientific laws" etc.

Plato, Kant, and Bacon are not therapists or gurus; their writings are simply catalyst for a greater understanding of life.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
My favorite philosophers are Carnap, Wittgestein, Russell and several other positivists (I am also a positivist). I read Kant’s Prolegoments and totally disagreed with his point of view. I also do not like Plato’s philosophy because of his Forms doctrine which became the foundation of a modern-day philosophical movement known as scientific realism (this movement is at odds with positivism).,,,

Even when I was a Scientologist, I didn’t see Hubbard with his immature theta hypothesis as a philosopher; I thought that his non-Dianetics writing were childish. But that didn’t bother me at all because I wanted to continue his research in Dianetics. I saw Hubbard as one of the greatest psychologists; one doesn’t need to be a philosopher to make a sizeable contribution to psychology. My doubts about Scientology grew as I proceeded with the auditing of my friends who were not Scientologists – their conditions were not improving. I left Scientology for good after I read Hubbard’s screenplay, Revolt in the Stars, which is based on OT 3 data. Upon reading that script I concluded that the Founder was seriously mentally ill.
 

cleared cannibal

Silver Meritorious Patron
There is nothing like looking down the barrel of a 357 to bring you to your senses. Anything that would bring one to this point when they were relatively ok before has serious flaws.
CC
 

RogerB

Crusader
That opening post of yours above, TAJ, is rather brilliant.

It is interesting you picked up on the "what Plato (and his times) meant" by the various words used in his chart of the hierarchy of existence.

What we see today of what Plato wrote, is of course a translation of what he wrote, and is a translation down through time and, to a large extent, a translation made at a particular time in the history of the development of our culture through the ages.

In particular, I am referring to the "Middle Ages," wherein Plato was translated from Greek to Latin and then, by the likes of Roger Bacon you mention into English. (Bacon studied in Paris and returned to England to teach.)

I have just finished reading/re-reading (while on vacation) a fellow you might be familiar with: Maurice DeWulf, and his book: Philosophy and Civilization in the Middle Ages.

This book is the written version of DeWulf's "celebrated lectures at Princeton University." This stuff was originally delivered around 100 years ago and published in written form in 1922 . . . hence its language and writing style is a little "archaic" and, on occasion, even abstruse . . . but nonetheless it was very informative to see how our civilization's philosophies, understandings of life and "science" developed during that period.

Rog
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
great post TAJ.

The Allegory of the Cave was something that I learned about in boarding school. The Republic was the daily reading in the morning at Assembly for one whole term- another book that was used later was The Screwtape Letters and, of course, the bible.

When I was first declared and out of the SO, disconnected from everyone I knew in Copenhagen I decided to do some study on my own. I went to the RC Bishop of Copenhagens Library and got out two books on Aquinas (thankfully both in English) and worked my through them.

While my "moment" was not as abrupt as yours, I got there in the end.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I haven't actually read much Plato or Aristotle for many years. Maybe I should get back to them. But my retained impression is that they were both surprisingly pleasant and refreshing to read.

Where they made assertions, a lot of the time they have turned out in retrospect to have done so with unwarranted confidence. Some stuff that seemed obvious to them may well not even be true at all. But they hit on a lot of big ideas, and just laid them out in pretty bald terms, without a lot of the hedging and technicality that later thinkers have been forced to adopt. The way I see it, Plato and Aristotle were the blue water philosophers, sailing out into the big, thick, untouched shoals of teeming fish, and scooping them in as fast as they could haul net. After them, everyone else was fishing in red water, with a lot more competition to deal with.

With the old guys, you ask them for a fillet, and they heap your plate with great big, slabs of fresh tuna, very lightly grilled, and away you go. The dang fish don't even grow that big any more, it seems. Those were the days.

With Immanuel Kant I had almost the same kind of impression, for the first hundred pages. Then I hit the wall of abstruse jargon, and gave the book away.

I'm still more impressed with these older philosophers than I am with the positivists. I think the positivists are naive, actually; in particular, I don't think the big guys from the early 20th century really adequately dealt with either quantum mechanics or Gödel's theorem. So they upheld an ideal of mathematical certainty that turned out not to exist even in pure mathematics, and they treated experimental observation as a direct perception of truth that turned out not to be so direct even in physics. I don't think many working scientists or mathematicians are positivists. I think most are Platonists. We want to believe that we are investigating an unseen reality. If all it really amounted to was just codifying observations, then it would be hard to get out of bed in the morning to go into the lab.
 

Gib

Crusader
Thanks! But I would go that far.

Campbell was a scholar of mythology, I'm only a fan of philosophy.

But I do think that whereas in the past people relied on philosophy to help get them through life, nowadays, especially since it has become so academic, philosophy has turned into a boring, useless, subject.

But it never was and never should be.

I think what of the things that attracted some people to Scientology was its claim that it was an applied religious philosophy.

And then people fall for that because they never saw what real applied philosophy looks like.

Hopefully, I can revive some interest and hopefully help people out.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Ah Yes, as I highlight in red, that is what got me over the hump from Dianetics to Scn. As I figured hubbard (and hubbard sold me into believing) studied all the greats and refined the wisdom and summarized the wisdom so that a layman like me could understand. So I fell for the trap, which was why read Plato when Hubbard summarized him and other philosophers for us, and thus just read Hubbard's books and lecture's. What a fuk'in waste of time reading Hubbard.

Alanzo said when he read "The Republic" it changed him forever like it did to you. Alanzo gave a online link of the book version, or a talking version. I wonder if somebody can find it here on ESMB easily, I'm not good at finding things here.
 

Intentionally Blank

Scientology Widow
Ah Yes, as I highlight in red, that is what got me over the hump from Dianetics to Scn. As I figured hubbard (and hubbard sold me into believing) studied all the greats and refined the wisdom and summarized the wisdom so that a layman like me could understand. So I fell for the trap, which was why read Plato when Hubbard summarized him and other philosophers for us, and thus just read Hubbard's books and lecture's. What a fuk'in waste of time reading Hubbard.

Alanzo said when he read "The Republic" it changed him forever like it did to you. Alanzo gave a online link of the book version, or a talking version. I wonder if somebody can find it here on ESMB easily, I'm not good at finding things here.

Not much help with finding it already posted. Would you take a fresh copy instead?

http://www.aprendendoingles.com.br/ebooks/republic.pdf (Print)

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Politics/Political-Philosophy/The-Republic/28412 (Audio)

Blanky
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
TAJ

Please
I want a copy of the first edition, signed!


Put my name on your list.

:yes:
 
My favorite philosophers are Carnap, Wittgestein, Russell and several other positivists (I am also a positivist). I read Kant’s Prolegoments and totally disagreed with his point of view. I also do not like Plato’s philosophy because of his Forms doctrine which became the foundation of a modern-day philosophical movement known as scientific realism (this movement is at odds with positivism).,,,

Even when I was a Scientologist, I didn’t see Hubbard with his immature theta hypothesis as a philosopher; I thought that his non-Dianetics writing were childish. But that didn’t bother me at all because I wanted to continue his research in Dianetics. I saw Hubbard as one of the greatest psychologists; one doesn’t need to be a philosopher to make a sizeable contribution to psychology. My doubts about Scientology grew as I proceeded with the auditing of my friends who were not Scientologists – their conditions were not improving. I left Scientology for good after I read Hubbard’s screenplay, Revolt in the Stars, which is based on OT 3 data. Upon reading that script I concluded that the Founder was seriously mentally ill.

Russell is one of the best philosophy writers. I would recommend his "History of Western Philosophy" to anyone.

But I think the positivists ran into a dead end.

The existentialist, the positivist, and the analytic philosophers all ran into a dead end and they have generally leaned toward pragmatism.

Richard Rorty is the best example.

They call this philosophy neo-pragmatism.

Not my favorite.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
That opening post of yours above, TAJ, is rather brilliant.

It is interesting you picked up on the "what Plato (and his times) meant" by the various words used in his chart of the hierarchy of existence.

What we see today of what Plato wrote, is of course a translation of what he wrote, and is a translation down through time and, to a large extent, a translation made at a particular time in the history of the development of our culture through the ages.

In particular, I am referring to the "Middle Ages," wherein Plato was translated from Greek to Latin and then, by the likes of Roger Bacon you mention into English. (Bacon studied in Paris and returned to England to teach.)

I have just finished reading/re-reading (while on vacation) a fellow you might be familiar with: Maurice DeWulf, and his book: Philosophy and Civilization in the Middle Ages.

This book is the written version of DeWulf's "celebrated lectures at Princeton University." This stuff was originally delivered around 100 years ago and published in written form in 1922 . . . hence its language and writing style is a little "archaic" and, on occasion, even abstruse . . . but nonetheless it was very informative to see how our civilization's philosophies, understandings of life and "science" developed during that period.

Rog

Thanks.

You know it's funny you mentioned the very important point about translations.

I had come to the conclusion that I couldn't really get the full gist of Plato unless I read ancient Greek.

Same with the New Testament.

For example, in any Bible God is called Lord.

But Lord is a term from the Middle Ages.

I wonder what the New Testament actually said, because it certainly didn't say Lord.

And you're right about Roger Bacon.

But I'm referring to Frances Bacon.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Top