Here’s a challenge for you: Please name actual inconsistencies in Scientology (ethics, tech or policy) with proper referencing.
Not looking for stuff you don’t believe in or think is off. I want to see proper internal illogic in form of inconsistencies.
Clarification: I am not looking for inconsistencies in the practice of Scientology. I am looking for inconsistencies in the actual philosophy of Scientology.
330 thoughts on “Wanted: Inconsistencies in Scientology”
I have been declared but never had any of the previous ethics actions. I left quietly in 07 and haven’t been back to Clearwater. Nor have I done any protesting or other actions that might be conisdered for the reference of a suppressive act. I am also being harrased by Siouxie Boshoff and libeled. I have warned her to knock it off or I will move on her commercially.
This is an excellent example of bad practice. However, I am here looking for inconsistencies in the actual philosophy of Scientology, not the practice or loose cannons on decks.
In HCOB 1980 The State of Clear LRH states the Book 1 definition of Clear is correct, however that description is inconsistent with any Clear I’ve met.
Again an inconsistency in practice, not in the philosophy.
This is the elephant in the room that we sometimes overlook when examining the subject. That state many of us walked into the org for – Clear, is found to have many inconsistencies with what we read in the book.
When I first walked into the org I asked the receptionist if she was Clear. She laughed and said “I wish!” I then asked other staff, each of which said no. This registered as my first observed inconsistency. If Clear is so special and is why this org is here, why aren’t these people Clear?
I then observed Clears to behave irrationally at times, or not how I pictured from reading the book. These inconsistencies were explained away at that time.
There were definite gains I can state with great subjective awareness and certainty that I achieved from the auditing I received, but I am far from perfect and make computational errors on a consistent basis. That is the only consistency I have observed.
I acknowledge this as another inconsistency in the practice of Scientology. Again, I would like to see actual inconsistencies in the writings of LRH.
LRH States after releasing the Purification Rundown that in spite of the programs effectiveness one should not give up one’s “beef patty” every day to maintain optimum health. I have read this policy.
I am a Vegetarian and stopped eating meat in 1995. It has been Scientifically proven since 1944 that human beings do not manufacture the enzymes needed to digest foods that are from an animal origin. The human body is a vegetable based fuel machine. LRH Overlooked this long before Dianetics was released.
Because Vitamin B12 is only found in animals a person who is a Vegetarian must take Vitamin B12 supplements daily to prevent anemia, but there is nothing wrong with that philosophy because LRH says it is wise to continue taking the vitamins one took on the Purif after the Purif is done.
I hope I settled the matter.
A very good question, my friend!
Most incidences of inconsistencies in Scientology have been canceled many years ago. Like the policy of Fair Game (canceled in the ’70’s) goes against the Way To Happiness (to obey the laws of the land and to be a person of good will.) However, current church management acts as though Fair Game had never been canceled at all.
What I see is the extreme PERVERSION of existing technology across the boards. In the PR tech, for instance, you’re NEVER supposed to LIE and you’re not supposed to forward the enemy line both of which is done all too frequently, the Freedom Magazine article being the latest example thereof. This PERVERSION, ALTERATION and SQUIRRELING has caused the organization more trouble than anything else but still, I’d love to see what others can come up with. And I’ll think about it some more, too.
Oh, there are countless. Some of my friends used to say “Ron wrote down many things and the opposite of all those things.” 🙂 I’ll get back to this.
Nice challenge. So here is an inconsistency in the philosophy of Scientology i noticed some time ago.
“Furthermore, man is basically good. He is seeking to survive. [b]And his survival depends upon himself and his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe. [/b]”
– don’t know the exact LRH reference, but this is on the scientology.org website under “What is Scientology?”
this is contradicting:
“One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not, as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the Tone Scale. [b]One declines into a brotherhood with the universe[/b]. When he goes up scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST) the MEST universe cut out all competition.
— L. Ron Hubbard
Scientology 8-8008 ©1989 (pp. 47,48)
In the one quote LRH says that mans survival depends on his attainment of brotherhood with the universe and in the other he says (imho) the opposite, basically that attainment of brotherhood with the universe would be something to avoid.
Merging and brotherhood are two different things. However, Vinaire has pointed out an inconsistency touching right on this area.
The most fundamental inconsistency that I have seen in the philosophy of Scientology is that it starts out claiming that it as an extension of Buddhism, but ends up going in a direction 180 degree opposite of Buddhism. The aim of Buddhism has always been NIRVANA or “blowing out” of self. Hubbard derides NIRVANA as becoming “one with the universe” and pushes “individuality” as the ultimate aim. See Scn 8-8008 “Individualiy versus Identity.” Thus, Scientology specializes in producing turbo-charged egos.
We don’t see in Scientology the calmness and equanimity that Buddhism produces. Scientology claims to have the goal of being exterior to the physical universe, and it rails against the physical universe as a trap. Yet by pushing individuality it pushes one into the clutches of that very trap. I shall be writing more on this inconsistency on my blog.
This is a good example.
“Thus, Scientology specializes in producing turbo-charged egos. ”
Disagree with this. Both scio and buddhism are on the same vector. Native state/nirvana/total freedom. A different approach is made in the two to achieve that. For a creation to persist a lie has to have been created “on top of it”. This is case and what prevents ones default state of existence as a static. The processes of scio attempt to as-is these lies so one doesn’t have to be/do/have.
I am inclined to agree with Vin on this because Hubbard emphasizes “Power” of a thetan as something to strive for. I would say LRH was more right in his angle where Communication was the way toward a better game. If my metaphysical theory is correct, then each one of us creates his own reality by pure visualization (consideration), superimposed makes for the consensus reality which can only be affected by each individual by communication with others.
What is power though? Something to do with ability to create and uncreate I think.
“Yet by pushing individuality it pushes one into the clutches of that very trap.”
Could you explain how?
I’ll also add that I think the problem with language is that things can be interpreted in many ways, even when word cleared. Truth can never be EXACTLY expressed with words, and the closest we get is with something like the axioms. We derive meaning from reading from the associations of words put together. Thus they are lies in actuality and can only point one to the truth.
I might be able to clarify what this whole individuality thing means, and I don’t think it equates to ego. Haven’t read that particular chapter in a few years, but here’s my take on it.
Basically, the less persisting creations there are, the more choice a being has to create. I.e. a being has less limitations in creativity, more ablility to create new things, more potentials available to manifest. In other words, the less persisting creations, the more a being can express – that’s individuality!
The more persisting creations a being has, the less freedom it has, the more it might be stuck in an identity.
Imo, EGO is identifying too hard with ones creations, particularly ones beingnesses. Nothing wrong with an identity, a point on the tone scale, an action, an object etc….but don’t become fixed or too invested into it, otherwise ego is born.
Individuality comes when one knows its just creation and expression, and one can be something, but doesn’t identify with that something. One doesn’t lose ones individuality even when one is being an identity.
Subtle difference is living. It’s much more fun to be able to express more richly, be anything, be pan-determined etc, than to be just one or a few things fixidly and finding it hard to get out of it.
Infinity, you write well and your argument is nicely made. But this is how I see it…
Each and every manifestation is “individual.”
“Individuality” is the charactristic of any manifestation.
A BEING is a manifestation too.
So, “individuality” applies to a BEING as well.
Maybe, you don’t look at a BEING as a manifestation. I have explained that in another response to you.
I think you are using the definition of individuality/individual as meaning a viewpoint or dimension point. Multiple singularities.
Yet, my meaning of individuality differs as explained in my previous comment. The degree of awareness, knowingness and responsibility is the factor involved in identity (with potential ego pitfall) and individuality.
I was using the word BEING as meaning a static, which is a manifestor (i.e. creator). Or at least a static is a potential manifestor because it has that ability. “It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.” (from axiom 1)
Maybe this one is the most fundamental contradiction in the system, as far as I can see. Instead of becoming free by overcoming the ego-illusion, you end up being caught in the delusion of becoming a godlike turbo-charged superego. This one then finally ends up in a state of paranoia where you are a target and have to control everything and are surrounded by enemies, as is quite visable. LRH seems to have been aware of this in the early years, at least he made some commentaries about it in the Technique 88 lectures. In Dianetics 55! he also wrote that the way up to “Pan-Determinism” cannot be reached by the use of force, pikes and spears, spankings and police forces.
In Buddhism, by the way, beings in the god-realms are NOT enlightened, because they’re still trapped by the concept of ego and dualism. Therefore it is not seen as desireable to become a god.
To recognize one’s inherent Buddha-nature one has to recognize that the concept of ego is an illusion and that there is no dualism, seen from the highest view.
Here is my essay on INCONSISTENCY:
KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY
There is no absolute truth or untruth. There is only relative inconsistency. It is only when total consistency is achieved that one may know what lies beyond (as absolute truth).
Inconsistencies on various levels may be named as follows:
Unwanted feelings & emotions
The inconsistency may be defined as the variance between the way something appears and what is actually there. Therefore, the method for dissolving any inconsistency would be to look at the area of inconsistency non-judgmentally and without resistance as described in KHTK 1 & 2.
Have a look at my blog, Anti Dianetics, https://antidianetics.wordpress.com/
1 I just posted an article about abortion in the Sea Org which quotes (a) the pious bits of Dianetics that refer to abortion; and (b) Hubbard’s own attitude to abortion in his first marriage to Polly (poor Polly). You will no doubt be familiar with the Admissions.
2 [Removed due to reference to confidential material]
Again, this points to inconsistencies in the practice. It does not matter if it was Hubbard wo practiced the inconsistencies. I am only interested in philosophical inconsistencies. Your second point touches on this, but I removed it as it would be perceived as “unsafe” by scientologists frequenting here.
I just see that you removed a reference to confidential material. There is something in my mind – very specific – but that also related with confidential material.
A further discrepancy or deceit, perhaps a better word, is Hubbard’s Axioms of 1954. I gleaned a few comments tonight from Ryan Anschauung which is presumably not his real name. The discrepancy here is between the flatulent presentation of these as cosmic truths to impress the credulous, and their real lack of value to an intelligent analyst. There is further research to do here: despite its flaws Hubbard was incapable of composing any such a text; so where did he get his ideas from?
“Scientology is certainly not alone in taking full advantage of the crippling secret powers of language to control us… The human brain is a very powerful machine, it has the power to make anything real; and out of sheer habit and expectation (and even because our society rewards that habit) that is precisely what it does. Cults merely take advantage of this dependency and the power of our reliance on abstracts built into us.” “Whilst the concepts here are gentle, you can be sure that as the author gains control by building up his shape within us (creating a literal spell) this dualistic thinking will be used with full stubborn force against his enemies or those who refuse to accept later ideas stubbornly hedged in dual-think.” Of Axiom 5 he says: “The idea that we can project something outward to give rise to something else says a lot about how the author believes time and space operate (which is sadly a mundane and typical understanding with nothing new or remotely interesting to say).” Of Axioms 6-10: “What is really being said here though – is nothing.”
“Propaganda-based texts tell a crafted story that relies on the power of our brains to engage in traditional fantasies used by the human race and interact with its collective method of understanding text, processing it, and influencing how we treat it in such a way as to evoke a certain response from the reader by getting inside the readers head by using ideas familiar to the reader. These keys by which propaganda gain a foothold in the psyche (human mind) are often missed since few people stop to analyze the meaning of the carrier ; language as a whole; and focus mainly on the concepts being presented and their loaded reactions to certain words and concepts – not the system that delivers concepts itself. Thus, a great deal is said in the first few sentences of any cult material that says just about all you need to know about it; and luckily for esotericists and cynics like myself, language screams these secrets out in every word it uses and where it uses them. It can’t help it.
“Knowing just these few methods the authors has employed in the axioms is enough to tear the remaining axioms apart piece by piece and note how abstractions have been heavily relied upon for this essential nonsense to make sense; since looking at the rest of the axioms, only by investing them with meaning (and they are all just empty abstracts using other abstracts to try and weight them down and give the impression of substance) do they mean anything. It is up to me to allow the author to persuade me these words have a meaning or that these concepts are not abstractions but somehow real and objective phenomena rather than merely subjective abstraction common to all propaganda. But since most people don’t go this far into what they are actually doing when they use language (for various reasons) it’s very easy to fall prey to a timeless tradition of other’s spinning bullshit at our expense.
Finally – I believe the author has some connection to the concepts of the perennial philosophy – i.e. that they do have some profound connection to nature and her miracles; but the connection appears to be unconscious (the author uses dualism and moralism and shows all the signs of being as mundane as the rest of us by the way they have used concepts and language to build an abstract ball of illusions) and distorted. There is no new esoteric clarity in the concepts presented which appear clumsy in conception. At no point does the author point out their own geometry in creating or presenting the axioms such as I have attempted to do – and like so many others, therefore expresses intent to rule others with forms, not release them by smashing those forms. This is because at no point does the author appear to understand his own “is-ness” nor share it with any clarity but instead relies on the pre-existing notions that characterize our species way of perception.
In esoteric terms or geo-spatial relations – the author uses the same concepts of 1, 2 and three that typify all human workings and hint at the nature of our psyche. An examination of the axioms will show the weighting of empty abstractions, the concepts of giving sets of three examples, dualism and moralism. This is not the province of Scientology but the province of all human language –most of us do not appear to be aware of it, however, and deal only in the currency of forms.
0. I fail to see actual inconsistencies.
1. The statement that Hubbard would not be able to create these seems pure propaganda. One need only listen to one of his 1950’s lectures to find out that this is BS.
2. The author of th blog seems to be unable to actually grasp the ideas contained in the first three axioms. He should look at Vinaire’s dissections of the axioms at the scnforum.org
3. He could perhaps also widen his understanding by reading my article “On Will“.
Third post. There is also a striking discrepancy between his child-care advice, and his generally pious blah blah about dear little children and the future of the nation and (a) the way he treated his own children and (b) his dreadful proposals about silent birth and isolated newborns. Not to mention the super-sweet barley formula. Scurvy, no less.
Again, this is covered somewhere on my blog. It is mainly in Child Dianetics. He was certainly brilliant but he was also a charlatan, a humbug, a phony, a liar, a cheat, a quack and a fraud.
Have you looked at his introduction to the Scientology Code? I did recently. He said it could not and should not be enforced because that would diminish the person; it was a luxury, not a necessity. So much for morals. So that is another discrepancy.
I knew I should never have started down this road.
Again, these are inconsistencies in practice, not in the philosophical texts of Scientology.
Also your post is riddled with negative emotions. Please stay on course.
Geir, I understand what you are asking for but in the following example, I don’t have the references.
Maybe someone can help with this. I remember reading policies, or perhaps HCOBs, wherein LRH would seem to declare something like, “The ONLY reason an org can fail…” or the PRIMARY REASON…etc. Seems like there were many HCOBs or PLs with these “ONLY” reasons.
Again, sorry for the generalization. My point is that something that is PRIMARY or ONLY can be singular only; there are not 3 or 4 things that can be the “only” reason for (something). This seems inconsistent.
Another thing: There is an HCOB called, I believe, OT MAXIMS. Paraphrasing, LRH talks about the power of a thetan is proportional to the amount he can control.
He defines Power as, “Light-year Kilotons per microsecond”. I am sorry, to me, that is just gibberish. I’ve word cleared that definition and it just doesn’t make sense. What is is supposed to mean? That one can move Kilotons the distance of light years in increments of microseconds?? This definition is inconsistent with his usual clear, often incisive definitions.
It would be good to see references on the first one.
As for the last one, “Light-year Kilotons per microsecond” needs some looking into 🙂 It seems gibberish to me, too.
Originally this seemed gibberish to me also, until a physics graduate pointed out to me that it was an extension of “foot pounds per second” which is an early system to measure power in physics. The components match: feet becomes light years, pounds becomes kilotons, seconds becomes microseconds. So it is the same system but on a massive scale.
As I pointed out, LRH got the the units rights – as it equates to horsepower. The exaggeration is the gibberish, IMO.
It is an apples to oranges association. Power, as applies to measuring torque or mechanical advantage by such things as foot-pounds per second is completely different than the power being ascribed to a thetan, which would be the manifestation of such things as intention, ability to postulate, ability to make it go right, etc, within the context of the thetan’s ability to control things around him.
LRH obfuscates the whole maxim by bringing the wrong definition into it.
He defined it purely as horsepower.
Geir; you are an OTVIII, and I read your very detailed Knowledge Report. Why don’t you give us some if your own examples of LRH’s inconsistencies, or are you, in asking your question to try to show that there aren’t any inconsistencies in LRH policy, ethics, or tech?
I know there are many inconsistencies in Ron’s accounts of his life, education, and experiences, but of course, they are nothing to do with what you are asking for.
I know of a few, and I will post these. But for now I am looking for a general collection from others first.
I can’t see how a general question like that could work with some kind of intention behind it (like wanting to show that there are no inconsistencies). If there are inconsistencies, there are. If not, there is not. Simple.
Thank you for your response.
Basically KSW conserving Scn philosophy & Tech vs. Condition of Emegency. I’m at work and thus I can’t look for the exact quotations, but it’s something on the order “Nothing in this Universe stays the same. It either grows or shrinks. If something stays the same, it will shrink eventually.”
Wow. That’s a good one; KSW cementing Scientology itself in a condition of Emergency. Good catch.
These are what I was looking for – and not the usual blah-blah-bash-bash that is overrepresented wherever Scientology is discussed on the net.
Well, there’s also something on the order of authoritative teaching in KSW vs. “What is true is true for you” — a writing on Integrity if I’m correct. Sorry for my vague memory.
Or maybe better example than KSW would be the word clearing instruction that if you don’t agree with something in a text, you will have an MU in that.
I’ll provide others tonight.
Yes, but I have heard impressive justifications for this. So, we would need specifics to point out the exact inconsistencies.
A little note: If you think it to the consequences, then if Emergency lasts long it, then it turns to Danger; if there are consecutive Dangers or Non-Existences, then it’s actually Liability. When you look at the relation: society at large vs. standard KSW Scientology, you’ll probably see what I mean.
It makes sense that the longer KSW1 is in force, the lower the condition. It was only a matter of time before that policy became a liability. It will end up being the enemy of Scientology, then an outright treacherous policy before it pulls Scientology into confusion.
Interesting take on this.
I agree with your assessment Geir.
BTW, you didn’t count these item as a conflict with KSW 1 when I first posted this here, but I think with some clarification they can be shown as such.
This is from a lecture in the first green volume from around 1950 where LRH states that Dianetics is a Living Science and implied a constant evolution. I took a picture of it from my phone so I could remember it for you guys.
“The Saturday Morning Lecture.”
“So in order to clarify some of these minor points, we were forced into the publication of a textbook before Dianetics was completely and utterly developed. Perhaps in another two or three thousand years Dianetics will be developed, but at present time this is not the case. This is true of any live, young science. ”
“We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly working technology. The only thing now is getting the technology applied.”
What happened to the “young, live science?”
1. He claims it to be a science in 1950. But the ABSENCE of protocols for Scientific testing are not available and that absence creates a conflict of omission. If I say my “art” is dance and there is no evidence of me doing dance moves, then there is a contradiction. How can I be a chemist if there is no scientific method and protocols for me to use?
KSW forces a contradiction in the Integrity phrase “What’s true for you is true for you” if you disagree with it’s policies. It puts KSW1 above the integrity datum.
(CAPS IN ORIGINAL)
“WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE. IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY. IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM HERE ON OUT.”
This is a very competent post. I agree. Thanks.
Book one is true as it is but anything can be further developed.
Conditions are referring to changes in quantity against time of an unchanging unit of something in the physical universe. That something must stay the same because the moment that something changes, it can no longer be counted as part of the stat or the quantity one is measuring. So changing Scientology means that one no longer has Scientology to add to the quantity of original Scientology. In fact, changing Scientology can automatically put Scientology in Emergency as one could actually be decreasing the quantity of actual Scientology. The tendency to protest having to keep Scientology the same is it connects us to being controlled and restricts our self-determinism. So the very freedom Scientology is offering us, it is also restricting and that keys us in to varying degrees. A medicine should not be too hard to swallow. Hasn’t force been what has been resorted to when trying to get people to act on something they don’t fully understand or agree with? LRH resorted to force and threats also and that spread. He did create a way of entraping people in order to help them go free. Then again, any game one plays, entraps one into following the rules of the game because the moment you stop playing by those rules, your palying a different game.
But back to inconsistencies, there’s a referrence where LRH says something like run away from anyone who offers you total freedom. Scientolgy offers total freedom. Hope someone remembers that referrence.
Now here is an inconsistency in intention and purpose. In the Science of Survival lectures where he states that anything that brings a person up the tone scale is valid processing, he is one day telling the audience about a Japanese company inventing a washing machine that washes through vibrations. They get a lot of returns and when they investigate why they find that the vibrations were making peole feel bad. So they do a little tweaking so that the vibrations make people feel better and they stop getting returns. These nes machines were actually bringing people uptone! Someone n the audience asks basically why don’t we(Scientologists) make a machine to bring everyone uptone and LRH basically answers but where will that leave the auditors? Therefore, the purpose was not to bring the planet uptone in the fastest manner possible which would have been valid processing according to LRH, but to help auditors keep their jobs.
Alright I’m too sleepy to check what I wrote but I hope I’m making at least one or more valid points.
Please re-examine the following as the logic doesn’t hold: “That something must stay the same because the moment that something changes, it can no longer be counted as part of the stat or the quantity one is measuring. So changing Scientology means that one no longer has Scientology to add to the quantity of original Scientology. In fact, changing Scientology can automatically put Scientology in Emergency as one could actually be decreasing the quantity of actual Scientology.”
If that was true, then Scientology was greatest in 1954 and was diminished by Hubbard until his death.
Application of KSW does not mean people willing to leave Scientolgy can’t invent another seperate path of “What is true for you is true for you.” But don’t call it Scientolgy and don’t expect Scientolgists to get off the Scientolgy Bridge to go on your Bridge.
I think this is an interesting point and I’d say certainly true. However
the emergency condition applies to production not statements of policy.
As an extreme example one might say the ten commandments will fall out of use unless they change.
Production… research and output of truth is production IMO
So explain how you’d staticise that. 🙂
If Scientology was on a mission to building a bridge to “total freedom,” then a stat could be, figuratively speaking, number of bricks laid on this bridge. Was it ever finished? Did it slow down to a halt?
Whether it was completed or not, it was surely frozen by KSW #1 and Hubbard’s death. If it was then not completed, then KSW #1 was the biggest sin of all.
No, it wasn’t finished that’s why LRH must continue his work.
“That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields; ” from the Creed of the Church of Scientology
I think that this is the most contradictory phrase in all of Scientology. Perhaps the contradiction stems only from my own understanding of the term religion, but it does seem to me that as the precursor to Scientology, Dianetics would not have been condoned as at its inception it was not a “religion.”
I have given this one line of the Creed a great deal of thought and where it took me was that there is nothing that exists that is not essentially “spiritually” created one way or another and that includes the Sciences.
This line goes “KECHUNG” in my universe every single time I read it and I cannot get my head around it for love nor money.
There is something that I am not asising because what is tending to persist is me having some disagreement with your “good catches.” On this one, the important intention is to not forget the spirit when dealing in the healing of the mind. Then agaain, religion has a bad connotation and by the same token a science of the mind so that it is better received and does not key in such control, …you know what? I wonder if that was the BIG mistake that was made. Making Scientology a religion instead of a technology does tend to connect us to bad stuff on the track as is connected to religion. Now-a-days a lot of people say “I’m not religious, I’m spiritual.” If religion was chosen because of fear of persecution well, LRH got what he resisted. Hey I don’t know the history well enough but I am familiar with from my own experience how we get what we resist or what we do not face well enough.
I also tend to believe that making Scientology a religion was a mistake. LRH says so himself in Creation of Human Ability – that Scientology does not belong in the realm of religion. He later changed his mind and I believe it was mostly due to practical reasons like protection from inspection and tax status.
Policy is evolved and reflects what is workable. (paraphrase of the gist of the materials in the policies about what policy is as found in OEC volume 0)
Keeping Admin Working SEEMS to make the assumption that policy at the time of its issue is no longer evolved, nor is it allowed to be evolved.
And therefore the C of S is caught between a rock and a hard place. Evolve the policy = out KAW versus don’t evolve the policy = outdated, inapplicable or unworkable policy.
But this may be more of a criticism of the practice of applying policy, for to apply policy one would evolve policy. It seems to me that even so this Keeping Admin Working policy both closes and opens the door to evolving policy and since it is a later policy it supersedes the policies on evolving policy?
I would say it is an inconsistency in the admin tech (I can’t find the reference on a boat here in Greece) – but LRH states that policy should be revised and this would contradict KAW.
Scientology raises the IQ, makes the being better, etc. But KSW says that if the tech does not cemented, it will be destroyed. So, if Scientology does all good things how can be that those beings (Scientologists especially the most valuable beings on Earth, especially the highly trained and processed amongst them) can’t be trusted with at least “streamlining” the tech?
Interesting thought on ” that if the tech does not cemented, it will be destroyed”
There is a unique way to view that as “true.”
Old time piggy banks didn’t have rubber stoppers did they? If you wanted the PROTECTED VALUE within it you had to BREAK it.
Question is, Is this what LRH intended to get people to think for themselves?
Did he have to create a vessel that would surely break so that something better could survive?
Keep every scripture in its original, exact form and ANNOTATE THE HELL OUT OF THEM.
LRH said ” Periodic sweep-outs of antiquated and didactic laws [rather than general concepts and subpurposes] MUST be undertaken by a being,
organisation, group or race or species.”
HCOPL 13 mar 1965 THE STRUCTURE OF ORGANISATION WHAT IS POLICY?
So its OK to get rid of or change policy. However per data series 48 to
do so one must get the approval of the founder…….
The policy letter entitled “Knowledge Reports” extends the writing of staff member reports beyond the perimeters of staff activity and into the realm of public Scientologists.
Yet public Scientologists have no recognized statistic that would afford them the “yawn, and tear up the report” aspect of ethics reports when upstats are reported upon.
No, it wasn’t finished that’s why LRH must continue his work.
Scientology auditing cannot be enforced upon a preclear. (I don’t know the exact reference for this – perhaps someone else can provide it.)
The re-sign line after auditing REQUIRES that the preclear re-sign for his next service and any failure to re-sign is evidence that the person didn’t make expected or sufficient gains and therefore requires handling so that they will resign.
In my mind, this violates the materials on Power of Choice and PCs must be audited on self-determined basis. It demands a particular reality from a PC that denies any other activity other than getting auditing or getting training. i.e. person is an artist and is working on art = bad indicator?
Maria is the poster-girl for staying On-Topic. Excellent.
Without copying the exact words of the specific polices we have little to go on. If the person refuses to resign, the org had some bad tech and should ask the PC to assist them in finding and handling the bad tech. When handled the PC will want to sign up again or will consider leaving Scientolgy.
With all the Scientology-bashing rampant on the net, one may wonder why nobody has taken the time to compile a concise set of inconsistencies in Scientology itself. Rage blinds, I guess.
I appreciate the scientific approach of Vinaire and others in looking at the subject matter with as emotional detachment as possible to forward workable advancements in the field of human progress.
Holy cows should be shot.
I’ve had so many in my mind, you would not believe, but through the years I’ve read less and less materials so I’ve just forgot many of those… but some will come back for sure 🙂
Here they are. 🙂 Courtesy of mr Clearbird.
Spiritual healing comes from LOOKING by the preclear. It does not come from giving any data to an auditor. The function of the auditor is to get the preclear to LOOK, and to direct the preclear where to look. The auditor computes of preclear’s data and uses the e-mater reaction to direct the attention of the preclear.
The auditor code specifically states not to evaluate for the preclear. Yet the auditor and the C/S routinely demand data from the preclear and use E-meter readings to evaluate where the preclear should be looking. This function is built into the tech. But here we have quite an inconsistency and a potential for abuse.
KHTK neither uses the E-meter nor any auditor computations or C/S functions to evaluate where the preclear should be looking. KHTK simply uses fixed or dispersed attention as the indicator where to look. This indicator is determined and used by the preclear himself or herself. Thus, the inconsistency that exists in Scientology is overcome in KHTK approach.
It is a question I fear I am ill-equipped to answer as a whole. I only read Dianetics so far. I was reading it from the point of view of someone who has received basic school education on many subjects, including biology, physics and maths so I might be able to compare Hubbard’s writings to what I have been taught in science classes at school. And at the same time I tried to evaluate the text only in the context of the book itself, discarding the education I had received so far, and “trusting” the experiments as Hubbard described them actually took place with the described results. Relevant to your question is only the latter evaluation. And here is what I came up with:
At least Dianetics by itself is pretty self-contained. You do not really have many blatant contradictions within that book itself. I found a few things though, and I will detail on them later. Of course, there’s so much more Hubbard wrote, especially in all the HCOPLs and HCOBs and here probably a major part of contradictions can be found.
However, before I start I would like to raise another detail in this quest for trying to prove, or disprove the theories of Hubbard that are based on his axioms:
Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is very important in this matter, as it states that you cannot prove a sufficiently complex system of axioms to be consistent only by using the axioms of that system alone. Or stated differently: You cannot prove a logical system of axioms to be consistent from within that system, as that system itself may be flawed.
This has consequences for the theories of Hubbard, and not only on the axiomatic system as Hubbard described himself. Hubbard states the analytical mind works like a computer, is perfect and never errs, but the theorem of Kurt Gödel has been expanded to Turing machines as well by Alan Turing himself which are used to describe modern day computers. I believe this has far-reaching philosophical consequences though I have to admit I do not understand them myself completely at this point.
Now to the inconsistencies I noticed in Dianetics:
1. Book 1, Chapter 1: “The Scope of Dianetics”
Of what must a science of mind be composed?
2. A single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and social derangements
This statement does not demonstrate good scientific practice – a science of the mind must be composed of all possible sources for “insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and social derangements”.
The fact that there is only a single source for mental illnesses must be validated with empirical data and cannot be a demand that is stated a priori.
2. Engrams are recorded at cellular level
– Contradicts the fact that there may be engrams from former lives without a directly descendant cell line.
3. Reactive mind only thinks in identities, A=A=A=A=A
– A “burning man” escaping from the fire, to use Hubbard’s own example, whose reactive mind has taken over must jump into water, not into fire. But how is a reactive mind, that only thinks in identies, and equals everything with everything as described by Hubbard workable? For the burning man, water=car=oranges=cat food=fire…
Book 2, Chapter 6 “Emotion and the Dynamics”
In dramatizing an engram, the aberree always takes the winning valence and that valence is not, of course, himself.
Book 3, Chapter Nine: Part Two
By identity thought the ally is survival; anything the ally used or did is, therefore, survival. The valence of the ally is that one most frequently employed by the aberree.
An ally valence is not necessarily the winning valence, and vice versa.
You deliver. This is what I was talking about. And in bringing Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is a very valuable contribution. This beats the blah-blah-bash-bash any day of the week. Thank you, sir.
And in bringing Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is a very valuable contribution.
Don’t applaud too early, the question still stands inhowfar Gödel’s theorem can actually be applied to Hubbard’s axioms, as Hubbard’s axioms certainly are not of algebraic nature, or to be understood in the sense of mathematical axioms, as they are supposed to represent natural laws, like “the apple falls to the centre of the earth”. Then again, Hubbard spoke of solving “equations” in his development of Dianetics, and even gave the formula PV = I*D^x for the potential value of a person.
Furthermore, the conclusions from Gödel’s theorem are not limited to mathematical logical systems. And then like I said, there’s the philosophical question inhowfar the mind of a human can be compared to a Touring machine.
Now that I mentioned the formula, I have another thing:
The potential value of an individual or a group may be expressed by the equation:
(PV = ID) where I is Intelligence and D is Dynamic.
The worth of an individual is computed in terms of the alignment, on any dynamic, of his potential value with optimum survival along that dynamic. A high PV may, by reversed vector, result in a negative worth as in some severely aberrated persons. A high PV on any dynamic assures a high worth only in the unaberrated person.
The question I always had is, how do you quantize the I (“Intelligence”), how do you quantize D (“Dynamics”)? What measurement unit does “Potential Value” have? Hubbard mentions a “vector”. Is D a scalar computed from the dot product of an “aberrated vector” with the “optimum survival” vector so that D can be of negative value? Has anyone in the church, in or out, ever applied this formula to any benefit?
As a point of interest, the new basics give the formula as
PV = I times D^x
while my English pdf version that is pre-basics does not seem to have the “x” exponent, though that could be an issue with the PDF.
Thank you, sir.
An honest look at, and evaluation of Hubbard’s writings is the only way the subject of Scientology and its beneficial practices may ultimately be saved. It is the only way the abusive practices are going to be stopped. You are doing just that. And I thank you for it.
It is interesting to see how all of our points of views are changing over time. And with this I mean independents and critics alike. Even Marty was acknowledging that there are a few contradictions in the tech. I would not have thought he would ever acknowledge it. Yet he did.
Firstly, on Gödel’s; It may be ultimately irrelevant if the metaphysical theory in my article “On Will” is correct, as Gödel’s theorem may simply be pointing to the underlying lie inherently necessary for the existence of any reality. But, bringing the theorem into this discussion is a valuable contribution.
Secondly, I once wrote an article on the PV=ID^x (it is to the power of x in the original as I have seen). In fact I also wrote an HP-41 program to calculate it. Short summary:
Per Science of Survival, a thetan has three basic attributes: Power, Intelligence and Tone. Given that the tone level of an individual (not going into the full tone scale here, but keeping with the original) is graded from 0 to 4, it seems natural to grade also Power (D in the above mentioned formula) and Intelligence (I) on the same scale (with an IQ of 100 equating 2.0 on that scale). The “x” seems to imply that I and D are not to be treated as equally importance, although I have not seen any reference as to whether D would be more important than I (with x>1) or less (with x<1). This comprises a "vector". The tone level gives the direction of the vector where 4 would be straight up along the dynamic thrust for survival and 0 would be straight down towards succumb/death. A tone level of 2.0 would then indicate a direction of 90 degrees (picture the arrow going straight to the right). So, ID^x would be the lenght of the arrow, the tone level would be the direction. Here we have then both a picture of the Potential value (given by the formula) and the actual value (the projection of the arrow along the Y-axis – or dynamic thrust for survival. So a formula for the Actual value could be (with T being the Tone level from 0 to 4): AV = PV*Cos(-45*T-180), or better, in radians with the whole thing written out: AV = I*D^x*Cos(-T*Pi/4-Pi). Then it's easy to make a simple HP-41 program.
This seems practical and valuable in evaluating some situations.
As to your observation of changing viewpoints; Yes, and it is needed.
I always thought that “D^x” was a short cut for writing “D1.D2.D3.D4” where D1, D2, D3, D4 refer to the four dynamics that Hubbard talked about.
Hm… One of us has an MU, then. It may well be me, cause your’s was rather cool.
Thanks for your explanation, it actually makes sense. Very interesting. You essentially constructed a pointer diagram.
Still, it’s your own interpretation, isn’t it? I see several assumptions here that are not given in Dianetics: Going by your formulas you mapped the range 0 to 4 to the radian angle -Pi to -2Pi (which is fine as the cosine is mirror-symmetric, you could have chosen AV = I*D^x * cos(T*Pi/4+Pi) as well). Another assumption is that you would normalize the IQ from 100 to 2.0 and some other normalization for power, however you want to measure that one in the first place (In Dianetics it says D stands for “dynamics”).
Funny thing is, noone really seems to understand it or how to apply the formula. I always wondered how a Scientologist, who is so intent about running out all “misunderstoods” is supposed to “duplicate” this formula correctly. It really seems to be quite arbitrary in the end. An explanation I heard from another Scientologist who was OT5 or something was that you would have to fill in your IQ, fill in for D the number of dynamics that you’ve fully mastered and fill in for x the same as the value you got for D.
And it even gets better, the new “Basics” have an explanation for the “x” in the formula. Just look up lowercase “x” in the glossary of Dianetics. It won’t make computing actual values any easier, though, trust me on that 😉
My point being, that formula as it stands in Dianetics is actually pretty unusable with everyone using his own interpretation. But maybe that’s a good thing. Because I really feel queezy about passing judgement on which being is more valuable or less valuable.
Yes, it is my own interpretation, but it comes from with the background of doing the whole Human Evaluation course, and it seems to fit quite well. The normalization is an issue – but was of course needed in my attempt to HP-41’ize the formula 🙂
Qould you paraphraze the definition of the lower case “x” here?
Actually, Geir’s interpretation of x is closer to what is written in the basics. In the glossary of the basics it’s written that “x” stands for an unknown power of the dynamics that is yet to be determined by means of “psychometry”.
Mathematically, vinaires interpretation does not make sense, because, if you add an index to the (D)_x you would also have to add an index to the left side, here: (PV)_x
Hubbard said Dianetics is an exact science. But for an “exact” science like “Dianetics” the formula is remarkably ambiguous. Which I personally would judge to be an inconsistency.
Recently a friend of mine has asked Max Hauri about that. His answer was that that formula is explained in Science of Survival:
“In the handbook, an equation was written which caused people some puzzlement; it was to the effect that potential value was equal to intelligence multiplied by the dynamics of the individual to a certain power. This might be restated as meaning that the potential value of any man was equal to some numerical factor, denoting his structural intelligence and capability, multiplied by his free theta to a power. This was written in the handbook in an effort to encourage some psychologist to discover what the power of the dynamic might be and conclude some means of establishing potential value by psychometry. Actual worth, then, of the individual would be his potential value as modified by the direction that potential value took with regard to the survival of his group or of himself. One might have an individual of very high potential value who yet, by education and engrams, was a distinct liability to himself and his group.”
Yes, I remember that now. This is where I got the direction of the vector from in my extended formula, flanked by some other references.
Book one doesn’t say engrams are ONLY recorded on the cellular level.
@Maria, I don’t see the inconsistency on “That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields; ” from the Creed of the Church of Scientology. Scientology was created AFTER Dianetics when LRH realized that the thetan healed himself after confronting spiritual travail. LRH was never one to stick with an earlier theory if later research contradicted it. A true scientist/researcher will admit his errors.
But then Dianetics itself should be canceled upon LRH writing those words.
Dianetics, for the most part, is still a workable technology and where I got the majority of wins. To cancel an entire workable technology because of a later discovery? I don’t see the logic there. Please enlighten, Gere.
As Maria noted from the Creed of the Church of Scientology: “That the study of the mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields”. If this is to be followed, then Dianetics should be canceled. This is a good example of an inconsistency: Either that point in the creed is correct and Dianetics should be gotten rid of, or Dianetics should stay and that point in the creed is invalid. Logic.
I believe Dianetics is now used as an entry point for the common who thinks he is a brain. That’s why is has continued to stick around.
Also, remember the story back in 1952… this was really the first splinter group on the subject we LRH started Scientology.
A lot of Dianeticists were not buying into this new theta theory back then, so it just stuck around because of lot data in there still applies and I think it helps for people to better understand how LRH came to know.
If someone makes a postulate and does not run into any counter-postulates, his postulate will stick. So if someone says let there be light and there is nothing countering it, there will be light. If someone postulates that by saying a certain number of hail Marys things will go okay, they will if they don’t bump into any oposing postualtes. If someone invents Dianetics and says it will help people, then it will until there is a counter-creation of equal or greater magnitude basically. Thus the Potential Trouble Source phenomenon where the person gets gains but then they lose them. No matter how good a piece of tech is, there is potentially a way of creating it so it won’t work. Dianetics was a postulate or carried with it a postulate that it would work and take over the world and clear the planet basically. It ran into counter postulates. But still to this day, by keeping the counter-postulates away, Dianetics can work wonderfully. But here’s LRH in Scientology 8-8008 towards the end of chapter 2: “Dianetics was an evolutionary step, a tool which had use in arriving at a higher level of knowledge; its use, however, produced skower results and much lower goals. Further Dianetic processes were limited in that they could not be applied more than a few hundred hours without the reactive mind assuming a very high command level over the analytical mind due to the fact that the reactive mind was being validated continually in the process, whereas the better process was to validate the analytical mind. Medicine and psychology, as practiced today, have absorbed and are using, many of the principles of Dianetics without caring to be aware of the later developments in the field of the mind as represented here. Thus, the society absorbs and very often misunderstands knowledge-LRH”(but they’re postulating it’s gonna work without any counter-postultes so it will until they run into them). So when one starts running into counter-postulates, make another postulate. Discover and describe what one was running into and then find and postulate a new direction with no or minimal counter-postulates. Now this may seem off topic as it is not describing any inconsistencies but it is probably the basic why for inconsistencies. LRH had an agenda. He said that anything that brings a person up the tone scale is valid processing but then does not follow up on the vibrational machines to bring people uptone because obviously it did not align with his agenda. So in a sense he was leading us with a dangling carrot to help him meet his agenda and that could be the underlying reason for the inconsistencies.
If this is true without further explanation: “If someone invents Dianetics and says it will help people, then it will until there is a counter-creation of equal or greater magnitude basically.“, then this is also true: “If someone invents Nazism and says it will help people, then it will until there is a counter-creation of equal or greater magnitude basically.“
I very much like and find your comment helpful up until you start talking inconsistencies.
If Scientology is a research than it can’t be a religion. Religion comes from “above”. Period.
How do you define ‘above’? God? If that is so, then Buddhism would not be considered a religion, as it is, a gnostic religion. Correct?
Buddha is a manifestation from let’s say the “highest dimension”. He came to teach mankind and show them the way to freedom from Samsara.
Please, don’t take things like “Light-year Kilotons per microsecond” so literally. It’s called hyperbole – a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It doesn’t have to make ‘sense’ because writers, at least in the English language, have poetic license. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
Well, LRH got the basic units right in that horsepower is defined as approx. 33 ft*lbf/min. The exaggeration however is pretty intense as even one Light-year Kilotons per microsecond would equate to some 3*10^25 hp, or enough horses to fill the whole area of a disc from the Sun and to beyond Uranus.
The last line of the HCOB about OT Maxims says, “Use them well!”
My point is that this definition is NOT useful. I well understand the hyperbole aspect, but that particular maxim would be more useful WITHOUT the gibberish definition.
Here are some:
Leaving the Sea Org – in a Flag Conditions Order LRH states that anyone who wishes to leave has to be routed out in 24 hours. Then he orders a “leaving sec check” for anyone who wants to leave the Sea Org, which is next to impossible to do in 24 hrs complete with KR handling.
The various HCO PL naming the lack of hatting as the ONLY reason orgs fail vs. the ethics officer related PLs naming out-ethics as the only reason for down stats.
“Ethics” seems to have a lot of purposes – from “removing counter-intentions and other-intentions” through “getting tech in” till “exerting enough external pressure so people do not dramatize their criminal intents”, not mentioning what he writes about it in the New Hope of Justice PL.
The concept of personal integrity vs. the strong opposition to squirreling or to anyone who wants to change or improve the tech and “the tech works, period” attitude.
The policy on SP declares vs the technical details of an SP, which results in SP declaring people who are not antisocial per definition.
Labeling all illneses and accidents as PTSness, yet advising competent medical help for illnesses as “Dianetics does not CURE anything”.
Valid points. I earlier covered the various inconsistencies regarding SPs.
“exerting enough external pressure so people do not dramatize their criminal intents”
criminal intents – “man is basically good”
but has criminal intents. understood…
“Dianetics does not CURE anything”
Just the opposite in Book One where it cures everything from colds to arthritis.
(By the way I’ve seen very good results as well.) Maybe it is not Dianetics which cures but the PC himself? It does not really matter IMO. If the PC gets better with a doctor or with Dianetics than they both cure.
Here’s an excerpt from Blow Offs: “Before a person may draw his last paycheck from an organization he is leaving of his own volition, he must write down all his overts and withholds against the organization and its related personnel and have these checked out on an E-Meter. ”
It doesn’t say the person has to STICK around. It simply says he may not draw his last paycheck until he gets metered checked on his OW’s against the organization.
There are numerous inconsistencies when it comes to the percentage of SP’s in a population.
In “The Ethics Officer, His Character” LRH states that “The E/O works for from 90 to 99 percent of the group, not for the 1 percent.” (1 percent referring to SP’s). In “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist” he states that 20% of the population is suppressive and 2 1/2% are truly dangerous. This would mean that 1 in 5 people you meet are SP’s! Yet, in a lecture he made on 19 July 1966, L. Ron Hubbard expressed concern about the possible abuse of the SP label in respect of those who are otherwise good citizens and contribute to civil society:
“You should upgrade your idea of what an SP is. Man, meet one sometime! A real one! A real monster…. Well, in all the time we’ve been around here we only had one SP that I know of. One real SP that was on staff…. And I don’t know of another single SP that we’ve ever had on staff. Isn’t that interesting. You see all these SP orders and so on… Don’t throw it around carelessly, because this is an–a very exaggerated condition, SP.”
This has always been very confusing to me. I now consider that a very small percentage of people are truly suppressive like the criminals you see on those reality shows who brag about how much fun it was to see people beg for their lives before murdering them in cold blood. Whew. No remorse and a true monster, as stated in the above lecture. Now, that’s a true suppressive.
LRH never said 20% are suppressive; 1 in 5 are PTS…big difference.
How’s this: The line at the top of the Grade Chart I was looking at over the weekend says “THE BRIDGE TO TOTAL FREEDOM”. Yet, in the SCALES section in Scientology 0-8, it says that absolutes are unobtainable. (I note this knowing that the grade chart displayed in the CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION film does NOT have this notation. Neither do the grade charts in the 1978 hardcover editions of WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?) As a speaker at Sunday Services or other Scientology promotional “events” insightful persons often call this out, putting me on the spot.
How about the myriad times that LRH cites one of the things that got him looking into the mind was a “back of the envelope” calculation that a brain could only have 3 months’ memory. Yet, for as many times as he cites this story, he never provides the calculation. Isn’t this a science?
The book of e-meter drills is written (especially in the dating drills EM-22 and EM-25) as though any coach should just read on drilling, yet, as anyone who has struggled through 6 months of pointless drills on Solo I can testify, the supervisors know “who reads” and points those few people at students hopelessly bogged on these drills.
On E-meter drill 5, when doing a pinch test, a student is expected to see that on multiple recalls, the size of the read gets smaller as the recalling “discharges” the incident. However, in actual practice, Class VI candidates in the supervised auditing room are routinely pink-sheeted when steering on a read that is getting successively smaller.
In C/S Series 1 states that states that No auditor can be disciplined for asking “May I please have the tape or HCOB that was violated so I can read it or go to Cramming.” Yet when an auditor is pinksheeted, Instruct-ed or Crammed for failing to treat a reading Misunderstood button, he DOES get disciplined, because the GAT drills tell him to do so. “Off to Ethics with you” is the order.
2 . the awareness of awareness unit which has all
potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59)
– Technical Dictionary of Scientology and Dianetics
“”From some experiments conducted about fifteen or twenty years ago — a thetan weighed about 1.5 ounces [45 grams]! Who made these experiments? Well, a doctor made these experiments. He weighed people before and after death, retaining any mass. He weighed the person, bed and all, and he found that the weight dropped at the moment of death about 1.5 ounces [45 grams] and some of them 2 ounces [60 grams]. (Those were super thetans.)”
-Hubbard, The Phoenix Lectures, p. 147. Bridge Publications, 1982 ISBN 0-88404-006-2.
Something that has no mass, cannot have weight either. So this is a contradiction.
He is talking about the mass of a person’s mind in the latter reference, not actually the thetan itself. admit this is not clear from only what you reference here, but it is clear from other references on the same matters.
“R1-4: Be three feet behind your head.
The command “Be three feet back of your head” should be given casually, and if immediately obeyed the auditor with no further discussion should then go on to R1-5. If there is any argument after this command is given, or if the preclear cannot quite understand what is occurring and does not do so, then it is indicated that the auditor switch routes and without further argument on the subject of exteriorization continue the session with R2-16.*3″
– Creation of Human Ability
Something that has no location, cannot be 3 feet behind the head.
It can consider anything – including having a position in space – although it is not inherently positioned.
Read my article “On Will” for further clarification.
By the way, this is not an internal inconsistency, but if a thetan can mock up energy out of nowhere, wouldn’t this violate the physical law for the conservation of energy, which says that the sum of energy in a closed system must always stay the same?
Of course. And that is the whole point. Read my article “On Will“.
Now, back to basics:
Dianetics says that an engram gets restimulated by similar circumstances.
Ethics says that out ethics restimulates engrams. OK. This comes from later “research achievement”. But in Ron’s Journal 67 Ron says he want back to the incident and became very ill. So, is it out-ethics or similar circumstances? I do not know if this important question is anywhere clearly explained.
Ron says that the subject of ethics is revolutionary breakthrough.
Ron says Ethics are the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.
(Buddha know this and thought in Mahayana.)
Ron says Ethics are moral codes.
But if ethics are moral codes (past) than how can be ethics the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics (present)? Than how can we know if a person is out-ethics? He can be punished in either case if the two (past and present/moral codes and greatest good) are in contradiction.
Even the whole State of Man lectures (which promises a solution for this riddle) leaves this question open.
This looks an inconsistency in the practice, not in the philosophy, however it is so throughly connected to Hubbard that it is very basic. Further I am very curious in your opinion, Geir. If the top of the Bridge is Total Freedom, and an OT is cause over MEST, how is it possible that Hubbard left the way he left?
My take on that: He had much unhandled case.
So, probably he did not get Total Freedom. So how could he “research” the way out then?
LRH made a great advance in expressing the ancient truths in modern language. That was his key contribution. But LRH had a misunderstood on NIRVANA. That is where his “research” went awry.
I see a big inconsistency here:
From the Creed of the Church of Scientology (supposedly a basic and fundamental part of the religion):
“That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”
Inalienable: an inalienable right cannot be taken away from you or given to someone else. MacMillan Dictionary
If an inalienable right cannot be taken away from you, what does that mean? What is one of main ways a right is taken away?
Punishment for having exercised the right. One expects that having a right includes freedom to exercise that right without dire consequence.
Now, we do not have in Scientology, the inalienable right to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of LRH. We are not allowed to be critical. We could not, within the church, be doing what we are doing right here and now. This is not a matter of practice. This is covered in “Critics of Scientology” where any criticism is tantamount to major crimes in the background of anyone critical.
Public disavowal of Scientology (which is really the only kind of disavowal one could exercise, no need to tell yourself anything you already know) is a Suppressive act. If one had an inalienable right to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely your own opinions then you could simply walk away from the Church of Scientology without ramification. So, should the church have the right to tell you that you may leave but you are not allowed to speak about it?
Incidentally, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (the cause the church digs its claws into for PR purposes only) states it as such:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
No the Declaration is not the work of the church but it sure likes to pretend it agrees with it which, in fact, is not true.
Good work. Agreed, this is not only an inconsistency in practice. It goes beyond that and is indeed rooted in the policies themselves.
I am fascinated by this topic Geir. Thank you.
In regards to what I posted above, I am going to go out on a limb and contend that the above inconsistency is the most deceitful, most destructive and most dangerous of all in Scientology. It is the “Q” of inconsistencies, if you will, because there’s no way out. It sets you up for everything else. It is the ultimate trap.
Well, it sure is a kicker.
“To embrace the policy of equal justice for all. ” from the Code of a Scientologist
Scientologists are not permitted to utilize the same justice system as any other citizen without first getting permission from the Church. This is not a policy of equal justice but discrimination against Church members who MUST utilize Church justice systems and are penalized for doing what any other citizen has the right to do.
This inconsistency has allowed a great deal of abuse to be perpetrated by abusive individuals.
Biggest Inconsistencies I See are in the Claims of Scientology and Science
1. The claim that Scientology is Scientifically tested: This appears in “Dianetics” and “Fundamentals of Thought” and especially in “Science of Survival” and no data of such studies is available nor are there protocols available for third parties to reproduce the claimed effects exist.
2. The Claim in “Self Analysis” that Auditors will empty Psychiatric Institutions. There is no known proof of this claim.
3. The Claim that There is Life on Venus in the famous tape from the SHBC. No evidence for this exists in terms of radio waves from Venus or satellites circling the planet nor images of the surface of any living civilization.
4. The Claim that Auditing Creates Accurate Case Information for this Life and Others. (This actually can be tested by finding people in accidents or mass catastrophes that have been filmed and photographed. Auditing does not seem to recreate actual verifiable facts of any environment a person describes. This tends to support the notion the information found in auditing is created.) So it appears what is happening is that memories aren’t being “cleared” but rather “created” by the person being audited. Calling these created memories “accurate” robs the PC of the fact that we are powerful story creators.
5. Dianetics makes several heath claims in the original edition: Poor Vision, Arthritis and many others. These claims can be tested and have not been.
6. That Radiation can be handled by Scientology’s Purif program and Vitamins. This claim can be tested with animals quite easily and no such data is available.
7. Many of these claims listed above CAN be tested scientifically and the data obtained by rigorous study could be used to align the CLAIMS of Scientology with the ACTUAL RESULTS one can expect to obtain.
That said, I think the experiences a person can have as a Scientologist can create a lot of meaning and purpose. Scriptural integrity can be obtained by:
1. Printing the original, unaltered books and lectures.
2. Annotate the original, unaltered books with footnotes that show where the errors of fact actually are so people can be more aware of the meaning they are creating for themselves. Let the science backdrop the claims.
3. Instead of promoting “truth of your timeline” show that the enjoyment of stories and body metaphors are yours to create. They can indeed be a rich source of inspiration and learning.
1. The Claim in Science of Survival, that homosexuals are at the bottom of the tone scale where in many cases some of the best human beings who ever lived have been homosexuals.
2. The claim in policy letters that anyone who is a critic of Scientology has crimes.
3. Any claim of LRH that uses the qualifier “all” or “every” can be easily reviewed for accuracy. A great website would be “The Written Claims of Scientology Made By L. Ron Hubbard.”
4. That LRH stretched the truth regarding his military record, and qualifications as a Nuclear Physics expert.
5. The claim that a workable technology was finished in KSW, but in “The Saturday Lecture” of 1950 stating that it will take 4-5 thousand years before Dianetics would be finished. This indicates that a scientific verification of its methods WOULD occur in ONGOING DEVELOPMENT and was part of the original vision of the founder.
Again, you are attempting a list of outpoints here, not internal inconsistencies, as was the challenge. Stay OT.
Your last points 1-3 are very good.
Your first points 1-7 are not internal inconsistencies of the philosophy.
Scientology in the fifties:
Let’s take the subject of Scientology and let’s see if there’s any logic involved with it at all. There isn’t a mathematics that can embrace the subject of Scientology, because it is an invented mathematics. It’s an invented mathematics that accepts gradient scales and “absolutes are unobtainable”. And [b]it is a method of thinking about things. And is just as true as it is workable. And no truer. And is not, in itself, an arbitrary, fascistic uh…police force to make sure that we all think right thoughts. It’s a servant of the mind, a servo-mechanism of the mind, it is not a master of the mind.[/b] Scientology will decline, and become useless to man, on the day when it becomes the master of thinking. Don’t think it won’t do that. It has every capability in it of doing that. – LRH, PDC #20
Now Scientology in the sixties with KSW and all those harsh ethics policies and sec checks seems to me a complete reversal of this, turned into a “master of the mind” and a “fascistic police force to make sure we all think right thoughts”. Unobtainable absolutes “dissapeared” as Scientology became an “absolute truth” in “Flag´s Tech” and the bridge to total freedom.
Tom De Wolf said in the Penthouse interview that “What a lot of people don’t realize is that Scientology is black magic that is just spread out over a long time period.” With everything after the sixties it makes some sense, does not?
Nah, too much positive gain toward freedom.
If you want to plunk somebody, first bring him high up. He will fall big.
If you want to break something, first you have to know how does it work 🙂
If you want to ruin a car, it is not enough to make holes into the tire… You must know how the engine works… If you want to ruin all cars you must train engineers and when they are trained enough feed them false data.
But it is just an idea. Maybe I am wrong. Somebody prove me, please.
I can count on my fingers the people who made it really good in Scientology. After decades in I rather look elsewhere. So, where are the too much positive gain?
Where are the free Scientologists?
If you want to make a workable system out of this mess including some false data in tech and the tech/admin complex you have a lifetime of work ahead and I did not mention agreement with others on what comes out as a result.
This would not be a wrong system at all. The only problem are the inconsistencies and aberrations in the system itself which make it unworkable for the population of the planet as it was originally planned.
In its present form I have to admit that Scientology is just a sect.
As a basic problem: Religion is like morals. It is past. One can’t live in the past. Unless he is a God. But a God does not need religion 🙂 Only those people need religion who are not spiritually free in the first place. And with religion they will probably never become free.
“The free (religious) being” 🙂 what a paradox…
Too much positive gain is by my own empirical data – in myself and in dozens of others I know personally and have seen on OT VII and VIII.
Not an expert in the area, but those practicing Magick
don’t nessesarily distinguish black or white magick or
even if there is a difference. Crowley is the iconic figure of black magick yet LRH recomended his books in the PDC lectures, and took a lot of ideas from or via Crowley. I
see magick as the chief precurser of scn, and Crowleys
” magical memory ” pre dates dianetic past life regression.
Crowley was a borrower, not an originator. He took the esoteric texts of the Kabala and framed his own “system” around it. The Kabala is predated by the Vedas and offshoots of the Vedas. He pushed the idea of “magic” and “conjuring” but as far as I am concerned he did not attempt to get down to basic principles, which LRH clearly attempted to do and in many instances actually did. IMO whenever you get down to the levels of basic truths, you are going to get an overlap no matter who is speaking of it and no matter what system is framed over the top of it. Of course, LRH would recognize that too and spoke of it. Crowley did display a certain genious in framing his system over top of this and LRH admired that. This doesn’t make Crowley the “source” or “genus” of Scientology any more than someone’s use of the principles of electicity to make a bomb is the source of the lighting in our houses.
Just my two cents.
I’d give that two rubies.
Can’t reply to Maria directly. So doing so here.
Crowley was clearly taking data from earlier sources including the Kaballa. From Crowley we have the earlier takes on the factors, whole track regression and creative processing. Probably much more. Was it the abreactive methods or Crowley who were the chief inspiration for dianetics?
Note also that DMSMH ruled out matters of spirituality or thetans. Yet LRHs earlier experiments with Magick assumed such matters.
Of course denying a connection to Magick and
spirituality and writing a ” scientific” text was IMO the best promotion.
Back in 1950 association with Crowley was bad news.
Crowley was not the originator of the factors concepts or “regression” therapy or creative processing. If anyone was it would be Madame Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical Movement. Even she drew heavily on earlier Vedic materials and Eastern philosophies, including Gnosticism. She influenced both Jung and Freud.
Simultaneously, a tremendous amount of materials were being released into western culture, in particular by Paramahansa Yogananda (Self-Realization Foundation), Edgar Cayce, Wallace D. Wattles, and a whole crew of “new age” spiritualists — there are at least 50 books I am aware of from this time period that extensively explore the capabilities / potential of the human spirit.
I have studied most of them and they share common ideas, ideas found in the Vedas, in particular the Bhagavad Gita.
More importantly, there is a very, very good reason why LRH dedicated the first book of Dianetics to Will Durant and that is because of his treatises on Philosophy and his summation of the list of questions/situations that must be addressed by Philosophy. I was surprised to see that LRH had responded to every one of them in his early works.
All of these sources (and many others) undoubtedly contributed to LRH’s works, but don’t take my word for it — he does say so himself numerous times.
To credit Crowley with the works of all these other people is a real disservice to mankind. Nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.
Maria; You should write a book. Your condensation of wisdom cannot be allowed to die with you.
On a humorous note, the Self-Realization Fellowship, which Paramahansa Yogananda founded, is headquartered in Los Angeles. The buildings are on the same block as the Pac Base, just across the parking lot! I thought this was pretty funny when I first arrived in L.A. to visit the big blue buildings as it was Yogananda who first introduced me to the concept of theta and thetan, expressing Eastern concepts in Western terminology.
Hubbard regards INDIVIDUALITY to be beyond matter, energy, space and time. But the truth is that anything that is manifested has the aspects of matter, energy, space and time no matter how subtle it is.
Individuality is a manifestation because one can be aware of it. Therefore, Individuality does have the aspects of matter, energy, space and time. The individuality is not beyond matter, energy, space and time.
What is beyond matter, energy, space and time is unknowable.
Awareness without creation of MEST is beyond MEST, and knowable.
Awareness is perception (it is one of the 55 or so perceptics) – one need to perceive something.
Yes, a static is a something, but NOT MEST.
From tech dict: STATIC def 1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero. (5410CM06)
Also under STATIC def 6 . the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor.
See also the awareness of awareness unit. 1 . an actuality of no mass, no wavelength, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time. (Dn 55 .!, p. 29) 2 . the individual himself. (5410CM20) 3 . the thetan is the awareness of awareness unit. (5410C10D)
A static is aware of its own existence, it KNOWS TRUTH.
“Axiom 35 The ultimate truth is a static.
A static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wavelength, no time no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of “basic truth.” ”
KNOWINGNESS 2 . a capability for truth; it is not
data. (PDC 47)
Awareness cannot exist if there is nothing to be aware of.
True, a static is something. You are something not nothing. A static is NOT unconsciousness or unknowable.
Static is not manifested because any manifestation has the apects of space, time, energy and matter. How can you say STATIC is something? Your idea of static may be something but that is your idea. It is not STATIC.
“Static is not manifested because any manifestation has the apects of space, time, energy and matter. How can you say STATIC is something? Your idea of static may be something but that is your idea. It is not STATIC.
Well I agree that static isnt a manifestation. But it is something, it has qualities. Its not unknowable, it not nothing.
One that we can think of is the dictum that “what’s true is what’s true for you”. Then in the M4 commands and “disagreement” checks one is asked for specifics disagreements as the target of correction.
Yes. This bothered me as well when I was in. I queried it several times.
I’ve been reading these comments and thinking there is a big MU going on here. I don’t know the reference anymore but I remember one where LRH talked about the difference between the PHILOSOPHY of Scientology and the PRACTICE of Scientology. What I took away from that issue was that the “practice” actually includes all the tech – auditing, admin tech and ethics tech – primarily found in HCOB’s and HCOPL’s; whereas the “philosophy” pertained to the basic tenets and principles – Axioms, Factors, etc. Hence, “an APPLIED religious philosophy.” Per def 14 of Sciengology in the Tech Dict- the technology is what is applied. (Applied would mean practiced, to me.)
Maybe the MU is mine but can anyone tell me if my description of that issue rings a bell?
Let me clarify the OP; I am looking for inconsistencies in the writings of Scientology (all text/lectures etc.) – and not in the practicing of Scientology. Clearer?
Clear. Thanks, Geir. (How do you pronounce your name, by the way. I want to think, read, and say it correctly!)
So, your clarification was what I thought you meant and most others seemed to understand your meaning also: you’re interested (me too!) in inconsistencies within in any and all of the works of LRH (and not simply outpoints or misapplications of these writings or lectures). I just wanted us all to be using terms the same way (define your terms! Socrates wisely said), and preferably the same way LRH used them so as not to cause any confusion for anybody – now or in the future. (Can you tell I’ve been a Word Clearer?)
But now I have a more “OP” point I’d like to make, which is that as far as Scientology practice (or application or technology) itself goes, LRH stated that it is the tech found in HCOB’s and HCOPL’s, that is to be APPLIED. (That says a lot right there, doesn’t it?) And, for example, no auditor can be crammed on anything not based on these specific materials.
With that in mind, I don’t think it’s valid (as a criticism) to point out inconsistences between these and the books or lectures ,(which were written earlier and were largely about Scientology philosophy, anyway; but the “tech” of issues also has some philosphy included with the how-to of application.)
The official LRH issues themselves were (presumably) revised as needed, unlike books or lectures, and SHOULD be consistent, at least within any single issue; and as for issues that were not revised to align with and be consistent with later or revised issues, that supposedly was handled with “the later issue takes precedence.”
So what I’m getting at is that it doesn’t seem fair to compare the TECH (i.e. those ultimately evolved materials to be used for actual application) to other LRH works. And, in fact, now I”m thinking that maybe the only valid criticisms of inconsistencies would have to be about those within any single work of whatever form, because each of them should also be looked at in the context of the when they were written – LRH had the right to evolve and change the philosophy too, didn’t he?
But, valid or fair as criticisms or not, it’s still very interesting and enlightening to communicate among each other about the inconsistencies. (All part of the learning and growing that’s happening as a result of your blog!)
Thanks for listening!
Yes, we agree. But I would like to collect inconsistencies across the boundaries of single issues, The Tech, The Admin, The Ethics Tech and The Philosophy and see if there are indeed valid inconsistencies in the broad subject of Scientology (but excluding the well documented misapplications and inconsistent practices in orgs).
My name is pronounced “G-ire”… sorta
Wanted to correct a typo in the 3rd paragrah – I meant: I have a more”OT” point (not “OP” point). (I forget what “OP” actually means.)
OP = Original Post (of the thread)
Pyches are the sole decline of civilization…
Generalizations are a tool of the suppressive….
Although LRH names the pyches, it is too broad a term and doens.t name the actual people and what was specifically done to cause the decline.
(Json Beghe interview)
There is an inconsistency maybe not what you expect. But here it is:
Speaking in generalities is a suppressive attribute (ethics book).
Yet first in Book One LRH usually does not speak in specifics when he third parties parents, wife, husband, policeman, politicians, wog, etc.
….and he third-parties homosexuals in Dianetics, too.
…although that was common practice in the 50’s
From what I understand in ethics technology he must have been overts against these terminals.
isene says: 2010-10-07 at 22:25 “OT”
A bit off: I have a problem with the definition of OT. It does not say anything about cooperation or ethics in the definition itself. Which is very much missing. If everyone is OT and they have different purposes where does it leads? This definition makes the impression that we are all different beings which is true from a point of view. And LRH says there is no one “big thetan” weather he means one big including all other thetan (oneness), or one above all. Yes, there is not one big thetan only one big theta which covers all. (In case LRH’s definition of theta is the same as mine.)
Either way the naming thetan namely: theta on the nth is wrong. As a thetan is only a small part of the big theta. So it is just reverse.
Now, this definition of OT is forwarding the idea of Simon Magus. Just the opposite of the idea of Christ or Buddha, whatever. But the one who is awakened is the later.
For the awakened one it is not necessary to have powers over the physical universe (which is the definition of OT) (although both Jesus and Buddha had certain powers). For God or for a god the case is different, he of course needs powers. But I do not think it is healthy (I mean mentally) to desire such powers. Either one desires awakening and comes with this whatever (needs to) come. Either one desires to be a God. Than he probably becomes similar to Simon Magus or can I say, similar to LRH?
That is just an opinion. Scientifically not verified… 🙂
I was playing with the word; OT as in On Topic 🙂
But you came up with good points nevertheless.
That is a damn good opinion. 🙂
LRH seem to be applying the law advanced by Aleister Crowley, “”Do What Thou Wilt.” But this does seem to cause a huge conflict when the playing field is the same for everybody.
What is an OT? What is a BEING? The biggest inconsistency came from incorrectly differentiating “individuality” from “identity.” Individuality is the primary characteristic of an identity.
Just LOOK without any preconceived notions. Buddha understood that. That is why he went for NIRVANA.
Infinity says: “Yet by pushing individuality it pushes one into the clutches of that very trap.” Could you explain how?
Individuality is the primary characteristic of a BEING.
BEING is a manifestation as it stands out.
Any manifestation has the characteristic of matter,energy, space and time.
As I see (see Vinaire’s Blog for details):
We start with UNKNOWABLE.
Anything that is manifested becomes KNOWABLE.
Manifestation involves the factors of BEINGNESS and AWARENESS.
BE-ING-NESS is simply the fact of EXISTENCE. This is referred to as ATMAN in Eastern religions.
AWARE-NESS is simply the fact of KNOWING.
Both BEINGNESS and AWARENESS are abstract concepts.
Abstract concepts evolve toward concrete forms.
BEINGNESS evolves into IDENTITIES.
AWARENESS evolves into VIEWPOINTS.
An identity with an ability to have a viewpoint is called a BEING. This is referred to as SOUL in Western religions.
Thus, the concept of identity is inherent to the concept of SOUL.
The concept of identity is not part of the concept of ATMAN.
ATMAN is not the same thing as the SOUL.
THOUGHT underlies any manifestation.
Thus, thought underlies beingness, awareness, identity, viewpoint, being, etc.
“I”, “You,” “He” and “She” refers to beings.
Thus, thought underlies the formation of “I”, “You,” “He” and “She”.
THOUGHT is impersonal.
THOUGHT is senior to any BEING.
GOD is a label given to UNKNOWABLE.
GOD is then given an identity, even when that identity is considered mysterious and beyond anything human.
GOD is considered to be a SUPREME BEING.
THOUGHT is senior to any BEING.
Therefore, THOUGHT must be senior to GOD also.
THOUGHT is impersonal.
THOUGHT is visualization.
THOUGHT comes about in an effort to know the unknowable.
Where does that THOUGHT come from?
Well… That is unknowable.
Vinaire, what are your thoughts on A STATIC?
Sorry, I am in Santiago, Chile, right now, so I may not be able to keep up with the discussion here. Tomorrow I am leaving for Easter Island to spend a few days there.
My thoughts on STATIC are that it is unknowable. It is not something manifested.
Easter Island! I envy you
Well I suppose the discussion ends anyway because we have different thoughts on a static. I disagree that its unknowable.
No. It is not a matter of disagreement for me. It is a matter of inconsistency. Anything knowable must be manifested in order to be knowable. I have never known anything that was not manifested either in physical or in the mental universe.
First policy says ” Maintain friendly relations with the environment and your
public.” [ from around 1954]
Much ethics and PTS/SP policy violates the above and in fact one might find
much more general, policy that does, for example statements that denigrate the
press and media are generalisations and the FZ did very well with the ” Beginners
Guide to L Ron Hubbard”.
Then there are the various Guardians issues and a variety of SO EDs and other
types of issue I’ve little knowledge of that are documents of attack. Admittedly
GO issues were not always by LRH but they had his tacit approval and the snow white program was written by him. An URL to give an idea of the scope of
I’m afraid I have no URL for this below, but it is inconsistent with most
of the directives and policies listed above.
fair use quotes from a lecture called “Attitude and Conduct of
Scientology” (4th London ACC, 3rd November 1955) straight from LRH:
“…the arduous lesson along this line is that no-communication lists,
revocation/suspension of certificates, court action of any kind whatsoever
within the realm of Scientology and so forth, is not only not only difficult to
do but does not work. That’s just the end of it. It just doesn’t work.It’s
for the sea gulls. That might work in Gestetner Limited or Westinghouse, but
it does not work in Scientology. Got that?”
You got a really big fish here !
The 1955 tape is so much contrary to the “ethicks and justice” system that LRH established in the sixties.
Ackerland says: “…Mathematically, vinaires interpretation does not make sense, because, if you add an index to the (D)_x you would also have to add an index to the left side, here: (PV)_x…”
“x” in PV = ID^x simply means an unknown power. When expanded, this expression means, PV = I times D . D . D … (x times). Here “D . D” means “D times D” and “D^x” means “D multiplied to itself x number of times.”
Since D stands for “Dynamic” and the eight dynamics are different aspects of THE DYNAMIC, and these eight dynamics may be subdivided further into smaller dynamics, I would guess that “D^x” would take into account all different aspects of DYNAMIC, which were undetermined when LRH wrote this equation. Since that time LRH did expand dynamics from 4 to 8. Apparently, he was still considering a dynamic 9 and a dynamic 10. This is simply a clarification of my earlier interpretation. Hope it makes more sense.
By the way, what Ackerland stated above is mathematically incorrect.
Scientology endorses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but in “An Introduction to Scientology Ethics” endorses selective detention of undesirables as viable social solution.
“Similarly, if society were to recognize this personality type as a sick being as they now isolate people with smallpox, both social and economic recoveries could occur.”
Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”
Scientology teaches that it is fully compatible with all existing major religions, often being described by followers as a system of religious technology. The Church of Scientology has publicly stated:
“Scientology respects all religions. Scientology does not conflict with other religions or other religious practices” (What is Scientology? 1992, p.544)
Yet, in its application for tax exempt status in the United States, the Church of Scientology International states:
“Although there is no policy or Scriptural mandate expressly requiring Scientologists to renounce other religious beliefs or membership in other churches, as a practical matter Scientologists are expected to and do become fully devoted to Scientology to the exclusion of other faiths. As Scientologists, they are required to look only to Scientology Scriptures for the answers to the fundamental questions of their existence and to seek enlightenment only from Scientology” (Response to Final Series of IRS Questions Prior to Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3) As a Church, October 1, 1993)
This is an excellent link, although not an inconsistency in LRH’s texts.
This is very interesting information. It shows that the desire to survive in the MEST universe may corrupt knowing how to know.
You quoted :
“Scientology respects all religions. Scientology does not conflict with other religions or other religious practices” (What is Scientology? 1992, p.544)
ROTFL ! Hubbard definitely rejected people and groups who practiced what he called “squirreling”. An example is his Policy Letter on Amprinistics ( a “squirrel group” ). And he mentioned theosophy, rosicrucians, christianity and islam in his tape lectures – more often than not with rather respectless statements.
“The Five Conditions” – lecture 25/5/1965. At that time conditions were known on from Emergency up.
— start quote
Now, let’s take the gross income of an organization at large. That has to do with a, let us say, a drop. And it’s a consistent drop: One week, we don’t pay any attention to it; two weeks, we start paying an attention to; three weeks, why, and then we jolly well pay an attention to it. Don’t you see? And if it consistently does this in an organization and shows down, down, down for four consecutive weeks we declare them in a State of Emergency.
Well now, part of a condition of Emergency contains this little line of „you’ve got to stiffen discipline“ or „you’ve got to stiffen ethics.“ To an individual this would simply mean, well, not go down to the pub every Friday night, you know? Let’s stiffen up the discipline; let’s stay home and grind the midnight oil away, you see? Let’s stay home and do one’s homework or something. You get the idea? Discipline stiffened up. Be a little more regular on the job. Work a little harder. Something of this sort, see? Don’t goof quite so much. Don’t make so many mistakes. This would be part of that operating action.
And, as a net result, organizationally, when a State of Emergency is assigned, supposing the activity doesn’t come out of that emergency. Regardless of what caused the emergency, supposing the activity just doesn’t come out of the emergency, in spite of the fact that they have been labeled State of Emergency, they have been directed to follow the formula, they have been told to snap and pop and get that thing straightened out, and they’re still found to be goofing; the statistic is going down and continues to go down and so forth. What do you do? There’s only one thing left to do and that’s discipline, because life itself is going to discipline the individual. Life itself is going to discipline the individual very cruelly and savagely.
— end quote
Introduction to Scientology Ethics:
— start quote
A Danger Condition is normally assigned when:
1.An emergency condition has continued too long.
5. Part of the Condition of Emergency contains this little line-you have got to stiffen discipline or you have got to stiffen Ethics. Organizationally when a state of emergency is assigned, supposing the activity doesn’t come out of that emergency, regardless of what caused the emergency, in spite of the fact they have been labeled a state of emergency, they have been directed to follow the formula, they have been told to snap and pop and get that thing straightened out, and they are still found to be goofing, the statistic is going down and continues to go down, what do you do? There is only one thing left to do and that is discipline, because life itself is going to discipline the individual.
So the rule of the game is that if a state of emergency is ignored and the steps are not taken successfully then you get an announcement after a while that the condition has been continued and if the condition is continued beyond a specified time, why that’s it, it has to walk forward into an Ethics matter.
— end quote
Seems to me, that discipline should be stiffened when the activity doesn’t come out Emergency, which already should be Danger per the newer interpretation of conditions – today you have Emergency when the weekly stats are the same or lower than previous week.
I’ve experienced the confusion resulting out of this on EPF in OTL Budapest when we came out of Danger one week and went to Emergency and therefore we were rewarded with stiffened ethics by EPF I/C.
To Infinity from Vinaire:
I see “individuality” as a characteristic of any manifestation. Using your terminolgy, I would say that “individuality” would be the characteristic of any dimension point.
There can’t be any awareness in the absence of a dimension point, because there is nothing to view. Under that condition there can’t be any individuality either because individuality is part of the awareness.
If “Static” is being then it is manifested, and like any manifestation it would have the aspects of space, time, energy and matter. There cannot be any beingness beyond space, time, energy and matter. I don’t know of any axiom that implies it otherwise.
This may be the kind of thing that got some people out of the Ch-urch, but THE AUDITOR No.18 ca.1966 (vol viii:69) says “Modern technology is not contained in any of the books of Dianetics and Scientology.” Maybe it’s a practice point, but if “Modern technology is not contained in any of the books of Dianetics and Scientology” then why the bleep did we bother to correct and reprint them?
It has always mystified me why one can get creamed in Qual at Flag when it’s discovered that one has been playing with Black and White Ridge Running (for instance), even though IT’S IN THE BOOKS!
In fact, others may wish to read this magazine article, as I think there’s at least a dozen points contradicting other parts of Scientology in this one article alone.
Isene, you are in a trap. Looking for inconsistencies in Scientology is missing the point big time – there are in fact fewer inconsistencies in Scientology than in many religious texts mainly because it was all created by one man over a relatively short time frame.
As Hubbard evolved the beliefs he managed to iron most of the inconsistencies out; other religious beliefs involved multiple people over a much longer time frame in forming the beliefs which in turn changed over time with new interpretations of older texts, which is why they have more inconsistencies.
Take for instance “what is true for you is true for you”, that is inconsistent with later teachings however this is explained using the gradient; they’re not ready to know the real truth so it is okay for them to believe “what is true for you is true for you” which in turn is true for their level – and it is written so it is true… inconsistency resolved.
The problems with Scientology is not with inconsistencies it is what it produces at the group level; if you believe in Scientology as an individual and practice the beliefs in isolation then it’s relatively innocuous self help stuff; although you could say that taking dependants off medication that is helping them or committing suicide in order to get out of a situation and pick up a new body later is not all that innocuous it still only ranks along with other beliefs in such terms.
The problems are with the group dynamics the teachings create in any organisation based upon its teachings. Any group based upon the teachings is destined to be abusive, corrupt and corrupting; hence the church of scientology’s practices being the issue rather than individual scientologists per sa.
One big concern is that well meaning independent scientologists will ultimately and inadvertently recreate the church of scientology with all its problems by trying to follow the same beliefs to the letter. That however remains to be seen and until it happens it isn’t an issue; the saving grace of the Freezone is they lack the one thing necessary to recreate the church of scientology, one hopes independent scientologists will be the same.
What is needed to recreate the church of scientology in all its abomination is an individual to lead the way and be the focus. Such a person will ultimately have the worst aspects of their personality amplified as happened with Hubbard and as is happening with Miscavige still – he really is getting worse. Miscavige’s best move would be to take the money and run but he can’t, he’s trapped, he no longer has the will to escape; it’s kind of like the One Ring in Lord of the Rings you might believe it is in your possession but in reality it takes possession of you.
Trust me, you do not want to be that individual Isene. Like wise neither does Marty or Mike.
Also posted on ESMB thread, response there more likely to get noticed.
I believe the thread on ESMB es exhausted. Contributions here have also been far wider and deeper.
You: “Isene, you are in a trap”.
Me: A condescending statement without any further explanation.
You: “Looking for inconsistencies in Scientology is missing the point big time” and “The problems with Scientology is not with inconsistencies…”
Me: Who said anything about tackling “the problems with Scientology” in this blog post? I am merely exploring possible inconsistencies. Research and science is all about exploring all facets of possible higher truths. This is my quest.
You: “Trust me, you do not want to be that individual Isene.”
And thank you for your contributing viewpoint regarding the OP: “there are in fact fewer inconsistencies in Scientology than in many religious texts mainly because it was all created by one man over a relatively short time frame”.
LOL! Wonderful response. I was wondering how Mike Finn should be reponded to. It is true that this OP is not about addressing the problems of Scientology.
To collect the inconsistencies one would need to do a research. And would find loads of. Especially comparing 1st and 3rd dynamic tech.
But after all, just as a sidenote if 1st dynamic tech would be really good, there would not be a real need for a 3rd dynamic tech inside Scientology. I see the third dynamic tech rather as a kind of control mechanism. The only beings I’ve seen whom were able to apply well third dynamic technology were auditors. There were only a few. All the others went into trapping the others with the so called third dynamic tech. But I do not see that there would be anywhere a reference for the seniority of auditor training before admin training and according to the length of both I do not see a possibility for this either. Even just to train someone to be an admin specialist would take probably aeons in actual practice.
A much more simple training line would be the only solution for the above problem. And honestly, I do not beleive in 3rd dynamic scn tech.
Anyway. Inconsistency: Bank is bad in scientology. But on an organizational level bank is the CF, etc… which is under a continuous build up.
(Sorry that I do not look up the actual references. I really do not want to put time right now into that.)
Yes, I am rethinking the whole 3D tech as you might have seen from a few blog posts back.
LRH says that auditors are the most valuable beings on the planet.
Under the staff proportionate pay system introduced into Class 4 organizations, auditors have a similar number units given them for pay to administrative and section and department heads.
Compare this to the wages paid to high end computer systems / programmer architects / designers, who are the most valuable beings in a tech company. Their pay is reflective of their value and far exceeds the pay of middle management staff on down.
I consider this to be a MAJOR inconsistency and one that has stripped Scientology of auditors — to learn to be such an expert, to invest so much time and money, to take on saintly qualities (and if there are any saints in Scientology it would be the auditors) and then to be paid the same amount as the receptionist? WTF?!?
The implementation of the proportionate pay system in the Mission I was public at went over like a lead balloon and 80% of the highly skilled auditors that were working there quit auditing because they could not support their families on the piss poor wages they were now expected to accept. And BTW – these auditors paid for their own training – the Mission NEVER paid for anyone’s training – you could train up and then apply to be on staff at the Mission and they would hire you on a probationary basis. Before this happened the Mission was BOOMING. Clearly the auditors considered this to be quite an inconsistency, not to mention destructive to the remainder of their dynamics.
Scientology in fact is applied communism in the Church. I know. I was in the SO.
Great point! But I can’t imagine Maria ever saying, “WTF.”I had to scroll back and look at the author of this post twice. 🙂
From one of the study HCOBs (4 Mar 65) “People have problems only where there is something they don’t know. If they knew all about cars they wouldn’t have problems about cars. If they knew all about women they wouldn’t have problems with women.” and further in the HCOB he says “The less data a person has the more problems and trouble he has.”
He is specifically stating that just knowledge, and knowledge alone, is the determining factor here.
Yet within this same HCOB he is talking about how scientology means the study of knowledge and is an applied philosophy. He then says “A philosopy is something that helps you get over the rough spots in life. Philosophy: Definition: The pursuit of knowledge. … An applied philosophy is one which has to do with doing and action. One which applies to living – not just a theory, buy one where the theory can be used to help you get on better in life.”
I think these are inconsistent. And, in general this is inconsistent with other scientology tech on why and where problems come from.
How is this an inconsistency?
On the one hand he is saying if you just know – have all the data – then no problem(s). On the other hand he is saying that theory/data/knowledge isn’t enough – one has to use it to to help you get on better in life.
“Scientology… is not a psychoterapy nor a religion.” Creation of Human Ability p. 251
“The only way you can control people is to lie to them.” “Off the time track lecture
So what about the KRC triangle?
“Scientology is the only specific (cure) for radiation (atomic bomb) burns.”
All about radiation p. 109
So what about the saying that Dn and Scn does not cure anything?
“Dianetics is a Science; as such, it has no opinion about religion,…” Dianetic Auditor’s bulletin Oct 1950
The above quotes are from a youtube video “L. Ron Hubbard in his own words” so I can’t proove all are accurate but the references are given so it should be easy to verify.
Infinity says: “Yes, a static is a something, but NOT MEST. From tech dict: STATIC def 1. a static is something…”
This is the same inconsistency that I pointed out earlier regarding INDIVIDUALITY. LRH looked at STATIC as ultimate in individuality. Thus, LRH assigned beingness to STATIC. But beingness means existingness, and anything that exists has apects of space, time, energy and matter.
It is incorrect to think that space, time, energy and matter exist separately in themselves. They do not. They only exist as ideas and as aspects of something that exists.
You’ve basically gone Static = Individuality = Beingness = Existingness = MEST…
That is correct. That is consistent if Static is equated with individuality. That is the mistake Hubbard made.
In Book 1 ( DMSMH ) LRH states “we are only interested in that what has been done to you”.
On today’s Grade chart there are many levels where the PC has to look at the deeds he did himself.
However, this could be explained away by “newer realizations came up during further research”.
Actually Dianetics was the bait 🙂 IMO
I think this kind of inconsistencies would account for a lot — just take Hubbard’s ideas of an “optimal computer” which would be equal for a cleared mind. But neither clears nor any other mind under the OT classification can have total recall and other things mentioned.
But that may be due to failure in ptractice and hence not an inconsistency in the texts themselves.
I think if there is a failure in practice that would mean an error in the practice system itself.
Geir, is there a specific answer for the riddle what the mind is exactly on OT VII or VIII? I mean real answer.
Are you absolutely free of your bank, I mean the charges in your mind?
(I’ve just looked up the definition of Buddha from the technical dictionary. False. I suppose, the definition of enlightenment is false as well. Is it a knowing misdirection?
If LRH witholded data regarding supernatural things in Book I (his experience with Crowley and OTO was previous) than he could probably hold back other stuff as well. I mean potentially it could happen.)
Vinaire would probably be the best to answer your questions on Buddha etc. My take on it is that LRH had some misunderstandings in that area rather than a deliberate withholding of data. Occam razor applies here IMO.
I feel very free mentally. But if you are asking if all BPC is handled, then the answer would be no.
I do not know, it seems that I’ve had a comment which did not show up. But now I put it similarly but with the actual inconsistency.
There is a video on YouTube about Crowley and Hubbard, looks pretty collected.
We can see that even the Scientology cross came from OTO (at the end of the footage). At least it looks like.
Hubbard has a policy about suppressive groups and it is said, while the group is not dismantled, noone can receive processing in Scientology who was the member of that group. It is worthy to read the whole policy. Now, Hubbard was a member of the satanist Aleister Crowley’s group. So he was not supposed to get auditing in the first place and probably he had some inclination towards suppression. He also says that Crowley did splendid peace of aesthetics with that magic cult. So finally it came to light that Hubbard’s definition of aesthetics is different from mine. This connection with Crowley is just mind-boggling.
You posted your comment under another blog post (What is working and what is no [what prompted me to leave etc.]). I had to remove to link to the video due to references to upper level confidential material. You may want to copy-paste your quoting from the video over here for reference. And as I said in my reply to your comment, I can vouch for the content of that tape by LRH, I have listened to it before. There is however the explanation by the church that LRH was on a mission to infiltrate the OTO and not an actual member. My own viewpoint is that I don’t much care any other way – but the possible inconsistency is interesting.
Thanks. It is very hard to speak about Scientology when you can’t discuss the confidential materials. I was not aware in the first place of the confidential material but hearing it again I cognited 🙂
I think there is nothing valid confidentiality in these. Only protecting the veneer that there is treasure.
Hubbard made up the system to serve just a selected few (in contradiction with the basic tenets of Scientology). Especially those with loads of money and who obey to him or the Church. This is sinister.
And you remember the policy. If you point out an SP in the organization it is you, who are PTS. So you name DM but LRH dead agenting him right there with that policy letter.
He himself dug the grave of Scientology.
Knowing that one day he was a satanist, I don’t wonder.
He has a policy on that it’s about suppressive groups and he says the person who joined a group like that must have had some inclination towards suppression. He also forbids auditing until that group dissolved. They have a homepage so I suppose they did not dissolved yet. Did he do anything towards the dissolvement of that group as per his policy as an ethics action?
If it is said he was infiltrated, again. He could not be a Sea Org member in the first place per SO policies, for god sake. Government agents can’t be SO members. This whole story just stinks like hell.
In my opinion he just infiltrated the same sneaky way into countless good-hearted people’s life. If you look what his heritage or technology did so far with countless people you can judge his intentions. As far as what I can observe in my vicinity, at least 80 percent of Scientology is great overt-product. So how I can be happy for the remaining 20 adding the fact that I can feel the destructive side-effects of his “religion” and “technology” in my own life?
In my opinion setting up an association for helping the victims of the Church, stopping it’s abuses and enlightening the people of the real dangers of the Church and of yes, Scientology itself would be a wise action.
Painting with a sweeping brush there.
One could say the same for the man who invented the dynamite – would that speak volumes also about hisintentions? I am not subscribing to this idea that product = intention for many obvious reasons.
But that’s the idea of Hubbard 🙂
Nevertheless. He was (either) a government agent and/or following black magic. Compare these facts with his own policies… Crap.
May be – but still an inconsistency in practice, so off-topic.
Anyway. I would be happy if it would turn out that indeed Hubbard had good intentions. But unfortunatelly, right now it does not seem that way.
Just found this example from Jon Atack
“For example, in What is Greatness? Hubbard says “The hardest task one can have is to continue to love one’s fellows despite all reasons he should not. And the true sign of sanity and greatness is so to continue.” In one statement of the Fair Game Law, however, Hubbard said that opponents “May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed”
Infinity says: Well I agree that static isnt a manifestation. But it is something, it has qualities. Its not unknowable, it not nothing.
Anything that is knowable must be manifested. Qualities are knowable, so they must be manifested. Associating STATIC with these qualities makes STATIC manifested in terms of these qualities.
I have the idea that any quality can be transcribed as a quantity. Someone wants to challenge this view?
By saying that only manifested things are knowable, you are basically saying you cannot know cause-point, the causer. If you look at the chart of attitudes you will see in one of columns at the top is I KNOW. I think this includes knowing what one is. Also some interesting stuff about individuality, right at the top is EVERYONE, wheareas highest individuality is a little lower in that column at around 20. Static is getting towards 40, and I KNOW 27-40.
Static is probably can’t knowable only experienceable. Don’t take every word of Hubbard as true.
If he put know at the top, probably there is something above the top. Maybe not in terms of words.
Hubbard was not a god, probably not an enlightened being either. Follow the blind and you will get nowhere. Maybe you will be magicians, that’s all.
My opinion is that LRH was truly enlightened. A few hours of objectives processing convinced me of that. 😀
Your experience from objectives is definitely correct but it does not follow from that experience that LRH was correct about equating individuality with static. You need to look for yourself.
Quote for where LRH equates individuality with static?
What does one know as a static? I AM.
If static is a BEING then it is being or existing.
True. BEING is not static, because with the decision to be comes DO and HAVE as well. It’s a integral package. Factor 1 & 2 makes this distinction.
Static would not say HE IS.
Static would not perceive.
Some quotes that about static from LRH:
“25. AFFINITY IS A SCALE OF ATTITUDE WHICH FALLS AWAY FROM THE
CO- EXISTENCE OF STATIC, THROUGH THE INTERPOSITIONS OF DISTANCE
AND ENERGY, TO CREATE IDENTITY, DOWN TO CLOSE PROXIMITY BUT
“The ‘top buttons’ of the Chart of Attitudes (see Scientology 8- 8008) are the main
qualities of a Static. A Static has no quantity: it does have quality and consideration.”
“Remember: a static has no mass, wave- length, energy, location, or time. But it can
consider, and it has qualities. Those qualities are its basic definition plus the top buttons of
the Chart of Attitudes, plus beauty”
I would say the first quote is correct in that there is indeed no identity on the top of the scale. The other two are at odds with this. Therefore this is on-topic as a possible inconsistency.
Please look for yourself and not through another person even when that person is Hubbard. Scientology is about you.
Have you ever known something that is not manifested in any way whatsoever? If yes, then please provide and example of it.
“Have you ever known something that is not manifested in any way whatsoever? If yes, then please provide and example of it.”
Maybe think of it like this. Everything around you is being manifested by you. Take that away and what have you got left?
The answer is “Unknowable.” 🙂
Overdriver says: Anyway. I would be happy if it would turn out that indeed Hubbard had good intentions. But unfortunatelly, right now it does not seem that way.
If you are looking for enlightenment then that path is not through identities. That path is through removing the inconsistencies amond what you know. Speculating on Hubbard’s intentions will not get you anywhere.
I do not speculate on Hubbard’s intentions in the hope that I will be enlightened. Removing inconsistencies is very important although the intellectual knowledge in itself does not lead anyone to enlightenment as enlightenment is an experience and the truth of the matter is that it can happen without any previous intellectual knowledge as well.
Back to KSW.
There is a quote at Marty’s site:
“…But anything which you must not touch and upon which you are not supposed to have any effect at all will sooner or later make you the unwilling or unknowing effect of it. Right? And if I tell you, “Under no circumstances should you alter, change, think about, Scientology” – dizzz – all I’ve done is set up another monster. Right? And in a world that is all too prone to build Frankensteins, we don’t need another one!…” – LRH, 30 Dec 1957 Cause and Effect. Ability Congress, Washington D.C.
It is interesting for one reason – at least that’s what I want to point to.
If LRH says in KSW not to alter the technology than we must not alter this piece of the tech either. Which actually says we must alter if that gets to results.
I do not want to make it more complicated. If we look at it the simple way, it is just that.
The above quote is inconsistent with KSW #1.
But it is so much inconsistency that either
1.) We do not change “change”
2.) LRH “set up another monster” so something had alarmingly went wrong and we must think twice to accept anything from him.
LRH knew it right. He set up a monster.
Opinions. I think he made great headway and created something that has great potential. It worked well for me.
I don’t much care what is the source of anything as long as it works. This speculation-as-to-intent thingy is not my cup of tea.
Per the first policy with the second he set up a monster. It is obvious. The fact that Scn worked well for you does not mean that it works well for everyone. We can see this in the actual results and we can’t say it is because of the faulty application because we can easily see that people have a different understanding and so application of the subject probably because of it’s complexity and inconsistencies. Scientology or any other honest relegion can’t be run on the basis of do it or die. KSW probably is the biggest inconsistency. But despite of this I can apply even KSW but with keeping in mind the earlier policies like the one in Book One which says “For god’s sake, build a better bridge.”
The source of anything is very, very important in my opinion and it is not because of the authority question. I know you have different idea about it but I bet you would not buy auditing or “applied religious philosophy” from Adolf Hitler or Britney Spears, would you?
LRH said he finished the work of Buddha. It shows he did not have a clue what was the work of Buddha or simply he had a low level of understanding or wanted to misled people. Unfortunatelly, we can see that he did not finished even his own work.
Which is not a little job I admit and I agree he made great advances, nevertheless his path despite the good things behind it have at least that much mind-field in it like the ones (all the other religions) he criticized and nulled. Finally he gave the relay-race to a man whom you call an SP. Despite he was the master-mind of the technology spotting and handling suppression and despite the fact he “researched” the Bridge up to OT 15 passing by “Future”.
Nitro fuel is very good except if you loose the control over your car. You seem to actually know that you ARE in control of that car but do not forget to take care how you drive. Cause your mechanic was not fail-safe.
You need to read up on Argumentum ad Hominem. And the comparison of getting auditing by Hitler and the Scientology philosophy as created by Hubbard is lacking in logic. Can you spot the illogic?
Sorry I wouldn’t say it is. If you just think with 2 valued logic then it is. Black or white.
One thing that one has to keep in Mind when one is studying and evaluating data in Scientology is the relative importance of data and how it fits in into the system.
You could take the Hcob about the world begins with TRO and say if you have TR0 in you can handle anything, so we don’t need the rest of scientology as it would be inconsistent with that Hcob. Point.
So if you have the tech to make a Clear you apply it correctly and you get the result.
And if one day somebody comes along and has developped a better technology to make clears, why, then you’ll apply the new one correctly.
This is the normal way of technology. Where is here any inconsistency ?
KSW doesn’t say the Tech will not evolve further. Only that you apply that what works correctly. Any engineer in any science would do that and drop older tech when new one is evolved and proven it works. 🙂 🙂
Infinity says: “Quote for where LRH equates individuality with static?”
Please see Scn 8-8008 Section “Individuality versus Identity.”
have you got the quote, where specifically does he write that static = individuality?
I read this discussion, right through, with a sense of deja vu. It is very clever, no doubt rigorously argued, but it overlooks one point. You are all the products of processing through Hubbard’s system; educated in his ways of thought; you know all his definitions and words. You agree that there is something valid to discuss. The ball goes bouncing round the squash court without ever touching the ground.
This discussion goes bouncing around inside Scientology without ever acknowledging that there is a world outside which doesn’t accept your parameters. What Geir would like to dismiss as the blah blah bash bash world. It isn’t going to go away. We don’t accept that Hubbard’s intentions or his achievements are irrelevant.
This business of preset parameters is where all religions fail, sooner or later. This thread reminds me of theological discussion about he nature of the Immaculate Conception, when there is no consensus that God existed or what form the Holy Spirit took.
Oh my. A comment that encourages the derailing of the discussion. Nope, not gonna work. This thread is not about what you wanted it to be. Go post a thread about what you want on your blog, the scnforum.org or elsewhere. Or, you may wait for your topic to surface here. You see, it should be possible to discuss something like the inconsistencies in the texts of Scientology without having to discuss forced disconnection (or you name it).
It is not my intention to derail anything but to add a comment that I feel is pertinent to the whole discussion. I am grateful that you published it.
I don’t know why you mention disconnection. You have insisted several times that you were discussing discrepancies in the philosophy and have firmly eschewed any divergence into discrepancies in the practice.
To my mind you can’t have one without the other.
I mentioned disconnection as an example of what could be used in derailing the thread. Now, back to the topic. If you have something to actually contribute to the thread, you are more than welcome to do so.
Disconnection is exactly an inconsistence. I think it is enough just to utter the word because all of us has actual knowledge behind this regarding the policies. I do not feel backwoodsman comment derailing.
Intention although not a direct subject here is important and intention can be measured by statistics regarding Hubbard. He assigned conditions for statistics. So it is quite an important thing to try to understand his intentions otherwise we are falling to a trap. Let1s look at communism from the viewpoint trying to find inconsistencies. Probably you would not find much. Perfect system. The actual underlying problem however is the intention of the masterminds behind that system. After KSW (?) something definitely changed. If you do not know the why, you are being misled. If you do not know or don’t try to find out the intention of your guide he can show you the most beautiful places but he can push you down from a rock at beautiful sunset. So the examination of intention is important. You can know intention from looking and I do not think backwoodman wanted anything else but remind you to look.
To examine the intention is valid from the viewpoint of finding the correct path and understand the inconsistencies or the scene.
Right now there is none – at least if we limiting down to Scientology – I suppose.
This thread is not about speculation as to intent. Nuff said.
Overdriver says: “… So, where are the too much positive gain? Where are the free Scientologists?”
When free one is not a follower of anybody anymore and that includes Scientology. When free one is looking and thinking for oneself. When free one is not bound by the constraints of Scientology.
So a “free Scientologists” would be free of Scientology as well. For him Scientology was just a starting point, a kindergarten, so to speak. In my view, the product of Scientology would be a person who is able to look and think for oneself.
All those people still tied to the Church of Scientology are still not out of spiritual kindergarten in my view.
This is even backed up by a quote by LRH in fact. It’s been posted several times… about outgrowing Scientology (someone not in a hurry could perhaps post the quote here).
I believe this is the quote Isene refers to, from LRH himself (PDC #20):
“Let’s take the subject of Scientology and let’s see if there’s any logic involved with it at all. There isn’t a mathematics that can embrace the subject of Scientology, because it is an invented mathematics. It’s an invented mathematics that accepts gradient scales and “absolutes are unobtainable”. And it is a method of thinking about things. And is just as true as it is workable. And no truer. And is not, in itself, an arbitrary, fascistic uh…police force to make sure that we all think right thoughts. It’s a servant of the mind, a servo-mechanism of the mind, it is not a master of the mind. Scientology will decline, and become useless to man, on the day when it becomes the master of thinking. Don’t think it won’t do that. It has every capability in it of doing that”.
Yet with KSW and the harsh sec checks and ethics policies and handlings, Scientology turned arround to become a “master of the mind” and an “arbitrary fascistic police to make sure that we all think right thoughts”…and on top of that, Scientology became an “absolute truth” ( Flag, the mecca of technical “perfection”, the Bridge to “Total Freedom”, etc). Talk about inconsistencies…..
Those are falling into the group of people who would even LRH himself declare suppressive per policy. Inconsistency again. True, it is just in the practice. Or, wait a minute… 🙂 no, not just in the practice but in the philosophy itself 🙂
KSW says something along the lines of “don’t go about it half-heartedly” and speaks of dilletantism.
What We Expect of a Scientologist said something along the lines of don’t feel bad if you are not auditing full time. Run a little group, drive a good car, get on the active comm lines of the world, etc.
A policy letter called Leadership, which has been removed from the OEC volumes that are currently published said basically that it was not up the Church to lay down a big plan for Scientologists and tell them what to do…
All three conflict.
Yeah, also there is conflict between calling life a game and then turning Scientology into a deadly serious activity about the agonizing future of this planet. What happened to the spirit of games ? KSW fell into a fery low tone level IMHO.
There is a policy letter forbidding interference in the second dynamic (sex, marriage and children) activities of Scientologists by the Church.
There is another policy – an Open Letter to Clears that states that now that you’ve made there should be no out-ethics in terms of sexual behavior – I’ve paraphrased this but that’s the gist of it. It goes on to say don’t invalidate the state of Clear, invalidaton of the state of Clear is a high crime.
This is contradictory.
Overdriver said, “…LRH said he finished the work of Buddha. It shows he did not have a clue what was the work of Buddha or simply he had a low level of understanding or wanted to misled people. Unfortunatelly, we can see that he did not finished even his own work…”
Problem comes whenever you take anything on faith without understanding, whether it is Buddha or LRH. Did you take Scientology on faith? If so, then you are bound to have trouble and you will be worrying about intentions.
Here is described an inconsistency about something written on the Understanding the e-meter book:
The Day I Changed Scientology Forever
” … The next problem arose when I read the 1982 edition of Understanding the E-Meter. At page 50 Ron explained:
“In Scientology it has been discovered that mental energy is simply a finer, higher level of physical energy. The test of this is conclusive in that a thetan “mocking up” (creating) mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can increase the body mass and by casting them away again can decrease the body mass. This test has actually been made and an increase of as much as thirty pounds, actually measured on scales, has been added to, and subtracted from, a body by creating “mental energy.” Energy is energy. Matter is condensed energy.”
— Understanding the E-Meter (1982 ed.), at page 50.
Unfortunately, nowhere in Understanding the E-Meter did Ron reference any controlled experiments that had “actually been made” which confirmed that the weight of a person who had created “mental image pictures” increased by “as much as thirty pounds.”
When I read this I was flabbergasted. I honestly didn’t know what to do. I mean, what could one possibly say?
Did I go to the media? No. Did I talk with anybody outside the Church? No? Did I criticize Ron, the Church or anyone inside the Church? No? Did I drop down the tone scale or natter? No and no.
What I did was calmly, rationally, gently, kindly, with great “ARC,” and with impeccable intent approach my “senior” and explain the following. That not only had Ron proposed a falsifiable hypothesis or experiment, but a falsifiable hypothesis or experiment that as a practical matter was rather easily falsified. That the book invited critics of the Church to ask the Church to repeatedly conduct the experiment and demonstrate the accumulation of 30 pounds of “mental mass,” or any “mental mass” at all. And to repeatedly fail.
That unless the subject’s skull contained a fusion reactor capable of converting energy into mass, the experiment was very unlikely to succeed. [… continues…]”
I would like to see that experiment conducted, but I don’t it has ever been carried out, otherwise I would have heard about it.
I think it was merely a theoretical speculation confused with reality.
To the extent that Scientology pushes relativism/subjectivism of truth, that is another inconsistency in and of itself.
If truth itself is completely subjective, then what happens to the assertion that “truth is completely subjective”? That assertion too must only be true in a subjective fashion, such that we end up with a statement that contradicts itself.
i.e., is it an objective truth that truth is subjective (in which case not all truth can be subjective since here we have an example of an objective truth)? Or is it a subjective truth that truth is subjective (in which case it should be true that truth is also non-subjective, or else the word subjective becomes meaningless)?
Read my article on will.
Greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics (rather pan-determinism) as opposed to statistics (rather self-viewpoint). I wrote about this earlier but did not name these two together.
By the way, greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics is as well an inconsistency and a hypocrisy in itself as there are many situations where you do not have time or knowledge to calculate with all the dynamics or only a couple of dynamics really in play and it is irrelevant to look for the 5th dynamic for example in some small and strict 3rd dynamic matter. (Not speaking about getting in other’s ethics where the outsider does not have even data and can follow only his intuitions. I am speaking here things which does not get into the sphere of harming others.) Honestly, who can calculate on all dynamics? Gods for example? 🙂 But in the final sense we all are above even gods what is not thought in Scientology…
So frankly then, why go into nuances of dynamics (in a very strict sense which only limits our vision)? 😉 Only open your eyes, be in present and do your best from there.
Copied From Caliwog’s Blog:
Freedom of Speech Declared and then Denied.
“We of the Church believe… that all men have inalienable rights to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.” — L. Ron Hubbard
Source: Church of Scientology Creed
“Crimes [include] holding Scientology materials up to ridicule, contempt or scorn. Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology… public statements against Scientology… voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed towards the Supression of Scientology… testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology… [and] writing anti-Scientology letters to the press.
“Persons or groups that [commit suppressive acts] cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings.” — L. Ron Hubbard
Source: HCO PL 7 Mar 1965 Issue III and HCO PL 23 Dec 1965
Yes. This is a kick-ass inconsistency.
Ron Hubbard I guess weren’t fluent in any other languages besides English.
How can he be the expert on word clearing methods? Did he miss foreign students real study problem? His applications of word clearing didn’t work.
If native languish didn’t have comparative standard dictionaries like the American dictionaries, how would you be able to word clear every word you encounter as MU?
Should a foreign student study only in English and not connecting the words with native language? How will that effect auditing.
If my auditor wants me to repeat something I heard when I was 5 and I have to say it in English, but I didn’t hear it in English but in my native language. How does that work. If I am in native area in language and I have to speak in English, can my audio perceptions be cut off since I am only allowed to speak English?
If I have to say something in native language, the auditor won’t be able to understand and that will end up in false TR 4 with originations or a fake acknowledge that it was understood but it wasn’t.
If the “Student Hat course tells you about, “too steep of gradient” and, “out of mass”; doesn’t that also apply to level of words and vocabularies, that means you have to cut back to simpler text. My girls at school have to choose reading books by looking at the first page; if there are 5 words or more then they have to choose another book to read.
In “Student Hat Course” I believe it was stated that if you don’t understand you have to continue and do further word clearing. My time on Student Hat Course was excruciating I couldn’t make out the words on the study tapes. I wasn’t ready for Ron Hubbard’s language. Should I have stayed at basic course room? At least I would have more fun and be happy at that time.
If God is within you and if you follow that then you will be guided to decide what is right for you, should Ron Hubbard’s policies take over that 8 dynamic and the rest of all dynamics.
If Ron Hubbard writes books for a reason and you are not able to apply with your own inner core how it works then why sell them?
The word “INVALIDATION”; the word is defined in the Technical Dictionary.
1. Refuting or degrading or discrediting or denying something someone else considers to be fact. 5. Invalidation is force applied. You apply enough force to anybody and you’ve invalidated him. How invalidated can he get? DEAD!
Is that the reason many end up with cancer on the OT levels?
Who should be the driver of the car; and who should be the passenger of the car?
I don’t have the right policy but selling the whole library and force student to buy the whole library just for them to get the money for staff pay and get their stats up is wrong. In my case I had my library not debited out since I didn’t have space in my living quarter to keep it. Also, I was far from being able to use all that material in my standing level of understanding. Also you have to be full time on course, so there wouldn’t be any time to read them.
In my case I was selected by my supervisor to be a candidate for a Student to learn the “Happiness Rundown program”. I became the PC. We sat next to the Academy and he tried to word clear one or two words and it didn’t work. I got ideas but it wasn’t aligned to anything and I was put back to course room and after that nothing happened. I had already bought a book that went with it. Later I was approached by staff and ganged up that I had to do that auditing program and that I had to pay for it since I started it. I was not allowed to leave anything unfinished. I argued that I never started it; one or two words worked by a student to become a “Happiness Rundown Auditor should not be the decision point that I had started that cycle of action. The responsible staffs said that would help my studies and it didn’t. It had nothing to do with my dilemma word clearing.
They were also out off length of time it would take. They played on me.
Once I dated a staff person. I was a student. I was told that I was not allowed to date a staff member since I was not on staff. Our dating was broken off. I turn around and I see exact same situation with another couple and they could be together.
After that I avoided dating a scientologist. I preferred to be single.
Once I got a PTS Declare. I was threatening with a separation order because he was the hindrance for me to give all my money to the Church of Scientology. It was stated as follow: HCO has a reason to believe that X has a monetary agreement with X that keeps her from spending “all her money on the bridge, and X has used that as a stop from going up the bridge.
I didn’t intend to write all this in regarding inconsistency in $cientology.
It will be interesting what answers you have on this.
How much of this is still happening today?
The top part of your comment fits here, the lower part not.
Interesting regarding the foreign language viewpoint – especially regarding auditing.
As for your personal experiences and what was done against you, all I can say is that this happens in every org to a lesser or greater degree and it happens in lots of other organizations besides Scientology. It is a matter of human group dynamics. To handle this requires some serious group tech – from a great leader to conflict resolution such as what they have over at Wikipedia.
Hi Geir. By accident I discovered a fundamental inconsistency concerning Ethics and Justice yesterday. For more see http://vitprofant.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/scientology-ethics/
Are you still looking for inconsistencies? Well, I think I have one for you.
According to Scientology, psychologists and psychiatrists are incompetent in treating mind illnesses because they don’t have the Tech and rely on false data. Thus, they’re simply ignorant of mind’s matters.
But psychologists and psychiatrists seem to know the mind very well when it comes to do harm. After all, they’ve been able enough to seed implants and engrams in the reactive mind, to manipulate individuals and groups, and, ultimately, to keep humanity enslaved for millions of years.
So, when it comes to do good, psychologists and psychiatrists lack the skills to treat the mind, but when it comes to do evil, they master the mind. How come?
If you master any particular knowledge, you’re able to use it to do either good or evil, depending on your ethics. There’s no such thing as good or evil knowledge. Or what? Are we supposed to think there are two different right theories of the mind, two right models of it: one to be used by the good guys and one to be used by the bad guys?
So, psychiatrists and psychologists know or don’t know the mind. Both can’t be true, right?
Well, here’s the tricky part:
If they happen to know the mind and have been using that knowledge for millions of years, then Hubbard’s claims of having discovered and developed a science of the mind are false.
But if they don’t know anything about human mind, why portray them as the greatest evil of all? If they’re incompetent, there’s just no reason to fear them as fiercely as Scientology does. Don’t you think?
That’s about it.
Thanks for the post and the opportunity to share this thoughts.
That’s a really neat one.
I would love to see others, pro-scientology commenters here try to rip this one apart.
Marildi? Valkov? Are you game?
It’s much easier to learn how to pull the trigger of a gun than it is to understand how the gun and ammunition are made.
Psychiatry is fond of pulling the trigger, perhaps lobectomies having been one of the worst examples, but ECT and disabling chemicals are still here and frontline weapons in the psychiatric arsenal.
As to the argument that psychiatry REALLY knows the mind…
Beyond regression therapy (seldom used and limited in depth), what great achievement has psychiatry come up with to handle all those troublesome valences and identity problems (schizophrenia is handled by drugs)?
What great solution does psychiatry have for depression? Oh ya, drugs. With Scientology a good C/S could write a program that WOULD really handle the depression. I’ve seen it.
I’ve also been witness to a conference of psychiatric workers who talked about what drug regimens to give to kids to “handle” them.
I’ve worked with doctors and psychologists who became convinced that drugs were the best way (short of ECT) to “handle” mental problems.
It was that direct knowledge of both psychology and Scientology that led me to understand what Hubbard saw in psychiatry.
I wouldn’t have gone the route he did in attacking the science, but I understand and agree with him on its extreme misunderstanding of how to actually handle a mind.
I was just about to write a comment and say something like, if someone knows how to stab you with a knife, or perhaps with a scalpel, does that mean he knows how to perform the surgery to repair the wound?
However, we of the pro-gang can rest our case on your post alone. 🙂
Btw, I can’t remember the reference but LRH talks about this – about the fact that beings had figured out how to sabotage the mind but not how to undo what they had done. Do you recall this?
What Hubbard claims psychatrists are able to do go far, far beyond ECT and drugging. We are talking insidious, ingenious implants of the most skillful kind. So I wouldn’t dismiss this inconsistency and start resting any cases quite so fast. It may be tempting to quickly brush it off for peace of mind – but his argument for an inconsistency here is compelling IMO.
@isene “We are talking insidious, ingenious implants of the most skillful kind.”
So, do you KNOW that psychiatry didn’t employ these methods on the WT? Do you KNOW that the US military didn’t use these methods?, or the North Koreans? AND THAT IS JUST THIS RECENT PAST let alone the WT. We weren’t always nice little boys and girls with cute hair.
The modern practice of psychiatry probably attracts as many people who want to control others as Scientology has. But the tools of psychiatry have extremely limited use in restoring ability. They are intended to restore a person to a functional capacity (job ability) or to mentally hobble him (have some lithium and have a nice day).
So let’s look at this supposed inconsistency from two points: workability and practicioners.
Psychiatry – best result is to rehabilitate the individual to an average level of functionality and peaceableness in society.
Scientology – best result is to rehabilitate individual to a state of being where he knows who he really is. Functionality is often highly above a previous normal. Peaceability is high.
Psychiatry – trained that man is not a spiritual being but a chemical machine. Treats man as such. May allow patients to entertain thoughts of spirituality (belief) if it makes them feel better.
When employed by military, or the like, numerous records show barbarous use of the psychiatric methods and tools.
Scientology – trained that man is a spiritual being, not a chemical machine. Treats man as such. Scientology processes are aligned along a path to develop this. Helping non-Scientology organizations that would use the technology harmfully is prohibited. (Internal things like The Hole and RPF and even current sec checking practices being another story.)
In the end, the evil of application definitely comes down to the practicioner, so psychiatry and black-Scientology would have an equivalence there – at the practicioner-intent level – not the tools.
But when you look at the best, most pure intent to help with each, then it is fairly easy to see that psychiatry is very limited – it is extremely unlikely to raise a man beyond basic functionaility, Scientology can go well beyond that.
Now that’s a Much better response. Here you are discussing the actual inconsistency pointed out. Although from your first response it sounds a bit like you already made up your mind and is simply trying to back up your dismissal of any inconsistency in the area. I will await Hypertexta’s response to your comment here.
Seems the glove is on the ground:
Hypertexta vs. 2x-tra
(I know where my bets are placed. ;))
Did you have your mind already made up before Hypertexta’s comment was posted?
2X: But when you look at the best, most pure intent to help with each, then it is fairly easy to see that psychiatry is very limited – it is extremely unlikely to raise a man beyond basic functionaility, Scientology can go well beyond that.
Chris: Help is help wherever it is found, however, this comment that Scientology can raise a man well beyond basic functionality is unsubstantiated by any proof whatsoever. People are helped by people helping wherever they are found whether psychiatry, medical, Salvation Army, or a good deal at the Dollar Store.
I am one who is placebo sensitive. In other words, practically anything at all helps me. However, I’ve been helped much more by moving beyond the limited practice of Scientology than I ever was while participating in it. By the same token I am nocebo insensitive. In other words, very little in the way of suggestion does harm to me. When I left Scientology, I was harmed by the actually harmful things that Scientology practiced upon me and not by any suggestions that I would fail, cave-in, fall ill, etc.,.
2x: Scientology – trained that man is a spiritual being, not a chemical machine.
Chris: True or not, this is not a new idea. Neither did its teaching raise Scientology to the status of benevolent organization no matter the billions in SO reserves. And really, when we get right down to it, teaching man that he is a spiritual being has been the ploy of puppet masters since the beginning of man. Designed to encourage him hurtle himself to destruction for the sake of filthy money-makers. The spiritual business is as filthy and rotten as the spiritualists would try to have us imagine the scientist’s; the chemist’s; the biologist’s laboratory no matter how many polio vaccines, antibiotics, and yes, antidepressants they have developed and saved lives with.
The argument presented by Hubbard was that the psyches have been around since the beginning of time messing with people’s minds. I would definitely put Hubbard in the negative column of this category. Spiritual “certainty of spiritual individuality” is the greatest hoax of which I currently aware. Yes, greater than the financial hoaxes being perpetrated on us by our governments and reserve banking.
Nice comment. Appreciate that.
Geir: “Did you have your mind already made up before Hypertexta’s comment was posted?”
Actually, I never thought about it the way Hypertexta put it – because he starts out with a Straw Man:
“According to Scientology, psychologists and psychiatrists are incompetent in treating mind illnesses because they don’t have the Tech and rely on false data. Thus, they’re simply ignorant of mind’s matters.”
The first sentence is okay, but the second stretches it to a logical fallacy as well as a Straw Man. So then HT came up with a contradiction of his own creation: “So, psychiatrists and psychologists know or don’t know the mind. Both can’t be true, right.”
It was never said that psychiatrists are ignorant of “mind’s matters” as a generality – they do know how to do damage to the mind but are ignorant about how to undo it.
According to Scientology, psychiatrists planned the 9/11 attacks, the Serbian war massacres, the two world wars of last century and many, many more insidious actions to bring the world to its knees. And this is just child’s play compared to the greatest achievement of psychiatry (according to Hubbard): enslaving and dominating humanity throughout millions of years with, in Geir’s words, “ingenious implants of the most skillful kind”.
So I don’t know what you make out of this, Marildi and 2ndxmr, but I think this is more, much more, than just “pulling the trigger of a gun” or “stabbing somebody with a knife or a scalpel”. We’re talking about pure evil genius here. In Scientology jargon, psychiatrists have shown us they’re cause over MEST, but in an evil way.
Besides, don’t forget that stabbing somebody with a scalpel and performing surgery with that same scalpel are just two different abilities. Of course a killer doesn’t necessarily know how to perform a surgery, but also a surgeon isn’t necessarily an able killer.
Another thing, I didn’t say psychiatrists know the mind. I just pointed out how Scientology contradicts itself when it portrays psychiatrists as incompetent to treat mind’s illnesses and, at the same time, as able to cause premeditated harm through what appears to be a skillful knowledge of the mind. In the real world, psychiatrists aren’t perfect and have certainly done some damage throughout History. But they’ve done some good too. Their drug treatments of schizophrenia, bipolarity and other mental diseases are not a definitive cure, but have been proven effective to deliver a normal, happy life to those suffering them (what comes as no surprise when we consider that all those illnesses have a proven biological component). Much more than what can be said about Dianetics and Scientology “benefits” on these same diseases (or on any disease at all). Oh, sorry. I forgot. Scientology doesn’t deal with psychotic persons, just with intelligent, able people.
hypertexta, you wrote: “Besides, don’t forget that stabbing somebody with a scalpel and performing surgery with that same scalpel are just two different abilities. Of course a killer doesn’t necessarily know how to perform a surgery, but also a surgeon isn’t necessarily an able killer.”
I wouldn’t stress “just” two different abilities between stabbing and performing surgery. Also, I’m sure anyone qualified as a surgeon would be fully able as a killer. However, surgeons vary in their capability. An oral surgeon, skilled in removing teeth, wouldn’t be able to do the delicate surgery required to repair the damage of a knife would to the spinal cord.
Other than that, see my post just above.
Oops – typo: “knife would” should be “knife wound”.
I don’t understand your point except I get that hypertexta is wrong. What are you saying the psychiatrist’s abilities are?
First of all, my apologies. When I posted my last reply, there were already a few replies I hadn’t seen. So, basically, my answer was outdated and there are some points I didn’t address.
Regarding the straw man, I understand this is a fallacy in which someone distorts the argument of the opponent. Maybe LRH never said literally that psychiatrists are ignorant, but I think we all agree on the fact that, to scientologists, they are IGNORANT of the Tech. And since the Tech is (to scientologists) the true knowledge of the mind, not knowing about it certainly qualifies as ignorance of mind’s matters. So, I don’t think I’m twisting or stretching any argument or implying anything fallacious when I infer that incompetence is the result of ignorance (it almost sounds tautological to me!).
And that’s why it sounds contradictory to me when I hear about how psychiatrists have managed to create powerful, ingenious implants in order to control humankind. I don’t think this is possible unless psychiatrists have known, since millions of years ago, about the reactive mind, engrams and other related stuff (dianetics and scientology stuff, not psychology stuff) Hubbard barely managed to discover sixty years ago.
So, I believe the contradiction I posed (and its implications) remains: do psychiatrists know about the human mind or not? The assertion that they know how to do damage but not how to undo it sounds like an “ad hoc” hypothesis to me: an explanation that saves the day, but one that poses some other contradictions and doubts.
For instance: How come these evil psychiatrists were genius enough to find out about implants and engrams millions of years ago, but all this time never figured out how to undo them? If they don’t know anything about implants and engrams, did they gain control over humankind by just applying that “false data” they call psychology/psychiatry? If so, can we really say that psychology/psychiatry is foul and pseudoscientific as scientologists portray it? Or is it sound, correct science that’s just been misused and abused? Or, again, can we conclude that there are two different true theories of the mind: one for doing good (scientology) and another one for doing evil (psychology)?
Or, applying Occam’s razor, is all this just a fabrication of Hubbard to keep people away from psychology, medicine and general science?
Hi hypertexta. Glad you came back. I was thinking we weren’t very friendly to a new guy. 🙂
What is your response to what 2ndxmr had to say in his last reply above? https://isene.me/2010/10/06/wanted-inconsistencies-in-scientology/#comment-46800
HT: “For instance: How come these evil psychiatrists were genius enough to find out about implants and engrams millions of years ago, but all this time never figured out how to undo them?”
As we’ve said, knowing enough to mess something up doesn’t necessarily mean knowing how to fix it – especially if the *intention* to do so is missing. Intention is the key factor.
HT: “Or, applying Occam’s razor, is all this just a fabrication of Hubbard to keep people away from psychology, medicine and general science?”
Whether or not there is truth to that, there was another indisputable circumstance, which is now a matter of public record, thanks to the FOIA, A decades-long attempt to literally wipe out Scientology was going on from 1950 forward – a joint effort by the AMA, the APA and various other private and government agencies. Now, I will grant you that Hubbard may have overreacted to this after a while, as regards his words and actions both, but the situation wasn’t as black and white as it may seem if you’re missing that data.
Marildi: “Whether or not there is truth to that, there was another indisputable circumstance, . . . ”
Chris: It is indisputable that Hubbard, a womanizing bigamist storyteller and charlatan, antagonized the AMA and FDA by circumventing every road to legitimacy that any other practice, drug, health device, etc., must travel. Promises of god like states of being were never going to be legitimized scientifically or professionally — ever. Accordingly, Hubbard moved his “science of mind” over to the purview of religion, renamed it Scientology, and there it has remained protected by the United States Constitution ever since.
I suggest you read Maty’s “memoirs” book. It appears there actuallu is indisputable evidence that those orhganiztions were already well aware of LRH and Dianetics in 1050, and waged an all-out campaign against him and the subject right from the start.
Or maybe better not. Who knows what effect losing your stable data about it woud have on you…..
Here’s the effect it might have.
Val, Regardless of any storytelling, personal opinions or beliefs, it is indisputable that L Ron Hubbard ran from every form of trouble in his life leaving trashed lives and debts in his wake. He used up his friends, every one of them and cast them off and under any buses available, then abused their reputations with both slander and libel. He allowed those around including his children and 100% faithful wife, Mary Sue to buffer and protect him from his every criminal act He not only allowed her to do prison time for him but worried and sent messengers to go ask her what she might say or have said under duress. L Ron Hubbard was a scoundrel, not of the endearing kind. Not quite bright people like myself were prone to being duped into believing the hype and when presented with the evidence of his betrayal complain that the trouble was elsewhere and caused by others.
It seems we continue to argue and argue about the merits of his mental technology, the useful parts having been stolen from others, all the while ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room which is that the entire work was a “bait and switch scheme.” It is now my opinion that L Ron Hubbard was a narcissistic psychopath and a congenital liar who could not tell a truth no matter how simple.
Hey, no problem Chris. I get that you think he was no better than the people who attacked him – first. 🙂
OK, LRH was not a “nice” person. But don’t keep your head in the sand about who his opponents really were and what they were really like, and what the world was really like in the 1950s and 1960s.
Google “mk-ultra mind control” and “dr. ewen cameron”. Just the first page results first page results should keep ypu busy for a few days.
Oh, I know, it’s hard to confront that maybe LRH was actually running for his life, not just “running from trouble” as you try to minimize it.
Probably you shouldn’t even try. But please, don’t even bother to reply until you have read the content of the 2 links above.
Opinions are a dime a dozen. I can often find them cheaper, or even free. With 7,000,000,000 people around, how many opinions do you suppose there could be?
Marildi: “Hi hypertexta. Glad you came back. I was thinking we weren’t very friendly to a new guy.”
No, I’ve just had a crazy week at work. That’s all. I take the debate as the way of you, gays and gals, of saying: “Hello, you’re welcome”.
Marildi: “What is your response to what 2ndxmr had to say in his last reply above?”
I feel Chris Thompson addressed it just fine. I would add, though, that those supposed “limitations” and “aims” of psychiatry are what scientology says they are. I don’t think psychiatry’s explicit goal is to treat human being as a “chemical machine” or to “rehabilitate (him or her) to an average level of functionality”. Psychology, as a science, aims to apply what’s scientifically proven. Since human duality (soul, spirit or “thetan”, as scientology calls it) is not scientifically proven, it’s not taken into consideration in the design of treatments, medicaments and other means of healing. Doing otherwise falls in the category of pseudoscience and gives people false hope.
Marildi: “As we’ve said, knowing enough to mess something up doesn’t necessarily mean knowing how to fix it – especially if the *intention* to do so is missing. Intention is the key factor.”
You’re right. Intention explains it. But, again, I feel it’s an “ad hoc”. I simply find hard to believe that a sorcerer manages to cast a powerful spell, but is not interested in finding a way of breaking it.
Marildi: “Whether or not there is truth to that, there was another indisputable circumstance… ”
Again, I’m fine with Chris Thompson’s reply. I believe it was Lafayette Ronald who fired the first shot in that war.
🙂 An RPG nerd?
Why? Because of the mention of the sorcerer?
No. In fact, I’m not very fond of RPG’s.
Although, creating a set of like-Magik cards with evil interstellar psychiatrists is not a bad idea! Lol!
Hi! Interesting comments you bring. A question to you I have never asked here, actually two.
1. what intention do you see at the birth of IT on the time track?
2. what is the role of a nerd in the big game of life?
Thank you, Marianne.
About your questions, I’m not sure I understand them. Are you sure you’re asking the right person?
Yes and no. From your comments I had the impression that you have a sharp, bright mind and an affinity to IT. So I asked you. I asked myself these questions too.
The reason is that IT has one of the biggest impacts in the world. Besides the good,
I see its damaging effects on people, especially kids. I want to see the root of the damaging, where it started from on the ‘time-track’.
Hypertexta: ‘I take the debate as the way of you, gays and gals, of saying: “Hello, you’re welcome”.’
Yes, you got it right. We’re like relatives who get together and argue about stuff for a good time. (And that was a fun typo you made – “gays”. :))
HT: “I believe it was Lafayette Ronald who fired the first shot in that war.”
Sorry, but your “belief” in this instance is irrelevant since there’s a preponderance of evidence otherwise. As I said before, you are apparently missing data. Please see again the last paragraph of my post above.
HT: “Since human duality (soul, spirit or “thetan”, as scientology calls it) is not scientifically proven, it’s not taken into consideration in the design of treatments, medicaments and other means of healing. Doing otherwise falls in the category of pseudoscience and gives people false hope.”
With that, I guess you’ve revealed some other personal beliefs – i.e. anything that isn’t science just “gives people false hope.” But since you *believe* in science, watch at least the first 10 minutes of this video talk – by a scientist (physicist) – and keep a scientifically “skeptical but open” approach. I think you’ll find that science itself is based on a primary belief, and no less so than any religion.
Btw, welcome! (But you’re WRONG… :D)
Hi. marildi asked me to comment on issues having to do with psychiatry because I worked in psychiatric settings for about 13 years including the decade of the 1970s.
It was at 3 different units of a University teaching hospital. I worked with psychiatric residents, psychiatrists, and somewhat with psychologists.
Psychiatrists and psychologis=ts are 2 completely diofferent fields,, and clinical psychology is completely different from research psychology. Clinical psychology is almost completely “unscientific”. These are the therapists, as oposed to the researchers. I tended to like th eclinical psychologists I met. They were mostly very positive people who were trying to help others, empathic and intelligent and good listeners.
Psychiatrists were all into the prestige, status, and the money of being Doctors. They varies a lot as to their ability to be “therapeutic”.
Mr.Hubbard never clarified what he meant by “psychs”; it is manifestly impossible that all of those who went through medical school and became “psychiatrists”, were all what he ended up labeling and reviling as “psychs”. And in fact he himself sometimes labeled other sorts as “psychs”, for example any kind of “preisthood” in any profession, he might call them “psychs” if they were much involved with social control of the mass of people.
It’s late here now, but perhaps I will post a litle more about this another time.
In a sense, LRH did fire th efirst shot by writng and publishing Dianetics. Dianetics promised (or threatened) to be able to recover “lost” memories. This in turn threatened to bring to light various “mind control” research programs proceeding secretly at over 80 Universities in the USA and Canada, using unwitting subjects whose personalities and minds were being attacked, altered, and often, destroyed. These research programs were commissioned and paid for by the US government, specifically the CIA. Eventually the FOIA was used to bring these things to light.
All the above is now a matter of public record and has been since some time in the late 1970s and 1980s.
Visit the links I posted above in reply to Chris’ post, and start learning. Here’s one of them again: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138871
Here’s the location of my reply to Chris, it is somewhat upstream of this post.
Ups, typo: I mean “guys”, not “gays”. Sorry.
Not to mention “goys”
And don’t mention “wogs” whatever you do.
Or niggers, or lesbos, or white thrash, or fag, or…
Marildi: “Sorry, but your “belief” in this instance is irrelevant since there’s a preponderance of evidence otherwise. As I said before, you are apparently missing data. Please see again the last paragraph of my post above.”
As far as I know, the word “believe” doesn’t necessarily refer to a personal belief (religious, philosophical, ideological or of any other kind). It’s also a synonym of “think”, “suppose” and others. And, above all, it’s a way of speaking, many times used with no literal meaning. Regarding your post, I agree with you on the fact that nothing in this situation is black and white. The AMA and the APA are far from being the good guys here, but it’s not less true that Hubbard was anti-psychiatry and anti-psychology since the very beginning, that his theories of the mind are not scientifically sound and that this has always posed a threat to him and his followers. As we both said, nothing is black and white here, but I think those are the main reasons behind Hubbard’s demonization of psychiatry and psychology (and medicine and science and journalism and critics and skeptics and any other individual or group that demands proof of Hubbard’s assertions).
Marildi: “With that, I guess you’ve revealed some other personal beliefs – i.e. anything that isn’t science just “gives people false hope.”…”
“X gives false hope” doesn’t necessarily mean “X doesn’t work”. In the context, it only means that the purported benefits of X are uncertain. Before science, there were already a lot of treatments and medicaments that actually worked. And science only validated them through the scientific method. But, as far as I know, this hasn’t happened yet with dianetics and scientology. Mainly because of scientology’s refusal to subject itself to independent scientific falsification, arguing ad hoc arguments as “auditing doesn’t work among skeptics and critics”; “psychiatry, medicine and science are after scientology”; etc. About “My big TOE”, I’ll watch it later, thanks.
Marildi: “Btw, welcome! (But you’re WRONG… 😀 )”
Thank you for the welcome. The ad hominem is unnecessary… 😉
Iamvalkov: “Hi. marildi asked me to comment on issues having to do with psychiatry because I worked in psychiatric settings for about 13 years including the decade of the 1970s… if they were much involved with social control of the mass of people.”
Thanks for the explanation.
Iamvalkov: “In a sense, LRH did fire th efirst shot by writng and publishing Dianetics. Dianetics promised (or threatened) to be able to recover “lost” memories. This in turn threatened to bring to light various “mind control” research programs…”
I agree on most of this. Psychiatrists and governments are no saints. I also respect your experience working in psychiatric settings. But I still get the impression that we’re missing the huge elephant in the room here (Chris Thompson said the 800 lb gorilla). See my answer above to Marildi to find out what I’m talking about.
Iamvalkov: “Not to mention “goys”.
Marildi: “And don’t mention “wogs” whatever you do.”
Geir Isene: “Or niggers, or lesbos, or white thrash, or fag, or…”
😀 Once again, sorry for my politically incorrect typo. Blame it on my dyslexia.
HT; You have a keen mind. Please stay around. I would love to get your viewpoints on other posts and discussions as well.
Thank you, Geir. I’ll do my best. It’s just that I (as well as everybody else, I suppose) have tons of things to do (mainly at work). But I’ll check other posts of your blog. See you around.
hypertexta: 😀 Once again, sorry for my politically incorrect typo. Blame it on my dyslexia.
Chris: haha – When I read it, I thought it was intentional humor! Still like it. — gay goy guy!
😀 We all laughed a little, didn’t we? By the way, thanks for backing my position.
This is my answer to Marianne Toth. (The blog doesn’t show me the reply button).
I appreciate your comments on my person. The problem is, honestly, I don’t know what IT is. To tell you the truth, there are lots of scientology’s terms and concepts I’m not aware of. But maybe if you explain it to me I’ll be in a better position to answer your questions. Thank you.
Sorry. I meant IT=information technology. Yes, the person is coming through from your comments which, for me is always enjoyable. I am used to being scientific (from linguistics) which is also joy. So, both. Looking forward to your further comments when your work, time allows it!
Oops! This is kind of embarrassing. For a minute I thought IT was a scientology term I wasn’t aware of. Regarding your questions:
1. Well, I’m far, far away from being an expert in IT. But I think the general intention of all technology is to be an extension or prosthesis of the human being: we don’t have wings to fly, but we have airplanes; we don’t have night vision, but we have electric light; etc. So, in the case of computers, telephones and similar information and communication devices, I see them as extensions of our minds and our voices. Through technology, we humans overcome our natural handicaps and limitations and potentiate our abilities.
2. I don’t believe in predeterminism, but… let’s say nerds are “useful” in society because they urge us to question life itself and many of its aspects: our thoughts, our theories, our customs, our solutions, our questions themselves and, above all, what we call “normality”.
I hope these answers are what you’re looking for.
Scientology is not the truth about anything.. It is an inquiry into the structure of subjective and objective knowledge that resulted in models of thinking (and being) that one that can apply to achieve specific results and purposes.
What is really consistent in MEST?
Quoting LRH – “In actuality, the thetan is a knowingness total, in a cleared state, who yet can create space and time and objects to locate in them. He reduces his knowingness only to have action. Knowingness is reduced by assuming that one cannot know or knows wrongly. Knowingness is reduced by assuming one must be in certain places to perceive, and so know, and that one cannot be in certain places”
“The thetan, to produce interest and action, operates as a paradox. He cannot die, so he firmly insists and proves continually that he can die. He never changes location, but only views new locations, and constantly lives in horror of being fixed in time and space. Above that, he knows the present, and so fights to obscure the past and guess the future.” – LRH
“What you desire is a game. You’re playing too small and you hate your significance.”
Here’s a big inconsistecy:
“The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood”
Here are some reasons why a person gives up a study:
A person realises that the data is a con
A person finds the data to be incorrect or inconsistent
A person dislikes the tone or attitude of what the text represented
A person is re-stimulated into a reactive state against the text
A person discovered more effect material for study
A person realises that the text is ineffective or defective, albeit, slightly functional
A person discovers many questionable history of the author
A person discovers that s/he does not need the study
Words like “only”, “all”, “everyone”, “every time”, “always” are usually inaccurate.
The original state could ring more truth if it sounded like the following:
“The greatest reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood”
“The most significant reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood”
“An important factor that causes a person to give up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood”
“One of the most overlooked factor that causes a person to give up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood”
“The most powerful reason that a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that was not understood”
There is a great tendency of man to exalt newly discovered factors to the point of exclusion all other possibilities.
May we forgive LRH for his passion and move on 🙂