Was playing around with Xtranormal:
Peter: “Hello, I am a Scientologist. Have you heard about Scientology?”
Jane: “Oh! Isn’t that the weird science fiction cult created by that Blubbard guy?”
Peter: “No-no. Scientology is an applied religious philosophy which contains tools that anyone can use to improve their life. These are workable tools that have been proven to be uniformly successful if they are applied correctly. It provides a bridge to total freedom. It is complete and consistent. Complete and consistent.”
Jane: “Have you heard about the incompleteness theorems by… Gödel?”
Peter: “I missed that part of Scientology. Is it part of the class twelve course?”
Jane: “It’s part of the world outside the Scientology bubble.”
You can create a free account and submit a video if you like 🙂
Geir Isene - uncut 
That gave me some laughs. The script one has to learn to promote Scientology. Not natural, no matter how one does it, comes across as a script. One of the problems of dissemination, no real communication, just script. Wonder why?
Too much actors on Scientology, they learn how to not be natural, or may they forgot that from beingness to beingness. I saw the DVD’s, they were all actors, nothing real or natural.
Beside the DVD’s, in real life and live interviews I have seen them do the same with pat answers. That’s the shame of ronbot -ness they learn, since they cannot slip up and lose.
Just like Miscavige following the script on the IAS events. I know what your are saying, that is relative to “scientologists are not being themselves”.
Right, even on a one to one in casual comm. Heck even the members can’t even talk openly to each other, unless it’s tech and they are backed up with proof. When visiting couple year ago, I couldn’t believe the no social comm amongst them.
I saw and experienced this too. There was no empathic communication, and what they had was rather “I’m working ARC with you”.
Petteko: “I’m working ARC with you”.
Yes. When talking with an auditor in training at Flag it was quite pleasant until she came to the money part. I was so surprised by her very abrupt reversal, when I couldn’t give her what she wanted. It was stunning, but later learned of the pressure she was under.
I felt bad for my friends who were under that pressure. It made them crazy and sometimes criminal.
This is a bit irrelevant, but I think I should better say it. The churchies –mostly auditors should be acknowledged for delivering services for free. As they don’t get paid themselves, although you pay the orgs. So they’re either complete assholes, for wanting to mess you up even if they don’t get paid, or very kind people for offering this (whatever it is) for free –for the cause (whatever it is). I find it a huge + over independent auditors.
…not implying that people who deliver should feel bad for getting paid. But to offer this for free, just for the sake of SCN is awesome.
Spyros: not implying that people who deliver should feel bad for getting paid. But to offer this for free, just for the sake of SCN is awesome.
DeE: Not sure what you mean. The auditor was asking for money for IAS under the guise of being interested in me as a person and in social time. I offered her a few dollars cash and she said she needed $200, that’s it! It was for whatever, books, IAS, not for services. She had her goal to achieve and really wasted a half hour or more on me with ARC, leaving almost upset. This was before I knew of the workings of new solicitation by auditors. She was from another country and being trained, nice girl actually and a shame to have auditors using sales tactics for other than services.
I always tried to disseminate scientology based on the wins I did get. But I never got anybody, my friends or family involved, I tried, and they never gave me any flack. I always thought in the back of my mind if scientology is so great, why ain’t I surviving so great. Mind you, I had wins and laughs, but it’s not like I was a model of greatness based on hubbards so stated results to be achieved. I’m just a middle class dude.
And since my involvement in scientology, I was doing no better than my family or friends.
I guess they saw that, but I didn’t since I was sitting in wins and my & others success stories.
Good post.
I’ve never been very good at recitation of scripts, especially for sales. Mostly, I just talk to people and well, I like people and just befriend them and collect them! haha Even as an excommunicated and declared suppressive person, I disseminated Scientology to people who wouldn’t leave me alone on the subject and I sent several into the Phoenix Org only to have them burned by the Org.
Example: The last person I disseminated to was a young lad who was ravenous for the subject and who, before he arrived at the Org listened to I estimate 200 hours of my taped lectures. He finally went in and told them who he was and how he knew about Scientology and who I was — I am known as a dastardly person of ill-repute (like on this blog) and well known at the Org since the 70’s. It went like this, they took his money, put him on course for a week, then reg’d him for more. He of course not having cash was then asked to go ask me for the money. Then failing that, they insisted that he disconnect from me, his employer, failing that they promptly routed him off-course because of his connection to me and kept his $1,200. To follow up on that and just to make sure they “got their product” they hounded him on his cell for months checking to see whether he had come to his senses. I believe he ended up back in the Mormon Church. That sounds like a total bullshit story but I swear on my thetan that it is true — incongruous but true.
Chris: That sounds like a total bullshit story but I swear on my thetan that it is true — incongruous but true.
DeE: I believe it! This they know how to do, make people not like them, amazing.
I was never good at sales scripts either, but I could sell other products. I gave up early on trying to get people interested.
I don’t like the kind of sales where you skillfully maneuver people who don’t want to talk to you about something they don’t want to talk about. I kind of admire it a little but don’t much care for doing it.
Hubbard admired this most of all hence his posting it on top of the Scale of (?) Production(?) and did what he rarely did which was give a wog credit and a place in his tech witness “BIG LEAGUE SALES AND CLOSING TECHNIQUES.”
Chris: BIG LEAGUE SALES AND CLOSING TECHNIQUES.”
I so remember when first heard about that. Like some bell in my bellfree, an outpoint that stuck.
When SCN is complete and consistent then its a bliss because then it means you’re completely free –as this is what it is supposed to be.
When it isn’t, and if you say otherwise you are wrong, bad, evil, guilty, have-mus, ignore-the-facts etc etc it is suppression, according to my vocabulary –an overt against which you’re not allowed to act.
I don’t insist hard that people cannot be completely free with SCN, but if one thinks he isn’t completely free, yet insist his road to total freedom is complete, or if he thinks about 10.000 things he ‘has to do’ daily, yet he insists that this is total freedom, I think he really invalidates himself and his freedom. This isn’t criticism. For me it’s good to know there ‘have to’s and ‘can’t’s don’t have to be.
Thing is, Scientology cannot be both complete and consistent. In fact, it cannot be a Bridge to consistent Total Freedom. Not even if LRH lived a billion years and researched 18 hours per day.
So, Scientology is complete, thus is inconsistent. And people that may wanted to see it as incomplete, believe is consistent.
I put it in other way:
All the completeness Scientology stuff is inconsistent. And all the consistent tools on Scientology shows that as a whole is incomplete.
You mean because there are things in SCN that conflict with total freedom? I personally keep what is aligned with that freedom and discard the rest. But yes if I take the subject as a whole as experienced it in the COS, and evaluate it against things that people that completed OT 8 have said in one time or another, there’s no total freedom involved either.
Regardless of that, I think of total freedom as native state, basic truth etc. So I think a person may (or not) through SCN or something else be that, even if a road is not meant to ‘take’ one there.
*I think what is ‘taken’ here and there is the valence(s), not the being itself. Imagine static having case….where does he have it? When? How?…it’s inconsistent…
The point is rather that you cannot have a consistent system that consistently brings about total freedom no matter how much or hard you work at it. According to Gödel’s.
Ah I got it. What you said is aligned with the SCN axioms too, the way I see it. I mean you cannot have a complete stairway to truth (as-isness) when you build it with agreed upon lies (is-ness). At some point you need to operate directly from truth. About consistency: There cannot be logic without persistence-time, thus there cannot be logic without alter-isness or is-ness. So truth cannot be logical…that would be absurd 😛
Brilliant. Simply brilliant. Now go and talk to Valkov about this one.
The alter-isness in scientology comes from Hubbard’s desire to have an ongoing game ie a game that persisted. That’s why he started from truth and ended up with lies.
That is inevitable. “Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations”. Guess who said that?
You can’t have a ‘stairway to truth’ because ‘truth’ is not ‘somewhere else’. That’s why Buddha said that although his teaching leads all beings to nirvana, actually no being is led to nirvana’.
Nonetheless, stairways are necessary, are they not?
I think no one here is objecting a stairway or Bridge per se. The whole point is that such a Bridge cannot be both complete and consistent.
It seems rampant that whenever some minor detail in a person’s most precious belief is questioned, some tend to belive that their whole deck of cards are about to crumble. Valkov; Do not feel that this comment is directed at you unless you feel it is.
Can a universe be both complete and consistent? I think not.
Exactly! Head and nail, Valkov. Excellent.
Yes V, we agree over the important stuff. My arguements are: SCN doesn’t contain any truth in it’s texts –only approximations of truth. If one uses those to uncreate lies (not reach truth, as that is not to be reached, like you said), he does it for himself, operating from truth. Which means if one doesn’t operate from truth, he doesn’t do it, and SCN doesn’t do it for him.
Also, you said that stairways are necessary. If that was true then no Hubbard nor anybody else would be able to create such a stairway, as he would then need to have followed another’ s stairway.
Spyros on fire. Me like.
To as-is a facsimile is do-able with an auditor there etc But how do you go about as-ising isness-MEST? What auditor? What session? What e-meter? What SCN?
Geir: Spyros on fire. Me like.
Spyros: Me like that you like 🙂
I think we do largely agree Spyros. All language is “heuristic” – it serves to point towards reality. It is at best a map, and a map is not the territory.
That is why telepathy and pervasion are better than using words and language. Language is a game, thus Godel’s theorem applies. Good language game players are called poets and lawyers and such, depending on what their purposes are. Some are physicists, but who the hell understands them? Not 99% of earth’s population!
V: That is why telepathy and pervasion are better than using words and language.
S: Yes, let’s make an internet with mock ups!…oh MEST is an internet with mock ups…but an irresponsible one 😛
I counter create sometimes the becomingness (not beingness) of SCN because whenever I say or even think some argument about SCN, I can imagine a SCNist telling me “youuuuuuuu…” (blame). My intention is that SCN is examined (as-ised). Hubbard was very critical over authoritarianism and the psychoanalytic style of telling people what’s ‘wrong’ with them. And I think some have mistaken SCN for psychology, that’s why I pound it over and over. One could say I’m being irresponsible, as if I didn’t create this I wouldn’t be the effect of it. That’s true for me. I don’t have to play this game in the first place. I guess I enjoy the trouble 😛
Spyros: I’m being irresponsible, as if I didn’t create this I wouldn’t be the effect of it. That’s true for me. I don’t have to play this game in the first place. I guess I enjoy the trouble 😛
With you, and I enjoy this game too!
Valkov wrote:
The alter-isness in scientology comes from Hubbard’s desire to have an ongoing game ie a game that persisted. That’s why he started from truth and ended up with lies.
You are trying to use Scientology to understand Scientology and L Ron Hubbard.
Big Mistake.
Alanzo
I don’t think so, Al. I was responding to this post of Spyros’, using the terminology he used:
“Ah I got it. What you said is aligned with the SCN axioms too, the way I see it. I mean you cannot have a complete stairway to truth (as-isness) when you build it with agreed upon lies (is-ness). At some point you need to operate directly from truth. About consistency: There cannot be logic without persistence-time, thus there cannot be logic without alter-isness or is-ness. So truth cannot be logical…that would be absurd”
All right. Then please explain to me why truth can not be logical.
Thanks.
Alanzo
My current take on this is that it is complete. Has an answer for everything. Is there an exception?
I don’t understand Gödel’s theorem.
I know I am committing a problem here, but dammit, I don’t care.
Alanzo
I’m with ya, Al.
And I still don’t believe that bosons actually exist. And that is another serious heresy on this blog!
We will now be comm eved and have to wear dunce caps for all to see! Or worse yet, we will have to do the remedial steps to regain good standing by word clearing and really understanding quantum mechanics and Godel.
It is important to not believe things that can disprove some of your deep seated beliefs. Good rule of thumb.
The corollary is to make sure to acquire strong belief in those things that strengthen one’s beliefs. Like “the fact” that Scientology does produce Clears and OTs when it is applied correctly. And the Only reason we haven’t seen any Clears or OTs yet is because a man named Miscavige has corrupted the only complete and consistent path to Total Freedom.
YOU maybe haven’t seen any Clears and OTS, I have seen some back in the day.
On a related topic, I think all the folks who cry for “testing” to prove or disprove the existence of Clears, or specific gains from auditing as Hubbard spelled them out to be, or training gains for that matter, are looking at it bass-ackwards.
What needs to be done are studies not of whether auditing produces the exact EPs Hubbard said they produced, but studies of what in fact the various procedures and levels actually produce. Something happens, maybe not what Hubbard thought, but something does happen. And no-one has really studied it in any systematic way.
It appears at least some of the methods and procedures DO produce results or effects for or on many individuals; what are the actual results or effects? That is what needs to be studied, not what Hubbard thought they would produce. Sometimes they may produce what he thought, other times they may produce some other result. Sometimes no result.
These things matter more (to me) than whether bosons actually exist. And I wager they might matter to more others, too.
Maybe I’m yanking your chain when I mention bosons, maybe not. Factually I am not interested at this point in devoting much time to the study of modern physics. It is a language all its own, like scientology nomenclature, which some people object to the use of, because they don’t understand it. Well, no need for me to belabor it anymore.
I am still pondering what you mean about Godel’s theorem vs.scientology, starting with the idea that it is a Theorem. No conclusion yet, but I haven’t really put much effort into it yet, either.
Nah, youre not yanking any chains. You are simply showing your ignorance of physics.
Did you see any Provable Clears or OTs back in the days? Or just people you thought were amazing. I mean, have you seen proof of “exteriorization at will” or “total recall”?
As for Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, let’s start off with the definition of “theorem”:
“A mathematical statement of some importance that has been proven to be true. Minor theorems are often called propositions. Theorems which are not very interesting in themselves but are an essential part of a bigger theorem’s proof are called lemmas” (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theorem)
I believe Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems to be a more basic truth than any truth proposed by Hubbard. I think it points to both the necessity of free will, the reason for the universe and how to realize one’s abilities.
I find this quite interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
There’s that word ‘proof’ you and Chris like so much. So inapplicable!
What do you see when you look in the mirror? Do you have any proof of that? There is no RWOT.
There could not possibly be an intelligent rebuttal to that comment of yours. Let it stand unanswered in all it glory.
Ah! You may be close to hearing the sound of one hand clapping then. Good job. Then the intelligence will arise. You are alucky man. Unlike myself, there is hope for you yet.
Geir: Did you see any Provable Clears or OTs back in the days? Or just people you thought were amazing. I mean, have you seen proof of “exteriorization at will” or “total recall”?
Chris: I would say that the ontological argument for God may also be transferred to the argument for Clear and OT. Do you see a problem with this concept?
Geir: I think it points to both the necessity of free will, the reason for the universe and how to realize one’s abilities.
Chris: Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem is of course brilliant but his ontological proof of God fails to fully utilize his incompleteness theorem.
For me, Godel exploits the incompleteness of the tautology of the world around us by falsifying the value and workability of assumptions regarding free will vs determinism and not by showing either one or the other to be superior.
Geir: I think it points to both the necessity of free will, the reason for the universe and how to realize one’s abilities.
Chris: An example is the tautology “It is what it is.” Many people default to this explanation of what they cannot explain in order to create the sense of both completeness and consistency in their understanding. A cursory look at this cliche for me shows “It is” to be an abstraction of processes occurring within range of my perception. And also “what it is” a second statement of abstraction. For me, nothing is ever “what it is” except to my abstract sense of perception.
The assertion of free will is in my opinion the result of an attempt to make one’s ego both complete and consistent. Somewhat like a geocentric view of the universe with the earth at the center and the universe revolving around it.
My objection is not really for or against either free will or determinism but against the way that argument is ordinarily laid out. Like the creationist vs evolutionist argument. The argument is grossly inconsistent due to the false major premise that either one or the other is true.
“And the Only reason we haven’t seen any Clears or OTs yet is because a man named Miscavige has corrupted the only complete and consistent path to Total Freedom.”
Is this intended to refer to me? If so, you have clearly not read very many of my posts, or have read them very selectively, because I believe nothing of the kind.
Very big fail in my book. Kind of a giant straw man.
You shouldn’t feel that it was diected at you. It was more of a general statement toward a view that I see prevalent in some 80% of outspoken Independent Scientologists, maybe even 90%.
Yet it is something I have seen you post repeatedly in response to something I have posted, so something about me seems to trigger that response from you..
So perhaps you should not tell me what I should or should not feeL? That might be seen by someone as an attempt to control or’influence’, after all. hehehehehe.
What good are general statements of that kind? If they don’t apply to anyone in particular, then they don’t describe reality…..
For me, it begins with the little snail, or whatever that is, above the “o” in “Gödel”.
What the fuck is that?
It’s a diacritical mark. All it does is change the pronounciation of the vowel somewhat; we even do this in English; we just forget to add the marks 🙂
Take these two words, regular Enlgish pronounciation from England:
stone
scone
A consistent language would write the “o”s different as they are spoken differently. German does this. French has it too with accents on the e vowel.
And that’s all they are – little marks
Thank you for that, Splog.
LOL
Try this for starters: http://blog.plover.com/math/Gdl-Smullyan.html
OK, I read the short explanation. It seems totally irrelevant. What occurs to me is that you really have no empirical view that it applies to Scientology and are engaged in some totally discursive reasoning in an attempt to account for the perceived ‘failures’of scientology to live up to someone’s expectations or standards. At best you think you have seen non-standard widgets coming off the conveyor belt and are trying to account for them. The problem is, there is actually no conveyor belt or machining process, only the illusion of one.
What is unwarranted, is the assertion that it can never be done, which is what your theorem tells you. But the monkeys with their Ipads are working on it right this very minute. (They aren’t using typewriters anymore)
Wow. You have no clue what the theorems say, do you? To flip through some words on a page that happens to be perhaps the most profound mathematical proof in history and come up with this? Wow again. I can understand why you object to the existence of bosons. Move over, let me talk to that philosophically interested person standing right behind you.
I am not mathematically inclined, that is, my interests don’t run in that direction, yet I have managed to survive just fine. Did you know that most people never use even all the math they studied in high school and end up forgetting much of it, and don’t suffer at all for it?
At the other extreme, you get Vinnie….
I think it’s a fine hobby and have nothing against people who have an interest in it. (As long as they don’t start thinking they are’better’ than others because of it) My wife has a strong interest in geneology and knows how to research an individual’s family history. She teaches classes in it, but it’s not my bag, either.
There are interesting aspects of mathematics, however. Like knowing probabilities and how to calculate them at the card table, which can enhance your winnings at the casino, for example.
I am surprised that anyone could be surprised by such diversity! Oh wow indeed.
You: Did you know that most people never use even all the Scientology they studied and end up forgetting much of it, and don’t suffer at all for it?
Me: Yeah, I know.
You may be wise not to dismiss wholesale stuff that you have little or no clue about.
Which stuff is that? I did take 4 years of math in high school and got good grades. But I didn’t pursue it and forgot much of it. God! what if I wasn’t able to forget stuff, and had to carry all that in my mind all the time?
And I’ve been meaning to ask, Why do you so frequently give me advice?
Is there some stairway you expect me to climb?
You seem to crave advice. If not, why are you feigning ignorant so often? Or is it not feigning?
Is saying I don’t believe in bosons the same thing as asking for advice? I don’t think so.
And what Spyros said about scientology applies to mathematical theorems as well. The truth is not actually in them,in the words. They are at best heuristic devices.
If you perceive truth directly, you don’t need them; but they may act as stairways for those who do not at the moment perceive truth directly. But he words may themselves add an additional barrier if they are not understood.
How many, if any, people have perceived truth by us talking and talking on this blog? I would say that if even one has, that is sufficient justification.
You are making my point well.
I must confess I have at times had the thought that I made your point as well or sometimes better than you did yourself. At least differently. Now the gods will strike me down for the sin of pride!
But I am always happy to help out a buddy when I can, so I prefer to think of it as an occassional positive synergy between us.
Good 🙂
Ignorance is necessary in order to have a game. Ignorance is Not-knowing. I thought that was understood here. perhaps I was mistaken.
A display of ignorance seems to elicit responses from you, among them, the giving of advice. Does this indicate a need on your part to ‘cure’ or do something about the ignorance of others?
This is a dangerous ‘guru’ tendency! 🙂
I was suspecting you feigned ignorance to solicit discussions. It seems I was wrong. I will take your ignorance more seriously next time.
Whatever. Sometimes it is best to ignore ignorance because you might get more of what you put your attention on. And being more serious doesn’t seem like a worthy goal. EG Vinnie is serious….
He is.
Thank you for that, Geir. I am reading it and trying to figure it out. But as I do that, I keep thinking of Emergence Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Oh well, back to Gödel…
Alanzo
Emergence in this case is like trying to build a four dimension object in a three dimensional world. Tell me if you can emerge that.
OK. I am beginning to see it.
If a system is complete, it can not be consistent.
If a system is consistent, it can not be complete.
I don’t think L Ron Hubbard was aware of this theorem.
Alanzo
Exactly.
I think you are right when you say that Hubbard probably didn’t know about this theorem. His berating of and ignorance of mathematics seems to validate this point.
As with Valkov, I am not mathematically inclined.
However, I certainly value the logical discipline math imposes on a human mind. It has the invaluable effect of providing the structured analysis of problems which tend to eliminate human additives that can get in the way of coming to correct answers.
The best statement of the purpose of logic that I have seen is “preserving the truth throughout the thinking process.”
Math does that. And without math, Man would have never gotten ANYWHERE.
Understanding this theorem made my brain hurt, like lifting weights makes your muscles hurt.
Thank you for my morning workout, Gier.
Alanzo
I don’t even want to try.
But emergence is an interesting concept, so here’s a thought experiment:
If you have a system like Scientology, and members with hopes like Scientologists, and you just let the system run and go through all the myriad combinations possible, does something emerge? If so, what would it be?
I think IAS members will emerge! [joke]
splog; I think IAS members will emerge! [joke]
Well, the IAS has the most money and the members are dedicated to what use of that? Whoever holds the purse strings wins?
Splog wrote:
If you have a system like Scientology, and members with hopes like Scientologists, and you just let the system run and go through all the myriad combinations possible, does something emerge? If so, what would it be?
I think what will emerge is what exactly has emerged.
This is one of those things: It’s right there in front of our faces. Look at it. Scientology produced what we have right now.
We are looking at its results.
Yes, it has produced what it has produced. Except no-one seems to know what that is, because to know what that is one would have to factor in the CoS, the Ron’s Orgs, the rest of the Freezone, TIR, perhaps Spiritologie and other offshoots, Idenics, Enid Vien’s Dynamism, etc etc etc etc over the past 60 or so years.
So what has Scientology produced? In 25 words or less…….?
“So what has Scientology produced? In 25 words or less…….?”
Raised hopes, much failed hopes, less revitalized hopes.
8 words, somewhat cryptic I admit but to me it describes the results to a tee
And what’s interesting about your thought experiemtn is the Scientology was supposed to RELEASE THETA, that X-CAUSAL element which would create something greater than the sum of its parts – which “strong” emergence theory relies upon.
Yet what we have after the Scientology system ran for 63 years is a Great Dissipation – a complete display of Entropy in its classic sense. The second law of thermodynamics tends to trump entropy when it comes to Scientology and its effects.
I hope you are satisfied, Splog.
Al: “I hope you are satisfied, Splog.”
Me: That Scientology and it’s excesses are coming to an end? Yes, I’m satisfied.
I still want to see the overall human condition improved though, we know Scientology is not how to do it so I still hope that something else will.
That is a very interesting question. Many things will fall out that’s for sure; however, simple rules iterated sufficiently produce surprising results. Some might be predictable and others not so much.
Sorry.
I wrote:
The second law of thermodynamics tends to trump entropy when it comes to Scientology and its effects
I should have written: “The second law of thermodynamics tends to trump EMERGENCE when it comes to Scientology and its effects.”
Sorry
Alanzo
“I should have written: “The second law of thermodynamics tends to trump EMERGENCE when it comes to Scientology and its effects.””
Now worries, it makes much more sense now.
Do you think Scientology, as written and as we know it, could have ever produced anything other than DM and his fleet of IAS members?
A thought is forming in my head and your recent post on hope is what triggered it. So I’m quite interesrted in what you think on this.
Al: We are looking at its results.
SP: If it produces a result you can look at, it’s not good enough 😛
V: perhaps Spiritologie and other offshoots
SP: Mostly surface similarities –no offshoot.The core basis and the aim is different.
Spyros, I don’t know about Spiritolgie, but I could certainly include Alan Walter’s Knowledgism. And that is only a short list. For a much more detailed list, just look up the huge number of spinoff and splinter groups that ’emerged’ as a result of Hubbard and Scientology and were “Declared” as Suppresive groups by the CoS/LRH. There are a ton of them and they were very widespread.
Yes Valkov, I have checked out various websites, from time to time, ever since I left the COS, but not in detail, so I can’t tell.
I just wanted to make clear what I know about SPT. I’ve read from people calling them (all those you mentioned) squirrels…I think a squirrel squirrels in the name of SCN. He claims to use SCN, but doesn’t fully do that, or not at all.
If all that resembled SCN was squirrel, then SCN would be Plato’s and Gautama’s squirreling too –and I don’t know whom else 😛
Imagine how suppressive it would be for a person to claim the copyrights over the concepts (not words) of thetan, infinity, the 8 dynamics, self/pan determinism, responsibility etc. It would be an effort to control….badly. Some older religions did that. They said “We know God…but only US. You violate our copyrights over God…die!”
So, I don’t think that’s what Hubbard meant by ‘squirreling’ as I don’t think of him as suppressive.
Spyros:”Imagine how suppressive it would be for a person to claim the copyrights over the concepts (not words) of thetan, infinity, the 8 dynamics, self/pan determinism, responsibility etc. It would be an effort to control….badly.”
Me: Lucky for all of us, courts and lawyers are smarter than that. You can’t copyright a concept or an idea. You can only copyright a specific artistic work i.e. be able to make a copy of it (the word literally derives from “copy”.
RTC can copyright DMSMH, but not the idea of engrams, that’s another branch of law altogether.
Here’s a 43 page listing of “suppressive groups” and individuals published by Flag in September of 1991. I t is well worth reading; I think anyone would be surprised at the groups and organizations included on this list!
Click to access suppressive-groups-and-individual-soed-2830-1991.pdf
Page #17 is missing – the page with David Mayo’s name.
Here’s a list from 1992 which does have Mayo’s name on it.
However neither list has some names I would expect to find on such a list.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/enemy_list.html
Val: http://www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/enemy_list.html. List with Mayo’s name.
I liked the one with all the ACC’s. This list did not have my name.
Thanks again, it was a Neat find!
Val: Here’s a 43 page listing of “suppressive groups” and individuals published by Flag in September of 1991.
Click to access suppressive-groups-and-individual-soed-2830-1991.pdf
DeE: I’m happy you put up this link. Many years ago my mate and I looked at it and found his name (left in ’82) and his first wife (who was never a Scio). I looked for my name since they never contacted me after I married David Findlay ’87, tho they watched us always, living in same city, with our own publication.
I didn’t look into further down list of the Expelled till now, and see it (first nickname spelled wrong, Dina (was Deena Bruno-Johnson) so that was me and never knew it was there. Wow, I was never expelled to my knowledge but was disaffected and did associate with some of the enemies after my stint as an undercover spy for them for 4 years was over. Even when I went back in ’10 after they solicited me, did they ever tell me I had been was expelled. Now I know that it was to cover their own butt in case I ever told all or was caught. And if I was found out I would’ve probably agreed to save my “church” from bad PR. Of course I leaned it was an overt either way you look at it. Catch 22.
I can laugh now as karma sure is in order and has been grand and fair.
Did you find many people you knew? I knew some. What a fantastic list huh? Goes to show how many more are out than in. Can you imagine what the list today would look like? I was told they no longer make one.
Thank you Val 🙂
Valkob – The SOED list has been updated many times since. What you see in 91 and again in 92 is the list as of that date. The last list in the public view is 21 years old. Many of the names you would expect on it have long since been added since 92 – I am sure of that. This list is sent to OSA and to HCO’s. It is not broadly published. I am not even sure if the local org HCO’s even get the full list any more. Too much of a chance someone will recognize another good guy on the black hat list and think WTF, or whiskey tango foxtrot.
SA: I am not even sure if the local org HCO’s even get the full list any more.
That’s similar to what Ben Shaw in OSA told me in ’10 when I mentioned seeing the list on the net.
Geir: “You can create a free account and submit a video if you like”
ME: Ok. This is my contribution to Gödel’s guinea pig. It will feels like I’m trying to make a big point here.
– Inspired on real events. Any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental – (?)
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/14562620/scientology-and-the-telepathic-researches
(The video may still being rendered, I’m going to put the script later)
It may take a while for the video to be rendered (there is a queue). Tell us when you get the e-mail saying the video is ready. I am waiting in anticipation 😉
There were technical problems and it didn’t work. I corrected some “camera” and I think it was a bug. This is the new link:
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/14565907/scientology-and-the-telepathic-researches
Wow.
The Script:
Researcher: I researched the whole issue of the ESP (ie, extra sensory perception), elements of the field of parapsychology, physical telepathy, telepathic channeling, mediumship, altered and expanded states of consciousness, meditation, brainwave induction, psychotronic elements, improving and application of various types of intelligence (not just IQ, you know)…
Man in Black: …
Researcher: And certainly I had an interest in the advanced levels of Scientology. All OT processes, advanced studies and researches, and at least comparable results in certain cycles of actions, should have given me the tools both to confirm and to discard many of the subjective phenomena I was curious about.
Man in Black: Are you saying that Scientology didn’t work for your squirrel issues? Scientology is a consistent body of knowledge and acknowledgment, it leads you to being confident about knowing how to know. You have too much misunderstandings, poor definitions and confusion because of all your research with mixed data from obsolete systems. Every phenomenon outside Scientology could be translated and be equivalent to Scientology system as the most advanced spiritual and mental field.
Researcher: I know that everything could be pass through the lens of Scientology, and that’s the point. I know most of the references, and there is no experiment at all. I believed all the theories to the point they were going to help me with my researches, factual and pragmatic researches.
Man in Black: What happened then?
Researcher: The theories itself were too inconsistent to work with them.
Man in Black: You don’t say!
Researcher: It was like the scientologists didn’t believe in phenomenons outside their epistemological bubble. This may be harsh, but they demonstrated me that they don’t even believe in channelers or give some credit to mediumship. How that may be possible? If they believe in OT levels and stuff that may explain all of this kind of spiritual experiences.
Man in Black: They don’t believe or not believe, for them it is matter of knowingness, control and responsibility. If you are going to invoke some spirit then you must know what you are doing. And what you are doing is letting a suppresive entity to take control over your body while you are not being yourself, you are not in your own valence. That is dangerous, you also going to be completly restimulated by all your previous deaths and supressions from your past lives. Do you want to cave-in yourself?
Researcher: Why any non-physical entity should be suppressive? Are you telling me that scientologists do believe this phenomenon but they are afraid of it? Why anybody couldn’t tune to disembodied masters from the THETA universe if the physical universe is only the tip of the iceberg? I’m talking about channeling, not possessions. It has a difference. Wasn’t Hubbard a channeler or mystic?
Man in Black: You have to clear too much concepts you have misunderstood. All the channelers, mediums, witches, mages, whatever, always ends badly, they get sick, and mentally cave-in their cases. They are PTS, and also some of them are pre-OT, so their cases are more complex to be handled. And they have their own spiritual point of view and too many explanations, they always do Q&A to eveything. They squirrels the Scientology tech and corrupts Scientology philosophy by adapting this consistent system to their own subjectivity and confusion.
Researcher: I understand, according to what are you saying and all the references I looked, that you first got your case correctly and happily handled, you went Clear, and passed trough OT processes, then you may have the self-deterministic power to doing this things without risk and to evaluate its utility?
Man in Black: Exactly, Why are you so interested on this stuff if you at least have to be Clear and achieve Clear conditions first? You will get your own case peeping and skewing your objective investigation. You will fail, as you will be biased.
Researcher: Are you telling me that I must be Clear in order to get done correctly an objective investigation? What about if I’m doing experiments with Clears and OTs that already have confirmed their status? And what about selecting a specific entity to be tuned? Hubbard himself for example.
Man in Black: What? No! Hubbard is working outside its body now. He don’t want to be bothered with silliness.
Researcher: How the heck you know that? And why an OT could not tune the Hubbard spirit? He is dead since 1986, What he is supposed to do since then? I guess this is a brillant idea: an OT channeling Hubbard theta core or Static, or whatever name it should get. Isn’t marvellous?
Man in Black: You are freak! you are not seeing the bigger picture. If Hubbard come back in any way, he is going to hammer off all the bad technology and kick off all the squirrels and corruption since…
Researcher: …since Miscavige? Hubbard may continue in the king’s chair, managing orders, commands and policies? Are you telling me there’s an interest conflict here?
Man in Black: They will be harsh with the channeler as a martyr, they won’t believe anything, doesn’t matter if it is Hubbard spirit or not. And of course it will be too many interest conflicts, starting with the phenomenon itself. Hubbard communicating through a suppressive process? No way!
Researcher: So, we first have to unveil and demonstrate the channeling phenomena if only to be sure!
Man in Black: No way!
Researcher: If only to see if it could be systematized and objectively directed so the message from the outer world will get clean. We can reduce its error margins. We can use all the Scientology data technology.
Man in Black: You are not making any sense! Stop it!
Researcher: If we could achieve that first encounter, then we are going to get nice paradoxes.
Man in Black: Stop !
Researcher: What if I told you that our first paradox will be Hubbard’s spirit as being the first attempt? Why? Because he can’t deny the phenomenon itself! And the phenomenon itself will be against his own statements about it! So, maybe he will get stuck in some kind of interest conflict. Or maybe he doesn’t want to communicate and he won’t communicate, violating one of the first rules. Whatever his condition will be, may be looked as a trap. But I guess Hubbard is clever to resolve that.
Man in Black: I’m suffering cognitive dissonance… you are killing me. Please, stop!
Researcher: Why you would get a cognitive dissonance? I’m talking about serious business here, this is reality, or at least an attempt for settling reality.
Man in Black: No, you are speaking nonsense and trying to confuse me.
Researcher: Then handle your confusion and PTS condition, and move on. There’s a lot of issues on Scientology about the spiritual universe I’m talking about. There is the akasha and akashic records. There is even a book called “Excalibur Revisited” and tells about the Akasha. What are you doing on Scientology if you are not going to further investigate that spiritual universe?
Man in Black: Fuck you! Let the Clusters on your head SP your darkness intentions! Bt’s, bt’s everywhere… and volcanoes. And rainbow pukes on unicorns. Shall lala my family lili lies rest in peace-es!
Researcher: Are you on the Akasha right now?
Man in Black: The FBI took my stuff, and the CIA reversed scientology! I failed, we are doom!
Researcher: Are you in present time?
Man in Black: I’m done with you, scumbag!
*BEEP*
Researcher: End of experiment number 6. End of phenomena: the same as the rest. We didn’t make it, again…
Man in Black: This is not going anywhere. You should stop trying to contact Hubbard, I can’t take much more of him.
Researcher: Yes, I know. This research has ended. Let’s try again but with Krishnamurti as a Case Supervisor.
Man in Black: NO!
Researcher: Ok.
Petteko – Fabulous video!
Godel’s incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. I do not know if Godel’s argument can be extended to as complex a system as the universe.
.
Definitions:
de•ter•min•ism (noun)
1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.
axiomatic system
In mathematics, an axiomatic system is any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction to logically derive theorems.
complete
A set of axioms is complete if, for any statement in the axioms’ language, either that statement or its negation is provable from the axioms.
consistent
A set of axioms is (simply) consistent if there is no statement such that both the statement and its negation are provable from the axioms.
e·nu·mer·ate verb (used with object)
1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.
2. to ascertain the number of; count.
effectively generated
A formal theory is said to be effectively generated if there is a computer program that, in principle, could enumerate all the axioms of the theory without listing any statements that are not axioms. This is equivalent to the existence of a program that enumerates all the theorems of the theory without enumerating any statements that are not theorems.
.
Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that:
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory…
Gödel’s theorem shows that, in theories that include a small portion of number theory, a complete and consistent finite list of axioms can never be created, nor even an infinite list that can be enumerated by a computer program. Each time a new statement is added as an axiom, there are other true statements that still cannot be proved, even with the new axiom. If an axiom is ever added that makes the system complete, it does so at the cost of making the system inconsistent.
There are complete and consistent lists of axioms for arithmetic that cannot be enumerated by a computer program. For example, one might take all true statements about the natural numbers to be axioms (and no false statements), which gives the theory known as “true arithmetic”. The difficulty is that there is no mechanical way to decide, given a statement about the natural numbers, whether it is an axiom of this theory, and thus there is no effective way to verify a formal proof in this theory.
This may mean that if this universe (with both its physical and spiritual aspects) can be expressed through a consistent set of principles, then there is a truth about this universe that cannot be demonstrated using those set of principles. That truth may look at this universe (as a whole) exactly for what it is. Such a truth may not be derivable from the set of principles that supposedly describe the universe.
.
Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem states that:
For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.
The second incompleteness theorem does not rule out consistency proofs altogether, only consistency proofs that could be formalized in the theory that is proved consistent. The second incompleteness theorem is similar to the Liar’s paradox, “This sentence is false,” which contains an inherent contradiction about its truth value.
This may mean that this universe cannot contain the ultimate truth about itself. The ultimate truth is unknowable from the reference point of this universe.
.
If we go by the definition of determinism that all facts and events exemplify natural laws, we cannot say for certain if that is true or not. In other words, not everything may be predictable ahead of its occurrence.
Manifestations may be related to each other in strict logical sequence meaning that any manifestation may be shown to follow from another manifestation. However, it may be impossible to determine how a manifestation may come to be on its own. This is another version of saying, “Absolutes are unattainable.”
So a system may be deterministic only in a relative sense. It can neither be absolutely deterministic, nor can it be absolutely non-deterministic.
Gödel and Determinism
.
Applause. In fact a rolling-thunder-applause. Awesome, Vinaire.
I may add that according to Gödel, his theorems do extend to the universe as a whole as seen in his ontological proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof#Criticism_of_G.C3.B6del.27s_proof
I think this stuff is substantial. Beyond anything Hubbard wrote.
That link is to my blog. I hope you and other visitors to your blog don’t mind.
.
I don’t mind because a) It is directly relevant to the OP, and b) it is the full text and thus possible to comment right here on any parts of the text.
It’s really, really good.
Thank you.
.
Oh look! Two nerds coming together in the wild.
Will they start mating?
Let’s hide behind this bush and see…
Alanzo
Well I’ve been reading these posts and finally come to the conclusion that I don’t even see how Godel et al even relate to Hubbard or scientology. I guess I haven’t gotten into whatever aspect of scientology and Hubbard’s writing you are viewing. It seems irrelevant to the aspects of scientology I have been interested in.
How does it relate, for example, to the Pilot’s stuff? It never even occured to me to think any universe was complete in the first place.
Chris Thompson
2013-03-01 @ 16:27
Geir: Thesis: The universe contains all there is and all there ever will be, it is a complete and closed system and causally deterministic.
Chris: For the universe to be a complete and closed system, it would include all space-time. Is the universe complete or closed? Its accelerating expansion points toward it being an open system receiving continuous injections of space-time for unknown reasons. Therefore, the universe as it is compared to how it will be is incomplete, thus falsifying the major premise.
Does this speak to the OP?
It doesn’t really matter (your argument doesn’t hold) – because at any given moment in time, it is what it is – not complete. Only infinity completes it – and not even that.
Geir writes:
Only infinity completes it – and not even that.
At this point in your argument, I feel transported to a strange place where reality does not exist.
Can you bring this down to our own planet?
And if not, then what good is it?
Sincere questions.
Start.
Alanzo
Alanzo SCN isn’t about creating reality. That’s what the COS is trying to do. If it isn’t any good for someone, then it isn’t. Maybe another wants something else?
Why I get jumpy with SCN being compared to sciences:
Plato’s theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.
…
But what were the forms? In Plato’s dialogues as well as in general speech there is a form for every object or quality in reality: forms of dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness. Form answers the question, “What is that?” Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is. He supposed that the object was essentially or “really” the Form and that the phenomena were mere shadows mimicking the Form; that is, momentary portrayals of the Form under different circumstances. The problem of universals – how can one thing in general be many things in particular – was solved by presuming that Form was a distinct singular thing but caused plural representations of itself in particular objects.[13] Matter was considered particular in itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms
Even if you combine an infinite number of three dimensional objects, you will never be able to create a four dimensional object. Thus, IMO, even if you combine Quantum Mechanics and all the emergence of matter you can muster, you will never emerge consciousness.
Interesting. I will sleep on that one.
This is the new link: http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/14565907/scientology-and-the-telepathic-researches
The Script:
Thank you Petteko for the script. Precious
Wonderful piece of work! Very creative and easy to watch for those of us who are moving beyond the shadow of Scientology. For those still hunkering in the shadows, this dissertation may cause some discomfort, possibly fever, pneumonia as well as death.
Valkov said:
[The alter-isness in scientology comes from Hubbard’s desire to have an ongoing game ie a game that persisted. That’s why he started from truth and ended up with lies.
That is inevitable. “Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations”. Guess who said that?
You can’t have a ‘stairway to truth’ because ‘truth’ is not ‘somewhere else’. That’s why Buddha said that although his teaching leads all beings to nirvana, actually no being is led to nirvana’.
Nonetheless, stairways are necessary, are they not?]
SPACE
SPACE
SPACE
Phoenix Lectures, LRH:
[Anybody would know anything that was going on if he didn’t have to prove it. Proof, conviction, is itself a very early level of aberration. As soon as you have to start proving things and convincing people of things, why then you have to get into agreement with them and in order to do this — you have to Alter-is. You have to have something persist long enough for them to see it, so that they can then understand what it is. So in order for them to really understand what it is you can’t possibly put up something that they understand what is, because if they saw completely what it was it would disappear, so you would not have been able to have proven it.
I hope you follow this very closely! Because actually what I am talking about here makes sense easily if strung together and looked at in a rational way. But if you try to Alter-is it, if you try to change it around, then you’ll be able to remember it perfectly, but if you merely accept exactly what I am saying at each and every point, you know this already, so it won’t exist. Now this is a very bad thing, I realize, so the best thing for me to do would be to color, if I really wanted this material to be remembered, to color the material so that it appeared to be something else than what it was. I could do that, for instance, by talking about your egg libidol, and your re-conscious. I could quote authorities who didn’t exist. That’s always best, you know. That’s really a curve, you see. Nobody could ever see those, so they can’t ever disappear. And I could quote these authorities which didn’t exist but which you couldn’t disprove and we could go on about the counter-reflex of the seratopol palsy and the og libidol, the bog libidol, the sog libidol and the mog libidol and how we would categorize these things as explanatory to the behavior of a feeshee preservation on the part of young alligators, and this nonsense of course would then be utterly comprehensible because it could be so remembered in every detail particularly if it were altered from what I was really talking about — in trying to talk to you about turbo-electric systems, for example, with that amount of data injected into it.]
Me: I am not agreeing or disagreeing. Just completing the cycle 🙂
Evidently the Axioms are pretty close to the truth. Even Hubbard said it sometimes made them hard to remember.
LRH is a fcking LEGEND 🙂
yay, happy fathers day to you all, except LRH. A very legendary bad one, by records.
rip Quentin Hubbard. CLASS 12 AUDITOR
Yes, sir. That’s right. Well said. Good work! Great find! Kudos!
Keep it up 🙂
Ayarsee, you need to use the reply button directly under the comment you wish to reply to, instead typing in the generaly reply box at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, how can anyone tell which comment you’re referring to!? 😉
No 🙂
I’m done here. You guys have fun 🙂
Fare thee well. 🙂