Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Scientology; Dianetics in a Nutshell

Posted 35 months ago|83 comments|693 views
VIDEOS
Written by
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
Dianetics is the base tome of the Scientology faith. It lays out the bedrock, the foundation of Scientology. It portrays itself as a scientific “self help” guide to the human mind and proposes that it’s a factual, scientific breakthrough.

“It is An organized science of thought built on definite axioms (statement of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences. )
(from Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health by L. Ron Hubbard. Pg 11)

Alas; this is not the case, Dianetics is a poorly wrought pseudo scientific explanation of how the mind works, nothing more. It is written in such a way to sound impressive to people lacking formal education, but it is not backed by facts. The ideas in Dianetics are simply the opinions of one man, Science Fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.

Hubbard begins his book this way, indeed; many books in Scientology start out like this;

“In reading this book, be very certain you never go past a word you do not understand.”

He goes on to say that the only reason a person gives up a study, becomes confused or is unable to learn is because they have gone past a word they did not understand. If you find yourself not comprehending some part of the book, go back and find the misunderstood word, then look it up.

This is absurd on the face of it. It’s a different type of reading than the one I was taught. Running into words that I don’t understand happens from time to time. I don’t go to a dictionary every time this happens. Sometimes a quick look at the glossary is enough or sometimes I can get the definition of the word from context. I don’t recall ever failing to understand a book or chapter because I didn’t understand a word. Also, it’s generally up to the author not the reader to convey the meaning of a passage or a page. This putting responsibility for not understanding on the reader, a hallmark of Scientology if ever there was one.

Hubbard might also be talking about his own study habits. Hubbard admits that he was a very poor student, flunking out of High School and never graduating from a formal collage.

“I had neglected to go to High School,” says Hubbard [Introduction to Dianetics (Audio presentation, part 4, page 6 included transcript.)]

I’ve have a problems allowing a self-described failure of a student tell me the right way to read. And Hubbard now wants to tell me about Psychology, when he admittedly does not have the tools to study any subject?

Hubbard begins Dianetics by saying that the overall command of an organism is to survive. This is the base tenant of Dianetics and indeed, the entire Scientology movement. This “dynamic principle” as he calls it is a correct idea (although I think most people involved in biology would suggest the genes are the entity most endowed with the “survival command.”) That’s just science though, what does it have to do with Dianetics?

Not much apparently!

Hubbard goes on to describe the human mind. Hubbard suggests that there are in fact three parts of the human mind. The Analytical mind, the Reactive mind and the Somatic Mind. According to Hubbard, the Analytical mind functions just like a computer.

“It is a perfect calculating machine.” He says. “All functions of the Analytical mind can be described as a function of data processing. The human mind also remembers everything perfectly, better than any recording device. The human mind is a perfect machine indeed.” Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health page 62)

“Like a computer, the standard memory banks are perfect, recording faithfully and reliably.” (DTMSOMH Page 64)

But this is a story of the mind and all good stories must have an antagonist. For Hubbard, the antagonist is the “Reactive Mind.”

“If there ever was a devil, he designed the reactive mind” writes Hubbard.( DTMSOMH page 70)

According to Hubbard, the Reactive is to blame for all of our fears, our shortcoming and even most infectious disease. Any bad decision, any and all mistakes can be attributed to the reactive mind. According to Hubbard, It is our single greatest impediment. This is a running thread throughout all of Scientology but it begins in Dianetics. Essentially, people are not really responsible for what they do. It’s the reactive mind, thetans, suppressive persons or something!

In Dianetics, the reactive mind and all the bad data put into it becomes the scapegoat for all of our problems, but we are fortunate! There is Dianetics therapy to help us get rid of the pesky Reactive mind’s influence and get us to our true potential.

How does the Reactive Mind do all of this? How can we stop the Reactive mind from interfering with our true potential to be super special beings with immunity to the common cold and perfect memory? Hubbard never really explains this very well, he talks about how each cell has a built in super-duper recorder and how each cell can remember everything that happens to us in glorious Technicolor. It is not clear how this works but Hubbard assures us, it is all scientific.

Luckily Hubbard was the very first person in the history of world to come up with the answer to fix the broken reactive mind. It’s Dianetics therapy! And what can you fix with Dianetics therapy?

“Arthritis, dermatitis , allergies, some coronary difficulties, eye trouble, “ says Hubbard.” bursitis, ulcers, sinusitis, etc, form a very small section of the psychosomatic catalog. Bizarre aches and pains in various portions of the body are generally psychosomatic. Migraine head-aches are psychosomatic and , with others are uniformly cured by Dianetic therapy. (and the word cured is used in its fullest sense.)”

Hubbard goes on to say that the common cold is psychosomatic and can be cured using Dianetics therapy. Also Tuberculosis [DTMSOMH page 125]

How do you do all that? Well apparently the reactive mind is full of engrams. Engrams are perfect recordings of trauma that are picked up in an unconscious or semi conscious state by those super data recorders in our cells. They are like complex computer programs that change the way our minds work. It is sort of involuntary form of self hypnosis.

Engrams affect us in all kinds of strange ways. Say if a person was afraid of dogs, an engram is to blame. One was created during an accident (like a fall that knocked you out cold.) During the time you were unconscious a dog barked. From that time you would be afraid of dogs.
Simple right? By guiding a person through the fall incident, the unreasoned fear of dogs can be “erased” from the reactive bank. It sounds so simple! And actually it is, psychological counselors use this kind of technique all the time. Dianetics seems to be nothing more than a crude kind of regression or talk therapy.

But wait, there’s more! Hubbard “discovered“ even small babies create engrams. Not just small babies, unborn babies get them from their moms! According to Hubbard, most pregnant women try to abort their fetuses and every time they do this, an engram is created. Engrams are also created when husbands beat their pregnant spouses, in “Hubbard world” this supposedly happens all the time. In fact, one of the creepy things about Dianetics is the overwhelmingly violent “case histories.” People are constantly slapping, shouting and punching each other. Pregnant women seem to be a favorite target for many get repeatedly punched in the stomach by their husbands.
For example, Hubabrd writes dialog for this “case history;”

“Father “Stay here! Stay down damn you, you ****! I’m going o kill you this time, I said I would and I will. Take that”, (Intensified somatic as his knee is ground into the mother’s abdomen.) “You better start screaming, go on, scream for mercy…… “
Hubbard goes on in this vein for about four more paragraphs. [DTMSOMH pg 437.)

Somehow, the idea that this kind of violence is commonplace is a bit strange when found in an introductory self-help book. Perhaps it’s not so surprising that many people leaving Scientology tell consistent stories of physical abuse, beatings, verbal and mental abuse. All seem commonplace in Scientology. Violence appears to be an approved form of management according to a recent Saint Petersburg Times article.

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/#story_anchor

When reading this kind of stuff, one ceases to wonder why. There is apparently violence inherent in Scientology, down to its very roots. It begins in Dianetics.
Dianetics (so Hubbard claims) is based on “axioms.” An axiom is roughly a “self evident truth or fact.” For example, if I said “Fire is hot,” that would be an axiom; we don’t need to test this fact needlessly. We all know fire is hot (although I can prove that fire is actually cold in relation to lots of things.)

The term “axiom” is not actually used very much outside of mathematics. However, Hubbard makes many claims in Dianetics that are based on what he calls axioms. Most of these seem to be opinions. In fact if someone were to substitute the words “facts,” “ truth” and “axiom” in much of Hubbard’s writings with “In my opinion,” you would find that his conclusions are not based on any pre-agreed truths or facts, unless you think Hubbard’s opinions are facts. Hubbard apparently did not know what a fact was. It is abundantly clear that many of his followers make this same mistake.

What this all boils down to is very simply, Dianetics is not a “study” of anything. Hubbard’s so-called “technology” is not technology in the conventional sense. Dianetics is a system of faith healing based on one man’s opinion about how the mind works. It is not based on scientific principles; it is not based on fact, it’s not a science at all. Dianetics is a set of beliefs taken on faith. There is no testing, no university studies and no peer reviewed journals. Only Hubbard himself making one declarations and building the next on top of it.

There are reams of “testimonies” of how Dianetics has helped people; none of this lends any weight to Hubbard’s ideas. None can be used for citation for the lack even a smidgen of verifiable information.

In any case; Just about any kind of therapy will help someone. But you can’t create truth or fact by lining up people and having them write testimonials on how wonderful something is. Not to mention that some if not all of the testimonials are gotten under duress.

This ladies and gentlemen is not how science is done. This is how religion is done, this is how pseudoscience is done and this is how crackpots do things, it is how a cult works. Just because Hubbard can speak authoritatively on a subject does not make him an authority. Hubbard could speak authoritatively on just about any subject, house wiring for example, I bet he could have talked all day about to wire a house, but he’s the last person I’d let inside my home to do electrical work. Why? Because he has no training and no experience, he is a lay-person and his ONLY expertise is a gift for gab.

So why is it that many people allow him inside their heads when he has no background or education in psychology? They don’t have schools to keep people out of the fields of the mind, they have schools and licenses to help keep people honest, to prevent abuse by unscrupulous operators. Unscrupulous operators like Hubbard and his followers. Hubbard had about the same expertise and experience in house wiring as he had with psychology, no wonder many people deep into Scientology behave strangely.

Why then? Why do people fall for Dianetics? Is it simply because he is able to tell a good story? I think that likely. Hubbard was able to observe human behavior and created a yarn to explain why people behaved in certain ways . Hubbard may not have been an electrician or psychologist but he was an OK writer, a fiction writer. Do you know what fiction writers do?

They start off with an idea, say “the crown jewels have been stolen by three gerbils and a ninja hamster. “ Then they work backwards, figuring out how this could have happened. With luck they will have a good story.

Hubbard (I’m convinced) started out by saying “I’m going to tell people exactly how their minds work.” Then he began working backwards and wrote Dianetics. It all sounded good and logical, the people around him liked the ideas so he got it published. Most authors would never have published such a load of junk as non-fiction, but not Hubbard! He not only published it, he built upon it, reveled in it. He found that lots of other people were asking the same questions he was, but he happened have an answer. No matter that he made it up like any of his fiction stories.
He found that he like the attention a lot, a whole lot. In fact, Hubbard appeared to become addicted to the attention; he got people to adore him. Not just some nerdy science fiction fans, people from all walks of life, people who wanted answers about how their minds worked, about their hopes and fears. Even about what happened to them after they died.

Hubbard gave them answers, and they paid more attention to him. It became a positive feedback loop, Hubbard found his cash cow but more importantly, people thought he was important. He liked that and the rest as we say, is history!

So; what is Dianetics in a nutshell?

In my opinion? It is little more than psychological faith healing i. Some of it might even be correct and useful, but I would never trust any or it. The human mind is a complex and finicky thing. It’s far too important to allow the followers of Hubbard free rein over it thought processes. Dianetics is like a gateway drug into Scientology itself. Dianetics, without stringent testing and peer review is just another crackpot idea in a bin of crackpot ideas.

Excerpts for this essay were taken from” Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health,” Copyright 1986, Bridge Publications Los Angeles CA. And the lecture “Introduction to Dianetics,” Golden Era Productions.


EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
35 months ago: Ron Hubbard made his living with his pen, long before he published Dianetics. He could sit down and write, one of the things that has been said about him: He was the only person you could take a book to on Friday and get a screen play from on Monday morning.

He could write, he knew words and could use them.

When you want to know about felling trees, you ask a tree feller. When you want to know how to pound a nail, ask a carpenter. Hubbard's tools were words and he explained how to become expert with language in Study Technology. Unfortunately, that requires some small effort and a few moments of time. You create with your new knowledge and then you are able to use your new knowledge. This means you must look up words and not simply the single meaning you question, but after clearing up your question that sent you to a good dictionary, other meanings as well, creating sentences with each.

If you want to learn how to use words, ask a successful writer how he (or she) developed vocabulary and then follow those wise directions.

But if you want to fell trees, talk to a tree feller.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Very true. If you want to find out about human behavior, talk to a Psychologist, not a Science Fiction writer
35 months ago: Terryeo, Hubbard was a science fiction writer. He knew how to string together a sentence. He knew diddly about the mind or about learning.

Here's a simple test for you. I'm going to write a sentence and replace one word with another one I've just made up. If you can decipher the meaning of the made-up word from context, you've just proved Hubbard wrong.

Here's the sentence: "Sometimes, I like to get in my flordnab and drive around in the country."

What's a flordnab? Well, if you're a human being with a reasonable grasp on language and context, you'll figure out that it's something I can get in, and it's something I can drive. In modern times, it's probably a car of some sort. But of course, you knew that already. And you figured it out without having to know what a flordnab is.
35 months ago: "He was the only person you could take a book to on Friday and get a screen play from on Monday morning"

And thats why LRH only got 1 movie ever made, Battlefield Earth, which was a box office flop.

And the movie was made after he died, so basically there were no screenplays. Should have maybe put the time into it to make something less crappy.
35 months ago: "If you want to find out about human behavior, talk to a Psychologist, not a Science Fiction writer"

If you want to find out about how to deal with your problems and help yourself, go to someone who will listen to you and not ask to be paid tons of money and sell you their books.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo, I agree with you that studying words in the manner you suggest should provide one with a richer vocabulary. It should also help ones comprehension too. However this alone will not make someone a Shakespear or a Wordsworth as you imply; it doesn't enhance ones' creative skills.

Also, understanding words does not automatically convey understand of the concepts the words are trying to represent. As discussed in another rant, understanding words that say something is true does not automatically convey understanding why it is true and certainly does not make what is said true.

Truth in the organisation calling itself the church of scientology is judged solely by source and against information provided by "source". If L Ron Hubbard (source) said it then it is true, therefore anything conflicting with L Ron Hubbard's teachings is false. The organisation also designates all "sources" other than itself or what it has approved as "unreliable" and so most likely false. The question, why is it false is never asked because the answer is "known" to be because it conflicts with what L Ron Hubbard said and does not come from a reliable source.

This is how the organisation controls what members take to be truth and it all stems from study tech suppressing questioning.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
35 months ago: I wish you would have written that essay a few years ago. I would have saved myself some money. I paid $.25 for my copy at a yard sale and I have always felt cheated.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: I did an experiment once, I read portions of Dianetics exactly the way Hubbard wanted me to. I-read-each-word-one-word-at-a-time-not-skipping-over-a-single-one-and-stopped-to-look-up-any-word-I-was-not-completely-familiar-with.

It was mesmerizing, literally! I've dabbled in hypnoses and I know that it works for many people. I think Dianetics when read the way the author intends gets people into a trance, then implants Hubbard's vision of what the world is like, evil Psychiatrists wielding ice picks, angry husbands punching their pregnant wives over and over again.

I believe this lays the foundation for people to fall for Scientology. It's step one on the gradient, the final results we can see in people like Tom Cruise and David Miscavige.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Mecca Anon: The organisation calling itself the church of scientology usually starts its events with a salvo of statistics read very quickly and accompanied with dazzling and vaguely representative graphics. This bombardment of the audience's senses actually softens them up, works them up too, so they become accepting of what follows. This technique also results in a kind of trance.

It works by providing more information than the brain can analyse. In such situations and without reason to reject the information the brain basically switches off the analytical side and just goes for getting and accepting the gist of what is said.

Having switched the analytical part off it pretty much goes in to relaxation mode and so unless something jars it back in to action it carries on merrily soaking up and accepting everything that is said.

These techniques work on everyone, the only resistance is to summarily discount the whole presentation, which may be right for those done by the organisation but may be wrong for those done else where, where the effect may be unintentional.

For members of the organisation, who are pre-conditioned so they never reject information from "source", it works every time.
35 months ago: Well, umm, Mecca Anon. If you understand study technology, why not try it out, with your fiction reading or your school subjects or with your vocation. Just try it out on any subject and find out if it is a useful-for-you method. That's the point, do you see? Application in real Life. Does that application in real Life help you or not?
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo, it read to me like Mecca Anon did try study tech and it didn't work because applying the technique mesmerized them and this was an undesirable state for them.

To break it down:

mecca anon said they TRIED - brief description of study tech - on portions of Dianetics.

Since Mecca Anon was using study tech on Dianetics then mecca anon must have being trying to study Dianetics.

Mecca Anon said this exercise mesmerised them.

So mecca anon tried study tech to study Dianetics and it mesmerised them rather than helping them study it.

Of course mecca anon may not understand study tech although the principals are quite simple.
35 months ago: There you go again, Terryeo. Why in the world should anyone use a method that results in such poor grasp of grammar, syntax, and sentence structure? If you are an example of "study technology" at its finest, then it has completely failed you. Every sentence in what you wrote above has problems.

"Well, umm, Mecca Anon." -- This is a fragment, not a complete sentence.

"If you understand study technology, why not try it out, with your fiction reading or your school subjects or with your vocation." -- This sentence has poor punctuation and grammar. Here is a copy-edited version: "If you understand study technology, why not try it out with your fiction reading, your school subjects, or your vocation?" Note the corrected use of commas and the question mark at the end.

"Just try it out on any subject and find out if it is a useful-for-you method." -- "Useful-for-you" is a poor way of expressing this concept. This would have been better: "Just try it out on any subject and find out if this method is useful for you."

"That's the point, do you see?" -- This is short, yet manages to be a run-on sentence.

"Application in real Life." -- This is another fragment, and there's no need to capitalize the word "life." You needlessly capitalize the same word in the next sentence, too.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
Terryeo;
"Well, umm, Mecca Anon. If you understand study technology, why not try it out, with your fiction reading or your school subjects or with your vocation. Just try it out on any subject and find out if it is a useful-for-you method. That's the point, do you see? Application in real Life. Does that application in real Life help you or not?"

Dude! I already know how to read! Ummm... BTW Terryeo; you employed a run-on sentence just now. It should have been;

"why not try it out, with your fiction reading, your school subjects or with your vocation."
or
"why not try it out, with your fiction reading, school subjects or your vocation."

"Reading" the way Hubbard suggests in Dianetics is not reading. It's more like the way second graders are taught to read, it has no place in an adult world. I can't say that forcing myself to read like a five year old would be any benefit.

Regarding Study Tech, since it is off topic, I will be happy to research and critique it for you. It's my understanding that kids transferring from Scientology study-tech based schools into public schools have a significant disadvantage over kids in the public schools. That's what the teachers around Pinellas County tell me.

Also;
http://www.studytech.org/home.php

Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Hey HeyNoniNoni;

I didn't mean to dupe you like that, I guess we both are on the same wavelength amirite?
35 months ago: No prob, MA. Great minds think alike.
35 months ago: Oh, I see, Anon. You say you know study tech well and use it to read Scientology and opinion that study tech is a mind control technique. When I point out you might try it anywhere, on any reading, you refuse to reply to the point I make.

And go back to some other critical point. "I KNOW HOW TO READ"! But I didn't imply you don't know how to read, didn't imply your reading ability isn't of the highest, didn't state that you shouldn't read. Reading wasn't the issue you raised and wasn't the issue I replied to. You talked about a possible "hypnotic effect" which I replied to.

And, as normal (for you) instead of replying to the issue you raised, which I did reply to, you posted (something) full of criticism.

Why am I reminded of school a yard bully, using words instead of fists? Why? Because consistently refuse to talk about the subject you raise. Because of the commonality of criticizing everyone who doesn't agree with you. Because of the stench filled language. Because of an inability to originate, understand replies to, and reply in turn about a single aspect of a single subject. And this can be understood, when one understands that Life is but a large hostility which you must argue with. Take care of yourself.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Hah; excuse me? Stench filled language? Words instead of fists? Schoolyard bully?

Why, I don't think I've insulted you even slightly. You however have reacted angrily to something (although you didn't specifically say what.)

Your reply to my complaint about Hubbard's reading instructions was "why don't you try it" which of course is nonsensical because I obviously have. Is it that when you pointed out that I didn't know what I was talking about, I pointed out that your grammar was sub par? Did that make you angry? Angry enough to resort to a flurry of adhom?

It would seem so. This is a very typical response by someone who does not seem to have anything else.

35 months ago: "When I point out you might try it anywhere, on any reading, you refuse to reply to the point I make. "

When we ask you to put the technology to the test and get it scientifically tested, you refuse to do it.
35 months ago: "Why am I reminded of school a yard bully, using words instead of fists?"

Lol terryeo, i think you got it backwards. Bullies use fists, not words. TECH FAIL.
35 months ago: "Because consistently refuse to talk about the subject you raise. Because of the commonality of criticizing everyone who doesn't agree with you. Because of the stench filled language. Because of an inability to originate, understand replies to, and reply in turn about a single aspect of a single subject."

You started all these sentences with becuase which is grammatically improper to start a sentence like this. STUDY TECH FAIL.
35 months ago: "And this can be understood, when one understands that Life is but a large hostility which you must argue with."

WTF are you saying? So life is a hostile jerk whom you must constantly argue with? Your life sucks man.

Life is like a box of chocolates, a river, the sea of life, etc.

Scientology knowing the secret to happiness tech FAIL.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: "You say you know study tech well and use it to read Scientology and opinion that study tech is a mind control technique. When I point out you might try it anywhere, on any reading, you refuse to reply to the point I make."

I see you're suggesting that if study tech were used on texts other than Scientology texts then the results would perhaps be better; that the reported mesmerizing phenomena would not occur.

By implication you're acknowledging that the result of reading Scientology texts using study tech can appear to be "mind controlling" - or as mecca anon reported mesmerizing (puts you in a trance).

Your point is a bit weak because mecca anon said they felt it was the technique rather than the scientology text that did this. I presume mecca anon has read the same text using his/her preferred method of study without being mesmerized.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: there is no denying that looking up words, especially early in ones' reading career is a very good idea, but to assume that ones inability to comprehend a text is the result of a misunderstood word within the text is a damaging assumption.

Rereading a text with greater care may result in one realising what the text is getting at but if that doesn't work then it is quite likely you need an alternate explanation to help you understand the concepts; which is where you would consult other texts explaining the same concepts or people who are more familiar with the concepts.

Another thing that strikes me is implicit in study tech and as applied within the scientology academy environment "disagreement = misunderstanding". You fall back on this logic quite a lot terryeo, which must be quite frustrating for you, our disagreements are borne out of misunderstanding. This is fundamentally wrong.

A lot of critics have been scientologists within your organisation and believed everything it taught and believed in how it applied it; in your parlance they had understanding.

Why then did they loose this understanding? No doubt there are many explanations for this within the organisations: too little mass, too much gradient, connection to an SP etc.

The truth is they didn't loose such understanding. What happened was they came to really understand what your organisation is all about and how it was abusing them and wasting their lives to its own ends.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
DeanFox;
"Your point is a bit weak because mecca anon said they felt it was the technique rather than the scientology text that did this. I presume mecca anon has read the same text using his/her preferred method of study without being mesmerized."

Allow me to clarify; I think this idea of reading-each-word-one-at-a-time puts people in to a less critical trance-like state for sort of text. I find it suspicious that no certified educations system or reading program makes that demand of a reader except Hubbard's. Certainly I urge children to go to a dictionary if they don't understand a word but I do not blame misunderstood words if they don't completely understand what they are reading.

People have been learning to read for thousands of years without Hubbard's methods and I'm absolutely sure HE didn't read that way.
35 months ago: DeanFox: "to assume that ones inability to comprehend a text is the result of a misunderstood word within the text is a damaging assumption."
Mecca Anon: "I find it suspicious that no certified educations system or reading program makes that demand of a reader except Hubbard's."

You notice that at no point have I told you that anyone SHOULD look up words and create sentences with them. I know the procedure works really well, both for myself and for other people. But what you do is up to you. Since you refuse to ride the bicycle, since you are convinced no educator will ever ride the bicycle, since you are certain it is damaging to think of riding the bicycle, I don't suggest you ride the bicycle.

My posting of applied good sense are criticized. People could say, "I tried riding and it didn't work for me." But applied good sense exasperates the critic. It is never enough to say "I didn't find that to be true".

Here is some good sense:
If you look up words and create with them, you'll have better use of those words.
There is little no no belief to Scientology.
It is a study of knowledge, to understand what you know better, to be more able to use your knowledge.
It concerns itself with individuality and includes a good deal of such information.
Dianetics concerned itself with thought and an individual's mind. Hubbard found that when people examined past memory, they felt better because they understood what they knew, better. He took this idea of understanding what you know, better. And used it as the foundation of Scientology.

This is too simple for the critic to swallow. Its good sense exasperates the critic, it drives him to find fault in a 1000 ways, it inflames his urge to destroy good sense. And amuses me enormously.
35 months ago: Terryeo: "There is little no no belief to Scientology."

Aside from being yet another badly written example of your poor grasp of written English, this is flat out untrue. Of course there is belief to Scientology. You take it as a given that L. Ron Hubbard knew what he was talking about, which requires taking on faith all the things he said about himself. Belief in that which can't be proven is the hallmark of a religion.

Or are you arguing that Scientology isn't a religion? If so, I think the IRS would like a few words with you.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Terryeo;

"This is too simple for the critic to swallow. Its good sense exasperates the critic, it drives him to find fault in a 1000 ways, it inflames his urge to destroy good sense. And amuses me enormously."

Of course none of this has much to do with Dianetics and my opinion of it. What should I do now? Write about Study Tech and you will bring up Dianetics? Your inability to stick with the subject amuses me greatly, and your attempts to shatter suppression. Are you saying that you believe my conclusion that Dianetics is merely Psychological faith healing to have some merit? You seem to be saying that when you try to change the subject.
35 months ago: "You notice that at no point have I told you that anyone SHOULD look up words and create sentences with them"

Thats becuase that would be a fu-cking retarted thing to do. Thats like me saying:

"You notice that at no point have I told you that anyone SHOULD breathe air and go on living."
35 months ago: "Since you refuse to ride the bicycle, since you are convinced no educator will ever ride the bicycle, since you are certain it is damaging to think of riding the bicycle, I don't suggest you ride the bicycle."

Your forgetting that your bicycle is a pernicious cult that scams people out of their money and convinces them that all their problems come from frozen dead alien ghosts.
35 months ago: "My posting of applied good sense are criticized"

That's because your good sense involves telling people that a religion started by a druggie science fiction writer which scams people out of their money so that they can find out that their problems come from a evil alien dictator is a good thing for them.
35 months ago: "But applied good sense exasperates the critic."

No, cults that harm their fellow man and scam them out of their money exasperates the critic.
35 months ago: "If you look up words and create with them, you'll have better use of those words."

Word: Thetan

"Dude, I was with this slutty chick last night and I whipped out my thetan and she started rubbing it and then put her mouth on it! It felt so good, and then my thetan came all over her! She got kinda mad at that point put I was too drunk too care."

Hey your right, this does work!
35 months ago: "Dianetics concerned itself with thought and an individual's mind."

It however didn't take the time to study thought and an individual's mind so it went on to make up a bunch of bullsh*t and charge people to read about it.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: you're going around in circles. You don't have to explain study tech to me because I understand it. I have explained why study tech is bad, especially as applied by and used in your organisations' academies.

Of course looking up words one doesn't understand is a good thing. Of course using words in sentences can help you gain an understanding of them and help you make better use of them. None of this is in doubt, it is as you say common sense, not something special that Hubbard devised.

The criticism is that word clearing is not a good default mechanism for gaining an understanding of a text. It can help where the reader realises they don't understand the words, that is not denied but often misunderstanding of a text is the result of the text either not being clear in explaining the concepts or just plain not making any sense.

All testimonials state that in your organisations' academies word clearing was the only solution to a student not understanding a text. Not only that but it was applied when students appeared bored or tired too.

Testimonials state that under this regime students learned not to ask questions and to suppress yawning because they did not want to spend time word clearing the text.

Testimonials state that under this regime students learned to just read and accept the text because it was easier than thinking about it; thinking about it they realised might result in a question that would lead to more word clearing. By instilling an aversion to asking questions it suppressed their critical thinking.

I also stated that in study tech one also learns to judge the veracity of a text based on its source. This makes some sense except the veracity of the source is defined by your organisation, which is how it governs what you believe. If the text agrees with your organisations' view of the world it automatically makes sense. If it does not then it is the result of misunderstoods and does not make sense.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: you believe in your organisation to the point where you believe everything it says and discount everything said against it; this is known as a dogmatic belief - people with a dogmatic belief also claim to "KNOW" and be in possession of "KNOWLEDGE".

You believe (KNOW) criticism is either the result of misunderstanding or malicious. Therefore you make no attempt to try to understand why a critic might hold the view they do; you presume they either misunderstand or are malicious. This results in you repeating your views ad-nausium rather than presenting a proper appraisal of the criticism, such as I am doing here for you.

While I hope to spark something in you I honestly don't expect to change your dogmatic beliefs because you will always discount my criticisms as not understanding your views or just being malicious towards you.

Your responses make my case for me but unlike you I don't find this amusing; I find it interesting but somewhat sad.
35 months ago: HeyNoniNoni accused me of: "poor grasp of written English". Then immediately uses "belief" in two completely different ways to make sure I'm insulted. Saying: "Of course there is belief to Scientology. -- Belief in that which can't be proven is the hallmark of a religion." (4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.)

I am saying precisely; this sort of belief "in" something (such as the scientifically unprovable rising of Christ) is not present in Scientology.

As proof that such belief does exist within Scientology, HeyNoniNoni uses me as an example of a believer. And the datum Noni says I "believe in" -- wait for it -- "You take it as a given that L. Ron Hubbard knew what he was talking about".

STFU Noni, insults are a stop to communicating ideas. And not a help to communicating ideas.

I will be as clear as possible with you about that point you raise, though, because DeanFox (and others) incessantly insist on that point.

Ron Hubbard was a man. He wrote a lot of stuff. He gave it his best shot and wrote what he thought was true.

I read and listen to that. So far I have found it true.
35 months ago: DeanFox - you continue to misunderstand Study Technology while continuing to criticize it. Why do I say this? Because looking up words in a dictionary is clearly not "dangerous". It is completely obvious -- looking up meanings can only be helpful.

And I'll reply to a point you raise about Knowledge. You accuse me dogmatism. -- Terryeo: you believe in your organisation to the point where you believe everything it says and discount everything said against it; this is known as a dogmatic belief - people with a dogmatic belief also claim to "KNOW" and be in possession of "KNOWLEDGE".

Not really, no. Here is the tiny little step where Scientology steps on and critics simply don't get it. For critics, KNOWLEDGE is a POSSESSION! And the academic community too, considers this to be the ideal relationship of a person and his knowledge. You POSSESS knowledge.

Not really. Possessed knowledge requires that you look it up in your mind, scan through it for the vital bit you want to apply. And then apply it. And this is how people have traditionally used dictionaries. Scientology methods go a step further. You don't POSSESS knowledge, you understand knowledge for immediate use. You create with your new knowledge so you can use your new knowledge. I hope you get it, this time.
35 months ago: Ha, what Terryeo, are you afraid to comment back on what I said?

Sucker.
35 months ago: "I am saying precisely; this sort of belief "in" something (such as the scientifically unprovable rising of Christ) is not present in Scientology."

Damn your stupid.

Scientology believes in the spirit. The spirit is an unproven thing, no one has ever seen a spirit before. If you dissect a body, you cannot find the spirit.

Therefore scientology does have a belief in something scientifically unproven.
35 months ago: "STFU Noni, insults are a stop to communicating ideas. And not a help to communicating ideas."

Lol, the irony. You don't like Noni insulting you, so you tell Noni to "SHUT THE F**K UP."

Telling someone to stop talking (especially dropping the F-bomb while doing it) is an insult. Everyone has the unalienable right to free speech.
35 months ago: "Ron Hubbard was a man. He wrote a lot of stuff. He gave it his best shot and wrote what he thought was true. I read and listen to that. So far I have found it true."

So you really do believe that frozen alien ghosts are the root for all our problems?

The root of our problems can't be that humans by human nature are not perfect, or that we are corrupted by jealousy and hatred?

Zombie Alien Ghosts is a really illogical conclusion to come to for the root of all our problems.
35 months ago: "you continue to misunderstand Study Technology while continuing to criticize it. Why do I say this? Because looking up words in a dictionary is clearly not "dangerous". It is completely obvious -- looking up meanings can only be helpful."

You make no f**king sense. You basically said "Your critisizing something you don't understand. I know you don't understand it becuase looking up words in a dictionary is good for you!!!"

How does that any sense or logic? Is there even an argument in their? Could you please be more clear where he is wrong. Being Clear Tech FAIL.
35 months ago: "Possessed knowledge requires that you look it up in your mind, scan through it for the vital bit you want to apply."

Because that is how memory works dumb***. When you went to the computer to turn it on, didn't you look through your memory to remeber which button to push to turn it on? When you went to RantRave to sign into your account, didn't you go through your memory to remember your password to log on?

You don't create new knowledge with this memory, you utilize it. To gain new knowledge, have to do something that you have no memory of. If you want to learn the knowledge of how to surf, you go out and do it, you don't use your knowledge of a toaster to do it. You experiment, through trial and error and practice until you can do it right.
35 months ago: Well, I'm not so sure that replying to an angry man is ever productive, but here goes. Dangerranger said:

"Scientology believes in the spirit. The spirit is an unproven thing, no one has ever seen a spirit before. If you dissect a body, you cannot find the spirit."

Scientology is a philosophy. Some of its data is about the spirit. It talks about the spirit as a subject, as you might talk about ice cream or a subject you know something about.

No word of that is to be accepted and believed in the manner that Christ's death for sins is expected to be accepted and believed.

Instead, it is presented as good sense. You read it, you understand what the written word says. And you reject the ideas, or not. That is purely up to you, up to anyone.

The Church of Scientology says, that by studying its texts, a person can better understand their own spirit. This does not tell you to "believe", it tells you there is data, you read it, you understand what the written word says. And then you do what you want with that data.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Hey Terryeo;

What you are talking about is still belief based. Let us take you ice cream analogy. You are shown a dish of ice cream and informed that the product was made in a new high tech machine that uses nano-technology to mimic the long chains of molecules to create a replica of real ice cream that is exactly like that which you make in traditional ways. Is that person telling a lie or is it the truth? You would either have to take it on belief (and therein believe we have such devices) or you can do the research.

The point is the explanation sounds reasonable an you have the proof right before you! Ice cream! But in this case (for the sake of argument) we don't yet have a way to create ice cream other than the old fashioned churn method. The man was telling you a lie.

In the case of Hubbard and Scientology, certainly he came up with some workable solutions to a few psychological issues, it is apparent from reading much of the material that he did. But Hubbard did several things that are inexcusable in academia, (1) He claimed that he alone came up with this material (sometimes Hubbard cites Descartes and Buddha but in very disdainful terms.) (2) Hubbard appropriated well known psychological techniques and merely changed the names, (3) Hubbard systematically created a cult of personality around himself (4) Hubbard abused the influence he obtained from his followers and (5,) Hubbard viciously attacked people and entities (like the AMA and US Gov) who called him on the first items or criticized him.

Thus Terryeo; perhaps Hubbard came up with some workable solutions but he tainted them with stuff like "Keeping Scientology Working," the "Hubbard Manual of Justices" and "Fair Game."

His organization might be salvageable if and only if it can reform in a manner that is more benign to it's members, less predatory as a business model and less vindictive to its critics.
35 months ago: "Scientology is a philosophy"

Scientology is a religion.
35 months ago: "Well, I'm not so sure that replying to an angry man is ever productive, but here goes"

How hypocritcal. You've gotten angry before when people insult you and you tell them to stop. Then you go ahead and insult people by insinuating things that they are not.

Not-being-hypocritical-tech FAIL
35 months ago: "Instead, it is presented as good sense. You read it, you understand what the written word says."

What if what you read is wrong. The subject cannot be understood then. If the subject cannot be understood, it therefore can not be presented in good sense.

Scientology doesn't make you understand the spirit. As you have said, it makes you read and reinforce it's spin on what the spirit is and either you accept it or you don't, you can't build upon it.

The fact that you cannot build upon this idea, further it and expand it, makes scientology not a philosphy. If it was a philosophy, anybody could submit their own ideas and evolve the idea.

Show some examples of religious scholors furthering the concepts of scientology. Everytime someone here at RantRave tries to analyze the tenents of scientology, you Terryeo just yell at us and tell us we don't understand it becuase we're evil or something ignorant like that.

Show us Terryeo how the ideas behind scientology can be changed and evolved, proving that it is a philosophy and not a dogma.
35 months ago: "Scientology uses a different approach to mental health. It considers, as Christianity and Islam consider, the individual is something more than merely a human body. Then, as religions do, addresses itself to the individual ...Religion addresses the individual and his free will and this is quite a different than psychiatry. " -TerryEO in http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Scientology-and-Mental-Health.aspx

"Scientology is a philosophy. Some of its data is about the spirit. It talks about the spirit as a subject, as you might talk about ice cream or a subject you know something about. " -TerryEO in this RantRave conversation.

I'm seeing conflicting claims, Terry. Is Scientology a RELIGION or a PHILOSOPHY?
35 months ago: "Here is the tiny little step where Scientology steps on and critics simply don't get it. For critics, KNOWLEDGE is a POSSESSION!"

To the Church of Scientology, its knowledge is a possession. You have every work of what you claim to be religious texts copyrighted and are extremely litigious when it comes to reproduction.

I also find "I am saying precisely; this sort of belief "in" something (such as the scientifically unprovable rising of Christ) is not present in Scientology," to be hard to believe when the Scientology.org website has sections about its beliefs. You claim that L Ron Hubbard cured medical ailments using his faith-based healing system. This is no different than the miracle of Jesus healing the lepers. Yours just involves soup cans.
35 months ago: My statement - Critics consider knowledge a POSSESSION! Is, you see, a statement about a person, an individual, and generalized to many individuals who are critics.

Your statement, Mr. Voice, addresses an organization whose copyright ownership applies. And you mis-evaluate my statement to "all knowledge, everywhere" to apply it, not to individuals. Like I did. But to an organization. There are 2 situations, not one situations. Tsk, tsk.

And then, you overgeneralize, considering that because I find Scientology helpful, that I claim Hubbard cured medical ailments. I didn't say that, but there are instances where that did happen.

So, you have first mis-evaluated a datum. And then overgeneralized. Happy Days.
35 months ago: Anonymous Voice - "I'm seeing conflicting claims, Terry. Is Scientology a RELIGION or a PHILOSOPHY?"

It is a Philosophy. It is knowledge in an area. This is the definition of a philosophy. Any experienced person might publish their personal philosophy. About marriage, about getting along in government (if they had worked for government), about skydiving, or any subject they know well. Scientology is a Philosophy.

Because the subject matter is about the spirit, it is a religions philosophy. Buddhism is another religious philosophy.

An organization, a religious organization, was charged by Ron Hubbard with the safe keeping of Scientology. The Church of Scientology disseminates the religious philosophy.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: I have never said looking up words in a dictionary is dangerous, what I have said is that dogmatically believing that being confused or bored is the result of misunderstoods, which would result in one looking up words, is dangerous. There is a difference.

The problem lays not with the solution (looking up words) but when it is applied, especially in relation to confusion owing to a cunning mechanism L Ron Hubbard used in his texts that relies on confusion as a means to illicit acceptance - more on this in a later rant.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Your argument with respect to possession of knowledge is another one of those semantic (thanks Skeptic) arguements that you're not very good at.

OK, I understand what you are saying. You can possess knowledge like a dictionary holds words; you must look up the knowledge before you apply it. With your organisations' teachings however you learn to understand the knowledge so you have if for "immediate use". Implication being that scientology teaches understanding knowledge verses possession and understanding is more efficient.

This argument is nonsense because in the real world this distinction is not made in that manner. Why, because it is incorrect.

People understand knowledge to different degrees. Also some knowledge is more like reference knowledge while other knowledge is more conceptual; people may learn both about one subject and the lines between the two are blurred.

In the brain however knowledge is not stored like it is in a dictionary, it's stored in a complex sensory relational array, and the lines between the two types of knowledge are blurred even more. Suffice to say the brain doesn't simply look up information like one would in a dictionary and then apply it regardless of the type of knowledge.

Through study one can learn chosen subjects such that concepts become second nature. At this point the knowledge is so ingrained it affects the automatic responses of the brain. This would be the desired state that scientology is aiming for when they say they understand knowledge.

In the real world such knowledge is still referred to as being possessed however it might be qualified as being 2nd nature or "really understood" or some other phrase to denote a special degree of understanding. People in the real world also achieve the special state of understanding to which you refer.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: The distinction between understanding and possessing knowledge is only made in your organisation to convey some kind of special difference between how members of your organisation learn to store knowledge (through study tech) and how everyone else does.

Your organisation plays on the fact everyone else refers to possessing knowledge quite liberally to ensnare the minds of members in to thinking (I hadn't though of it that way before) that the difference between "possession" and "understanding" is somehow a special fact only understood by your organisation.

This is part of the "special language" mechanism of your organisation. The difference does not actually exist and other people's use of the word possession with respect to knowledge does not change that fact.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: An example of learning knowledge so that it is 2nd nature would be with languages. At some point in their learning they may attain an understanding of the language such that while using it they no longer think in terms of their primary language.

In your parlance the English person who thinks in French while using French would be deemed as having "understanding", while the person who thinks in English and translates that to French would be deemed to have "possession".

In the real world both have "possession" but one may be referred to as knowing French as "2nd nature". ("French is 2nd nature to him.")

I am not saying one cannot use study tech to learn a subject such that it becomes 2nd nature but it is not actually that efficient and the application of it within your organisation is fraught with pitfalls which I can only expand on in a rant.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: DeanFox;
"In the brain however knowledge is not stored like it is in a dictionary, it's stored in a complex sensory relational array, and the lines between the two types of knowledge are blurred even more. Suffice to say the brain doesn't simply look up information like one would in a dictionary and then apply it regardless of the type of knowledge."

Hey DF, I certainly agree with what you are saying here. There has been a bunch of research on how brains process information, it's very un-computerlike.

I don't think this line of argument will work very well with the Scientology member. They have built up an entire belief system based on the idea that your "persona" is the result of a "thetan" or "a god who has forgotten how to be a god." This forgetful god (who is you ) is inhabiting a bit of meat non this planet for a short time. BTW, I just saved you many tens of thousands for that bit of "mystery sandwich."

They think the brain is a rather simple organ that is used for an electrical buffer or battery - some such thing.
35 months ago: It is my opinion that Scientology is based on the idea that knowledge in recall is one situation, that might be called "possessed knowledge"

Another situation is the baker who can whip together a cake without referring to a recipe book. When Hubbard first defined Scientology to public on March 3, 1952, he used an example. His example was about signaling, where one sailor had understood signals and could tell you immediately what information was being signaled. (Scientology's understanding). And another sailor who could look it up in a book to find what information was being signaled.

Study Technology bridges this gap and one of its methods involve a good dictionary. And then creating sentences when you've found the applicable definition.

In Scientology, communication skills are better understood by practicing, actually doing individually, those things which when done together, result in a successful communication.

Same idea, understand the basics so you don't need to think about how to do them. After practicing each element, practice them together until you can do the whole, easily and well. This is understood knowledge.

We have a world today that relies on written words. Any microsecond we can save ourselves will let us get along better in today's world.

My opinion is, Scientology is understood knowledge, a study of knowledge to understand knowledge. But Hubbard defined the idea in Scientology: Milestone One, a one hour lecture anyone can buy.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: So Terryeo;

Why is it then that most Scientology members I have met are not very good communicators. They seem to have a very narrow range of conversation and if you go outside of it they get defensive, shutdown, change the subject or actually run away. It's almost like they can no longer look at many subjects objectively, instead they use a bunch of emotional rhetoric which is supposed to protect them from harm but in actuality makes them look like fools. It's almost like the coms course robs a person of the ability to converse with the vast majority of people who are not into Scientology.
35 months ago: So Terryeo, i prove you wrong about scientology being a philosophy, and instead of acknowledging me, you ignore me.

Thats pretty low on the tone scale if you ask me.
TECH FAIL
35 months ago: "In Scientology, communication skills are better understood by practicing, actually doing individually, those things which when done together, result in a successful communication."

Then why do you suck at it so much? All that the normal reader ascertains from your comments is that you believe in a alien space cult.

Plus, the whole idea of improving communication, while noble, isn't effective.

Actions are louder than words. Rather than saying study tech works, how about you put it to the test and have it put head to head with several other study techniques?
35 months ago: Mecca, dunno. Danger, make yourself happy.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo, by your last post it seems we are in agreement with what your organisation means when it refers to "possessed" knowledge verses "understood" knowledge.

According to your organisations' teachings:

"Possessed" knowledge is that which has to be "looked up"

while

"understood" knowledge is that which can be applied immediately.

The point I make is that your organisations' jargon differs from the main stream resulting in you misunderstanding the outcomes of main stream teaching techniques.

The main stream often refers to knowledge as possessed however the distinction of degree is usually provided by the context and sometimes the word "understanding" is used in the same sentence. "He possesses an excellent understanding of relational theological dynamics, in fact it is 2nd nature to him" would be as high a praise in the main stream as "he understands relational theological dynamics" is in scientology.

Your organisation tells you that mainstream teaching techniques relate to possessing knowledge rather than understanding it. This is reinforced every time someone from the main stream refers to having a good possession of knowledge (you think - ha but he doesn't have "understanding").

If however the main stream talked as you do then they would also say their techniques provide the tools to really understand knowledge.
The argument that scientology study tech provides the tools to gain "understanding" rather than "possession" of knowledge makes scientology sound impressive inside the organisation because members are told there is a distinction; the difference is semantic but if you word clear the two words you can come to believe the distinction has real mass. It is a semantic argument set up by the fact your organisation differentiates between the words "understanding" and "possession" where as such a differentiation doesn't occur normally. So the argument is actually not very impressive at all.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Simplistic example of the "possession" v "understanding" argument for study tech being superior. (How misunderstandings between scientology speak" v "main stream speak" typically occur):

Joe Bloggs: Yeah, I have a Honors degree in Mathematics.

- "I have" = possession. The person possesses a knowledge in mathematics but he doesn't understand it - I can help!

Scientologist: Ah but scientology can help you really understand mathematics.

Joe Bloggs: Uh, how so?

Scientologist: Well our study tech provides the tools that will enable you to really understand mathematics so that the answers will immediately available to you.

: Hm, okay so he's saying he can improve my understanding of mathematics. (Note assumes improving an understanding he believes he already has because semantically he hasn't distinguished between possess and understand in the same way as the scientologist)

Joe Bloggs: OK, what you got?

Scientologist:

Joe Bloggs: gives up having realised he's not actually understanding the concepts any better than his already excellent understanding.

OK, so this wouldn't happen because scientologists look for areas of weakness but it illustrates how such confusion occurs because of the differences in how the words are used between the scientologists and the main stream.
35 months ago: "Mecca, dunno. Danger, make yourself happy"

That's your argument? Thats not even an argument. That's giving up. Your not even attempting to defend yourself or your statements.

Is that what scientology teaches you? When it gets to hard to give up? Thats lame. Who wants to follow the theology that teaches you to give up when it gets to hard.

I'm gonna have to say that since you gave up, me and the other people who have been debating against you just won.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: I am happy Terryeo, unhappy people don't write 2000 word essays about Scientology.

Are you happy Terryeo? You were not happy when you joined up. Do you remember your old life? Do you remember what it was like before. Was it really as terrible as you tell your "friends?" Are they really your friends or will they turn on you if you decide to blow?

You know, I've mentioned the hordes of homeless people who live around your meccaa in Clearwater Florida. Did you know what? Many of them are ex scientology members. They are not happy people.

Happy people don't join Scientology.
35 months ago: You do whatever you like, Mecca Anon. My experience and resulting conclusion disagree with your conclusion.
35 months ago: "My experience and resulting conclusion disagree with your conclusion."

What do you disagree with? Come on, enlighten us. If scientology truly betters communication, then you should easily be able to tell us why you conclusion is more valid then Mecca's.

Or are you going to go on ignoring me?
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago:
Excuse me? Nobody joins Scientology because they are happy with themselves! They join Scientology to "repair their ruin" which is found out by getting people to take a 1950s era psychological examination. Then they add this world crusader stuff into the mix, "you want to help the world don't you?" they ask.

Happy people don't join Scientology, happy people don't need to .
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: You didn't assume that you mocked it up Terryeo; your leader told you so. (Or he will someday, I don't know where you are on the bridge right now.)

In any case, "man is basically good and he wants to help others." I suppose that's true! I would like to help you Terryeo.
35 months ago: Help me by understanding that knowledge in recall is one situation. But understood, instantaneously usable knowledge is another situation.

Reading about riding a bicycle, compared to being able to ride a bicycle. Put as much thought as needed, look at the real world and find examples, and understand these are two different situations.

And then apply that idea in day to day life. That will be helpful.

That is the idea of Study Technology, of training routines, and even of auditing. Auditing addresses memory. Because a person's memories are knowledge in recall. And when a person fully understands a past memory, that memory is no more, or less, significant than any other memory. Except when a person needs to recall that data.

35 months ago: Ya, terryeo, thats not called study tech, thats called practice.

If you want to get good at throwing a baseball, you practice until you can throw good without thinking.

Study Tech isn't really revolutionary, its just putting a new spin on the age old method of "practice makes perfect."
35 months ago: That is true, but doesn't tell the whole story, either. With Hubbard's methods, First you would become very familiar with each element of the whole. And then combine the sub actions together and practice that. And finally practice the whole action, throwing a baseball accurately. This idea of breaking a whole action into many parts and practicing each part individually wasn't new with Hubbard, either.

But he applied it in a new direction. To the mind and that was called Dianetics. And later, to the spirit. And that is called Scientology.
35 months ago: The idea of applying broken down practice to the spirit isn't new. Thats just religion.

The bible doesn't adress the whole spirit at once. It has different books and different verses that address diferent parts of life and the spirit.

The same goes for Judiaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

Their religious texts addresses ones spirit in different parts so one can practice different parts of spirituality in parts before practicing it all together.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: "Help me by understanding that knowledge in recall is one situation. But understood, instantaneously usable knowledge is another situation." - yes, I understand exactly how you have been taught to think.

This is different to how others tend to think and results in semantic arguments. Suffice to say this distinction can be understood by anyone but it is nothing special, just a different way of referring to different levels of understanding that can be attained by anyone using any number of techniques; it really helps if they enjoy the subject they are learning though.

This explains why members of your organisation tend to think they are banging their heads against brick walls; it's because the terminology is different and believed to mean something more than it does.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: "That is the idea of Study Technology, of training routines, and even of auditing. Auditing addresses memory. Because a person's memories are knowledge in recall. And when a person fully understands a past memory, that memory is no more, or less, significant than any other memory. Except when a person needs to recall that data."

Hmm. I suspect semantics at play here again. Trauma can affect ones health, post traumatic stress syndrome wouldn't exist if it didn't.

Freud originally had the idea that ALL problems in the now stemmed from such traumas, even ones not remembered and ones occurring in the womb - he had the concept of womb memory. He later dropped this idea because through study he realised this was not true in many cases.

Never the less sometimes bad memories do affect people later in life, sometimes they remember very well, some times poorly or not at all.

Psychotherapy can help in certain circumstances by enabling a person to put their memories in to context - fully understand them.

Hypnotherapy can help a person remember things they'd blanked out however it is a very dangerous technique because it can also result in false memories, also known as delusions.

Regression hypnosis is only performed by responsible people on a known memory to enhance it and only when it is felt this would provide a significant benefit, which isn't always the case.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo: Correct, breaking a whole action into many parts and practising each part individually wasn't new with Hubbard but you're wrong to say Hubbard took this in a NEW direction with the mind and later spirit.

Hubbard certainly applied something of the breaking a whole action in to parts to the mind and spirit but these were by no means new directions.

Carl Jung broke down the mind, the psyche as he referred to it, in to dreams, art, mythology, religion and philosophy. Sigmund Freud broke down the psyche in to the ego, super ego and Id. Both Carl and Sigmund attempted to gain understanding of the whole by breaking it down in to parts.

The "breaking down technique" is, as you say a standard method applied to pretty much any area of study; most people apply it to some degree naturally.

As stated before some of Freud's early work and theories reflect the concept that past trauma can affect the reactive mind. So nothing new there either; Sigmund's theories evolved as he gained more understanding and he later placed much less weight on the concept as being therapeutically valuable (which is not the same as rejecting the concept as untrue). Hubbard kept the theory and ran with it, but it was quite a old theory even when Hubbard first read of it.

So while his conclusions were different L Ron Hubbard didn't really create any new techniques nor apply existing techniques in new ways.

This doesn't particularly matter just that dianetics and scientology are variations on existing theories, ideas and concepts rather than new ones. There are many books out there expounding similar and radically different ideas to those Hubbard taught. There are many people out there who will swear by these, they work for them. Go and listen to how Tony Robbins has improved people's lives. These people don't need nor want scientology, are they part of the 2% Hubbard referred to?
35 months ago: Knowledge, by itself, is nearly useless. But when understood, useful. Contained in a book, knowledge doesn't cause anything to happen -- until a person understands and applies.

Some agreement has been established on this page that understanding follows from applied knowledge. And that practicing individual parts of a piece of knowledge results in more usable knowledge, which might be called, understanding.

But "break into bits and practice each bit" is quite a different situation than "break into bits by categorization". Categorizing and labeling is called created knowledge, you can write books about how you "broke the mind into bits". But again, knowledge by itself doesn't cause anything to happen.

Here is how it flows.
Perception.
Certainty of perception = knowledge
Certainty of knowledge = understanding.
Certainty of understanding = wisdom.

All of these things imply action. While Jung's effort to first, understand what a mind is, and second, to help other people with his categorization, has cured who? It has encouraged psychiatry to stultify "abnormals", but what benefit has Jung's categorization created? Who, exactly, has improved their life when they blame their "id" and, therefore, refuse responsibility?

Categorizing (thing) into (subthings) might or might not be helpful.
Mecca  Anon
Mecca Anon
Clearwater, FL
35 months ago: Terryeo;

Here is how it flows.
Perception.
Certainty of perception = knowledge
Certainty of knowledge = understanding.
Certainty of understanding = wisdom.

However you have forgotten one or two essential things. Perception is not %100 accurate. As a matter of fact, perception can be colored by a myriad of things which alter the "perceived" information. Science is a system whereby the errors in perception can be filtered out, but it takes discipline and an open mind to apply science. When you skip over the science part and just go to "perception = certainty" you are just creating dogma.

The first thing you must realize is that we really don't "know" all that much. We can't and stay true to the world around us.

"Knowing" is very often the first step into "not knowing." That sounds illogical but it is often true.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Terryeo; I was making the point that Hubbard was not the first person to apply the "break down" technique to the mind and spirit, something you mistakenly implied earlier. Like I said, Hubbard did nothing new he just came up with different results using the same old techniques; no surprise since the techniques when applied to mind and spirit by themselves do not lead to understanding / wisdom.

I agree with your implied assessment of Jung and Freud as far as the theories of theirs I presented earlier however in their day quite a few people felt they benefited greatly from Jung / Freud based psychotherapy.

There are also many today who make the same claims regarding modern psychotherapy - many show the same kind of zeal as scientologists do about Hubbard. Like I said in this respect scientology in as of itself is nothing new, novel or unusual.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Then there's the self help guru's, a "popular science" (not real science) off shoot of psychotherapy and psychologhy.

There are a plethora of self help gurus all of whom have their own following of success stories. Tony Robbins is one of my favourite not that I need what he is selling but a lot of people claim massive life changing improvements thanks to his courses which while expensive are still quite affordable to many and don't make demands on people to contribute to some "great effort"; They do what they say on the can provide a guide to self help and nothing more; most enter the organisation calling itself the church of scientology for self improvement and end up becoming recruitment machines and zealous supporters of "the cause". Most people who buy Tony Robbins courses get some gains, some get far more than others but none of them end up trying to convert the world to "Tony Robbins".
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
35 months ago: Mecca Anon: very good point, perception is never 100%. 100% agree that going to perception = certainty creates dogma. I especially like your last sentence.

Terryeo: anyone who believes (worse "knows") one can arrive at certainty of perception is being dogmatic.
34 months ago: "Knowledge, by itself, is nearly useless."

Dumbest. Statement. EVER.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.