The Scientology Forum

Members

Help

Home

Post Form

You are not currently logged in, the message will be posted anonymously.

Forum:

Scientology philosophy

Title:

Message Icon:

No Icon

Smiley Shortcuts:
[list all smilies]

Formatting Tools:

Body:

Forum Options
HTML code is off
BBcode is on
Images are on
Smilies are on
Editing Time Limit: Unlimited

Please enter the code shown below:

There is no zero or one in the image.

Options:

Disable smilies in this message

Topic View

Re: fill your boots

Mon, 16 November 2009 01:57

Chris

I concur

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Mon, 16 November 2009 02:21

Jim Logan

Geir,
One of the reasons I began to study from the beginning again is to find whether or not I could myself work out what he did and how. It is my personal reality that he said what and how he did what he did. It's there. What isn't necessary to re-do the basic discovery of the Axioms and Factors. What is unlimited are the upper levels, above the Qs. I think your wish is a wonderful wish. I think you'll find you achieve it.

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Mon, 16 November 2009 05:57

Otto

isene wrote on Sun, 15 November 2009 14:34

He gave us Scientology. But he didn't give us the recipe for how to create Scientology. Or any technology to better any condition anywhere. If I could choose to have Scientology or the recipe of how to create Scientology I would choose the latter any day of the week.

"Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group." - LRH - KSW

I'm pretty sure if you redo all research & discovery again you will end with something different than LRH's Scientology, the fact that LRH's Scientology current instance is in decay means that something could been improved.

Probably he knew it when inmortilized:

"For God's sake, get busy and build a better bridge!" - LRH - DMSMH

Oops! that means that somebody has to wear those big boots Uh Oh

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Mon, 16 November 2009 08:01

isene

To clarify: I wish LRH had written up how to make Scientology (or any technology) from scratch.

I wish he would tell us how he came to rise above the bank.

If all of Scientology was wiped out tomorrow, I would like to have a tiny book that would instruct me on how to recreate it - from scratch.

doesn't one rise above the bank by just doing it?

Mon, 16 November 2009 12:23

zzzz

Geir

It might be glib, or it might be insightful, but it seems to me that:

- since one's level of responsibility, one's ability to perceive and one's power (i.e. OTness) all increase (or decrease) together, shouldn't the decision to develop a technology result in one having the ability to do so

- one of the most debilitating and introverting questions one can ask a thetan who has done something, especially something extraordinary, is "How do you do it?". At the highest level, a thetan "just does it". That goes for anything, whether it is moving their body's arm, seeing things right-side up when their eyes see things the other way around, going exterior or making anything else happen.

So, I reckon the answers to "how to make Scientology (or any technology) from scratch" and how to "rise above the bank" is to just do it.

You can probably see such phenomena in others who have not done Grades and/or OT levels. One thinks, "Just do it; don't struggle with it or make a game of it, just do it!". I suggest this principle applies at at this level as well.

Re: doesn't one rise above the bank by just doing it?

Mon, 16 November 2009 15:51

Fancy

I am no expert here but did anyone ever read KSW.

He tells you there if you read between the lines. Even the critics talk about it. I read between the lines and figured it out on my own before I ever was out of the church.

He says something like this, " Never mind how I rose to be above the bank." Well there it told me something. One is that if it was known it would not be popular. Two he did not want to tell for the same reason. LRH had an OBE once and he used drugs. This the line that I figured out how he did it. He used drugs to bypass the analytical mind. I don't know why this is bypassed when people read KSW. It is plain as the nose on my face.

Re: doesn't one rise above the bank by just doing it?

Mon, 16 November 2009 16:37

Nom de Plume

Fancy wrote on Mon, 16 November 2009 15:51

I am no expert here but did anyone ever read KSW.

[...]

He says something like this, " Never mind how I rose to be above the bank."...LRH had an OBE once and he used drugs. This the line that I figured out how he did it. He used drugs to bypass the analytical mind. I don't know why this is bypassed when people read KSW. It is plain as the nose on my face.

That plain, huh?

I heard a story once about a village of peasants in the hinterlands of Russia who, during the cold war, having listened to their government's anti-American propaganda, somehow came to the conclusion, based on seeing the occasional photo in the Party newspaper, that American autos were so inefficient that many of them had to be pushed down the highways by boats, horse-trailers and travel-trailers.

It was as plain to them as the noses on their faces. Very Happy

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Mon, 16 November 2009 17:22

Maria

Quote:

To clarify: I wish LRH had written up how to make Scientology (or any technology) from scratch.

I wish he would tell us how he came to rise above the bank.

If all of Scientology was wiped out tomorrow, I would like to have a tiny book that would instruct me on how to recreate it - from scratch.

I'm with you Geir, I would love that too!

Quote:

One of the reasons I began to study from the beginning again is to find whether or not I could myself work out what he did and how. It is my personal reality that he said what and how he did what he did. It's there.

I've written a little summary of some of my own observations about all of this, not because I wish to argue or debate it, but because I have given this a great deal of thought, before, during and after my studies of Dn and Scn and I'd like to share it. Perhaps you'll find it thought provoking, perhaps you'll dismiss it, but the spirit in which I write this up is to contribute.

I was on the same research track as L. Ron Hubbard when I started out in my late teens. When I first encountered Dn and Scn, I recognized that LRH was light-years ahead of me and decided that I should study his materials instead of re-inventing the wheel. I'm glad I did.

Looking back over my years of study inside and outside of Dn and Scn, these are some points that stand out for me.

As much as critics like to make fun of LRH as a science fiction writer, his love of writing in this genre and camaraderie with the likes of Asimov, Heinlein and Clarke probably really is the footing from which he started. These writers were serious students of the science, philosophy and historical works of the day, crafting them into works of fiction that were intended to be both illustrative and thought provoking. They understood the science of the day extremely well, stayed on top of it, discussed it, and formed various theories and hypotheses. The genre of SCIENCE fiction allowed exploration of concepts, and explore they did. All of them had been influenced by earlier science fiction writers, one of the most famous being E.E. Doc Smith, writer of the Lensman series and the father of Space Opera type Science fiction. It is interesting to note that these are my favorite writers of all time.

True science fiction explores what is possible within scientifically-established or scientifically-postulated laws of nature. Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".

Asimov was big on cybernetics, and along with Heinlein, began following a new trend in the 1940s, away from gadgets and space opera and toward speculation about the human condition. His Robotic series was a great example of such works.

LRH studied the Harvard Classics, a 51-volume anthology of classic works from world literature, compiled and edited by Harvard University president Charles W. Eliot and first published in 1909. I've read this series and IMO it is a stunning survey of human knowledge and literature. You can read the full text here: http://www.bartleby.com/hc/

He studied the early works of Will Durant. Durant provided a synthesis of the great thinkers of his day, in "Philosophy and the Social Problem" and "The Story of Philosophy" and LRH clearly and definitely responded to the challenges set forth by Durant. Dianetics IS his response to the questions posed by Durant at the end of his books on philsophy.

LRH makes numerous references to philosophers, scientific discoveries, psychology and the original texts of the great religions. He does list all of the influential works throughout his written materials. There are at least two dozen, probably more. I have been working my through the research materials he lists over the last 20 years and it gives terrific insights not only into Dn and Scn, but into life itself.

He probably studied The Golden Bough, by Frazier, who attempted to define the shared elements of religious belief, ranging from ancient belief systems to relatively modern religions. It was a landmark work in anthropology, quite the buzz of its day, a landmark series on culture, myth, and religion.

I believe that LRH clearly understood that discovery lay in the use of heuristic processes, characterized by much trial and error and many a "eureka, I've got it." In modern science the actual discovery processes are disguised by the eventual process of justification. E.g. Einstein's theory of relativity came to him as insight or "eureka," the very essence of heuristics, then he set out to prove it.

It is clear that LRH followed and studied the works of Albert Einstein. Everybody with interest in science did! One of Einstein's early papers was entitled: On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light.

The entire process was accelerated by the use of the e-meter. Volney Mathison, by way of his study of Carl Jung's theories, created a special galvanometer for examining unconscious and subconscious reactions rather than conscious ones. A refined version later became the e-meter. (Note: Mathison was also a science fiction writer.) Volney wrote a short article on this subject: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/ 55a5438eccf5e92]How to Achieve Past Life Recalls

I do not think that LRH was just making a flowery PR statement when he said that Scientology is the distillation of 50,000 years of thinking. He says he "discovered" it. He says he distilled, organized and tested it. He used heuristic methods extensively. I believe him. I have studied much of his research materials and wow, he really had a command of this information that is nothing short of admirable.

There is a short, but excellent dissertation on heuristics at this site, that clearly describes its use and contributions to science.

http://www.hfr.org.uk/science-pages/defheuristicway.htm

Heuristics, in combination with the use of axioms chosen for their usefulness in explaining and predicting phenomena, is the core technology that LRH used and he clearly says so:

Quote:

Dianetics is an heuristic science built upon axioms. Workability rather than idealism has been consulted. The only claim made for these axioms is that by their use certain definite and predictable results can be obtained. -- Dianetics, The Original Thesis

I believe him when he says (and I am paraphrasing) that this was one of the few times in history when these discoveries could have been made. The science was ripe, and the time had come and he seized the day.

Could someone else have done this? Absolutely. But IMO life is a funny thing, and many advances are not just a matter of knowledge and ability, but also a matter of timing. The advances of technology, science, civilization and philosophy happened to converge in a unique combination of events that facilitated discovery within an ideal, liberal environment for the work undertaken by L. Ron Hubbard.

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Mon, 16 November 2009 18:54

Mark A. Baker

isene wrote on Sun, 15 November 2009 23:01

To clarify: I wish LRH had written up how to make Scientology (or any technology) from scratch.

I wish he would tell us how he came to rise above the bank.

If all of Scientology was wiped out tomorrow, I would like to have a tiny book that would instruct me on how to recreate it - from scratch.

See DMSMH. Cool

Mark A. Baker

Re: doesn't one rise above the bank by just doing it?

Mon, 16 November 2009 19:05

dave

Hi Geir and others, I think that perhaps the greatest thing that Scientology seems to give to a lot of people is a candid purposefulness, much like zzzz described. I think it's an attitude that can get things done, even though (and I hope no-one minds) it is a bit alien to myself, thanks to a pretty Calvinistic upbringing and lifeview. If this is what you were getting at with your OP, keep at it, cause I admire you for your integrity and purpose.

If could also be that the OP was really aimed at gaining understanding about how LRH was able to develop Scientology. In that case, I think Fancy's suggestion makes a lot of sense. And, well after much delibiration with myself let me add, should one be interested in evaluating data which explores this suggestion further, the data is out there - but I am afraid you would have to look for it in critical sources.

Re: doesn't one rise above the bank by just doing it?

Mon, 16 November 2009 20:08

Fancy

I sometimes have this knack of seeing the being's purpose and that is what stood out for me in KSW light a light bulb.

I know he studied others but he needed more than that and that is what I think he did to get where he wanted to go and then found it was hard to get off of them so came up with the drug tech as well.

Moderator I am going to send you a PM Or Geir for I don't now how is on now but all I can say is thanks.

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Mon, 16 November 2009 22:20

LOOF88

Maria,

I just love your posts. A great essay !
Currently I'm studying "the Basics of the Basics". Sorry, I mean I'm reading all of Will Durant's " Cultural History of Mankind ". Its about 30 Books, each with about 1000 pages. It's a facinating read. In those books you find most of the ideas of LRH. It's very funny to see then how illiterate the attackers of Scientology are ,with their funny arguments, even when well said.
For most part of the tech or philosophy of Scientology, you'll find in those books references of great philosophers, Kings, Scientist and religious leaders that say the exact same thing.
Also the Idea that the Mest Universe is a matter of view and dimension points is very old. Einstein finally understood it and could derive out of this the theory of relativity. The "Scientific" work of Einstein - some pages with calculations on it- about his theory wasn't endorsed or proved by anything or additional experiments. Only in around 1920 some scientists were able to prove with experiments that he was right. This will also happen to LRH's work in the future.
As far as I can understand it (very complicated), in quantum physics they know it has to do with view and dimension points and are trying to understand it and to find out this last creator of things. In Mission Earth Lrh makes some remarks about it, but I'm not able to grasp that. Do you understand it ?
If we could apply those ideas to physics, I think some powerful technology could emerge to handle mest problems. Or I'm I just a dreamer or don't understand it at all ?
If in the near future we create an University of Scientology (application of the philosophy in Sciences)I'll vote for you becoming the Director.
The problem that we are confronted with,in all this turmoil,is a lack of education (I mean real education) and people thinking that the words are the ideas. This is the contrary ! First there is the idea, which then is being expressed in words. One has then to focus onto the idea, after having duplicated and understood the words, and compare it to other similar ideas or experiences(if one has any at all).
LRH was very spoiled with the people he was working with in his golden years, mostly very well educated people, that knew History, Philosophy and Sciences. Today, any recruiter in the current C.O.S will tell you it is the greatest nonsense to get an education as its all just nonsense. Haha what BS ! So we have hundreds of staffs with no real education (including myself, I fool,left college to clear the planet)and thinking the words is the gospel.
I once handled my son in his youth to do the BSM at our local Org. This was an experience. The supervisor was in total awe of my son, of how intelligent he is and the definitions he gives etc..I asked my son about it, he meant the course is boring and just common sense (he was raised with the tech). So I went to course at the same time and I saw my son being bored, sitting in the chair as he would be sleeping and observed when he was checked out by the supervisor, that was in total awe, and just passed everything my son told him, as he had no education to understand what my son was talking about and thought it must be right as it sounds so intelligent. After he attested to the course I asked him how he did it. He just meant in a very cool fashion " I just told them what they wanted to hear". I never again handled him to go on course, as I was ashamed of how mediocre the tech has been demonstrated to him.
20 years later when he got his master of science at an elite university he invited about 20 of his friends for a big fiesta at our home. All people with masters in all kinds of sciences. Great people with fanstatic minds and so kind ! I was amazed at the speed of their thinking, grasping a very complex problem in a fraction of a second and then presenting the solution and being so knowledgeable about so many things, and the main thing I observed they are fully in communication with the world around them and they know what's happening on the planet.
It was a big loss for me, as being an OT myself and not so fast in my thinking, and on the other hand I knew I couldn't bring one of them into the Org as they would instantly see what problems the staffs have (and they have problems)and i would have to justify Scientology being effective (hahahhah).
When the wake up call from miscavige was sent around I showed it my son and asked him what he thinks about. His cool answer was "DM is a fanatic and thats not good". Once he met his mother at the org (you have to understand he's not a Scientologist, but in fact he drunk the tech with his milk and LRH is always common sense for him), but she was taken into an Interview, where she was made wrong for not supporting the Org to recruit our own kids. So he had to wait. He just went into the Interview room where his mother sat, totally keyed in and feary trying to explain that our kids have to decide for themselves. He put his big body into the the room and said "Mum you come now, you are late" and took her body gently out of the room while the recruiter tried to handle him, to no avail.When I asked him about it he just meant "it just was about the recruiter wanting to have power over others". Our daughter that was also present said then to her mother " I never want to see it again that you let yourself being treated like this by staffs".
So you see its all about people being educated which per LRH is also a kind of processing. As so long we don't care about that people get educated, we also will not be able to reach our goals.
With the tech we have, we could educate our kids much much better as its being done today, even at schools that use the tech. I don't think the tech is fully being applied. Have you ever seen a twelve years old that has read all the classics ( as it was common some hundred years ago) or that knows all about greek philosophy ?
Maria I just love your post and we have to ground this university. I'm just a dreamer !

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Mon, 16 November 2009 22:33

LOOF88

My post was an answer to Maria's post.
So I didn't follow the thread. Sorry for that.
But Geir, why don't we just found some universities? Where we educate the future Scientologists, that will apply the philosophy to any human sciences. Answers will be.
Lrh was the first one that discovered the reactive mind. As history shows there was always one guy that discovered something and later others continued his work. There is this cultural lag that we have to overcome and suddenly the whole subject will explode. The same thing as it happened with the Internet or medicine etc....Intelligent people have no problem with KSW.

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Mon, 16 November 2009 23:18

Maria

Hi LOOF88,

Ah yes, Will Durant's History of Civilization is an awesome work. It's such an eye opener as he explores one civilization after another. One of my favorites. I found a digital version online and downloaded it so I could go back and savor it.

Quantum physics is a fascinating field. There's a good writeup for lay people here: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechani cs.htm

The website that this article is on has many more articles that focus in on essentials of various sciences and philosophies. It's really a good read.

I too have been terribly disappointed by the incredibly insular attitude amongst Scns. For some reason the upper triangle KRC, which is knowledge, control and responsibility is largely ignored, with devastating consequences. I do not see how one can expand in knowledge without learning well beyond the materials of Dn and Scn. Control is the ability to start, change and stop actions. How can you do this if you do not learn what it is you seek to control? And responsibility cannot be in terms of shame, blame, regret and accountability only. IMO it requires expanding ones viewpoint to encompass all life and all creation. The three are interdependent. And KRC must expand with ARC. The two are inseparable.

I am happy for you that your son has embraced learning and has gone on to do so well. And I do know exactly what you mean by knowing that you could not bring him or his friends into the current cultural environment of the C of S.

You said: As so long we don't care about that people get educated, we also will not be able to reach our goals.

I agree 100% and it is why I love this forum. It is a way to communicate these things to others, freely and without fear of censure.

As far as education goes, my daughter went to Scn schools and I found I was disappointed about the way that she was educated. All of the courses were check-sheeted, the teacher was muzzled and there was none of the excitement of learning that I had from my inspirational teachers in school. I supplemented what my son was learning because it was so dry and so structured. I do not think this is a good approach to education.

As I see it, the C of S public course line-ups were put through a kind of a dumbing-down process because LRH understood that the majority of people were never going to go to college so he designed the courses to be fairly low level. I could be wrong, but that is how it looks to me. My college friends find them to be ridiculously basic and are extremely offended when they are not allowed to ask questions and engage in debate. I don't have any solution for that, I just let borrow my books and CDs, which they gobble up at astonishing rates. I think they will love this forum.

Which brings me to my one wish: It is my wish that this forum will be a catalyst for the kind of change that will make it possible for Dn and Scn to be fully and rightfully aligned and used as intended - to help create a new civilization.

The wording's not quite right, but you get the drift.

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Tue, 17 November 2009 11:17

Martin

This is the concept at the core of my study of scientology. I can not accept anothers facts.
I will look, but I also want o comprehend why I did not realise I needed to look myself.
The only true guarantee scientology is true is when I have total certainty I can discern truth.

1)In one hand I hold purpose, love for myself, love for others. This keeps me sane and able to perceive.
2)In the other I hold a notepad of logic, of incomplete cycles of derivations of observations... and experience.

I find neurotic questioning, glibness, critcalness etc is aberration on love itself.
Affinity being a component of understanding, to reduce it leads to a)neurotic (uncertain=low reality) b)delusion c)insanity
Would you argue with a madman?
Defn of "glib" tech dic. etc
So 1) above bears out as neccesary (sorry if you feel invalidated, its simple ARC).

Learn to handle help get cleared on it and learn to handle it on others. To paraphrase LRH, from "How Help Became Betrayal" HCOB.

This is the rock solid basis of your own voyage to Total freedom of Reality and Communication.
Final word, it wasn't the task, it was the reason for the task that created the learning problem. See it in yourself AND learn of it in others. Only both guarantee you can communicate enough to establish certainty. You will then observe the effects of theta on others and wish to teach the world.
That is a hat write-up LRH did not do clearly, he postulated too much faith in us, we fell below the integrity (pusuit of love) that he communicated most of the tech to, as the level of understanding of the target audience.
Full data is in presession processes, Clearing Congress (the "Help" button), and Prehavingness scale South African Congress.
They are the prerequisites of Scientology and undercut your understanding. They have been skipped and quickied for 60 years. We now have a psychotic in charge, and the field neurotic or psychotic in majority.

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Wed, 18 November 2009 01:19

Martin

My previous post contained evaluation and invalidation rather than just data to evaluate. I do see understanding and application of data on "help" itself as a very core subject but was off topic on the know-how to research.
It blurred research know how with ability to apply and willingness to apply. This blunts and alters the purpose of the thread.
I agree the clarity of whatever LRH posessed to analyse and compose technology was definately an amazing phenomena and would be amazing to duplicate as an ability.
I have not cracked that nut, but feel I have made headway into abilities that could mirror it, without the exact technology of knowing how to research.
I think its over looked how deeply kind and caring he was that also helped him to have the insights and presence (which was more my point) that must have contributed, but I cannot be sure.
How did he do it?

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Sun, 22 November 2009 09:23

Rafael

Maybe you can find a small part of that tiny book here:(Translated back from spanish)

PDC
Conference 45 Dec 13 1952 Development of Scientology : Characteristics of a living science.
Section 4
"A dichotomy is needed to solve something"
(He´s talking about the sudden fusion of modern occidental mathematical thought, logic, electronics with old oriental vedic hymns, mysticism, metaphysics, etc. And the observation of cause and effect in action with the discovery of natural law). I know you will need time to study the whole conference in case you are interested, but needed to comment something that seems kind of funny to me:

At this time you are assuming a position of deffense of integrity and free will.
By doing this you are filling a void left by the church and creating a dichotomy.....
Which WILL result in the re-creation of Scientology..................................
I already know that.......first time I am in the future......kind of like the view...
Bright energy............ Infinity..............Let´s play with this predator........
I´m gonna have me some fun.....

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Sun, 22 November 2009 10:14

Martin

I think an important tool is correcting based on ideal scenes. I realized thats why the dynamic principle of existence was the first step in researching Dianetics. With the ideal scene, "Survive", evil is ruled out as part of man, and put into the additive bin, and lots of data culled based off the comparison.
Evolution of a science explains from there.
I was relieved to get that cog, and it came after I read about, I think it was, evaluating by ideal scenes from Data series.
I always had thought "Nope don't get it" when he explained needing to get the dynamic principle of existence, but I had a skipped gradient on evaluating scenes.

Re: If I could be granted one wish...

Sun, 22 November 2009 10:51

Martin

Here is a definiton of the survive dynamic, explanation etc. From R&D Vol 10, lecture "Survival":
"So here is this triangle, this pyramid. Right at its peak we have the entering point of
knowledge. From this point down we know some things which are relatively workable, useful
and true. And above this point, for our purposes, we know nothing. That doesn't mean we
can't find some things out up here. But this point of entrance is the word survive. That is survive."
"You don't give a damn about number one! Isn't that funny? What a grim joke! The least
important dynamic is the first. And that is why you are all fouled up: because you go out
helping this one and helping that one and helping somebody else and you forget to help number
one"
"Where a person fails to help, he will very often offend. He offends in an effort to get the other
dynamic down to a point where it needs help."

comparing to an Ideal Scene

Sun, 22 November 2009 11:27

zzzz

Martin wrote on Sun, 22 November 2009 10:14

. . . I think it was, evaluating by ideal scenes from Data series. . . .

Martin

LRH does communicate in the Data Series that one must evaluate by comparing to an Ideal Scene.

It's been decades since I looked at them, but I think it is Data Series 36.

CRA

Pages (2): [1 2 › »]

Current Time: Mon Sep 6 13:27:22 CEST 2010

.:: Contact :: Home ::.