This blog is an experiment.
This blog is for people who primarily have a good reality on both Scientology and the bible, the old and new testament. That means that in order to post on this blog you have had to have done at least some Scientology (the more the better) and preferably read all of the old and new testament. (If not you should do so.) At the same time, you have to have good reasoning and evaluating powers and a partiality to the highest truth possible on a subject. In other words, be a truth seeker, a truth scientist and be able to recognize a truth when you see it.
Anyone is welcome to read and follow discussions or posts here.
In the introduction to 8-0-0-8 Hubbard gave credit to Jesus of Nazareth as one of his many sources. I think or suspect that this is more significant than is realized or that he let on.
Hubbard said he searched many sources from 50,000 yrs of thinking men to find the basic data for Scientology. Then he built on what he learned from them. I want to do the same here, but do it from today’s viewpoint.
Taking an honest look at Scientology, not only the church, but the freezone, and the products it produces, it is clearly evident, that it leaves a lot to be desired. With the exception of a small few, pretty well everyone is evidently still insane in some ways and still PTS.
(Insanity is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. Impaired judgment. Lack of discretion. Poor reasoning powers. Not mentally stable. )
The true value of a person is determined when you take him down enough miles of bad road and bad weather. Does he become part of the solution or increasingly become a source of problems. What is this person like to live with, and work with? Does he withstand the test of endurance? Is he good for the long haul? How is his sense of judgment and discretion? Does he have impaired judgment? Is he mentally stable? Does he have a good sense of right and wrong? Does he have common sense and wisdom? Is he an asset or a liability? Has he done his homework in life and did it earnestly? That means to learn and gain from as much as possible from the knowledge, experience and wisdom of great minds, the great books, that came before him?
The biggest room in the world is room for improvement. Hubbard took on the largest, most difficult and most complex subject of mankind, that is his mind and his character. It is evident, to those who have sufficient impartial intellectual integrity, to take an honest look, that there is a lot more that needs to be done.
Today we are some 60 yrs ahead of that and this is in an age where knowledge is growing at a break neck speed, doubling or more every year. Knowledge is not static.
We have had many great minds who have done Scientology and did at least a considerable part of “completing the cycle of learning” to learn from. A few have had enough theta units to rework or refine the bridge and others have attempted to build their own bridges.
This is most commendable and is what Hubbard truly wanted, if you read between the lines of what he said and wrote. It is my hope that as many as possible like minds and great minds will join in this forum. Let’s stand on the shoulders of those who came before us and see farther, as all wise men do.
It is only right that all of Hubbard’s work (the standard bridge) be preserved for posterity, but that does not mean that it is the be all and end all and no one should try and improve it.
Like if you can’t define a word in your own words, you flunk. The bridge is similar, if you can’t build you own bridge and build a better one, you flunk. A bright student should always be better than his teacher. If this wasn’t the case we would still be living in caves.
This blog will also operate on the principle of understanding as described in “How to Study a Science” in “A New Slant on Life”. That principle is that any subject cannot be understood unless you evaluate it against all other subjects of comparable magnitude in the known universe.
What does “other subjects of comparable magnitude” mean? It simply means: all other subjects that attempt to help man improve himself and his lot in life.
This ties in with the idea of: “completing the cycle of learning”.
What does “completing the cycle of learning” mean? It means to study enough material of as many other viewpoints as possible, on a particular subject, in the known universe, and test it for workability over sufficient time, (to get enough experience with it) until you get to a point where you get enough understanding of the subject, so that you can see right through it from many different points of view. You will get to a point where less and less is new to you.
Completing the cycle of learning on a subject is not a cut and dried thing, where you stop learning, it is a level of impartial or pan determined understanding, where you are above limited thinking, beyond adhering to ideology, and have little use for labels.
A simple example is if you came to earth and wanted to learn everything there was to know about earth’s religions. You saw all the arguments and all the conflicts and you wanted to know the truth about the subjects the religions argued and fought about. Good reasoning powers would tell you to take “a bird on a wire viewpoint” and read and study all religions on earth. Then evaluate all the data collected and test it and by that means you will be able to separate the truth from false and limiting data.
And the truth will set you free from confusion and conflict. Only the honest truth will truly solve a problem. Because where ever there is confusion and conflict between two people or two groups, or if two look at the same thing and see something different, there are only two possibilities:
1. either one is right and the other is wrong,
2. or both are wrong.
In the case of two people looking at the same thing and each reporting seeing something different, it means that either one or both have impaired judgment. Or one or both are perceptually dishonest.
That is in alignment with the first part of Dianetics, where Hubbard, to explain insanity, uses the example of someone seeing an elephant where there is a cat, or something other than a cat.
If two people know the truth, the real truth on a subject, (which means they have had to have done their homework to gain the right knowledge on the subject, properly and thoroughly) and have good judgment, and good reason, there is agreement. The truth will set them free from conflict.
Few people in Scientology ever got that. If a person has not taken Scientology and properly evaluated it against at least some other subjects of comparable magnitude, (the more the better) than that person cannot understand Scientology. It is not possible. From my viewpoint and experience, the bible is the first most logical choice. Based on my evaluation, I see that the people who study and live by the principles of the bible, and do it right, are the most stable and sane people I know. (I say “right”, because there is a right way and wrong way to do everything, and many shades in between. I also say “most stable”, because the bible still falls short sometimes. (Also remember that what was true yesterday is not necessarily true today. Times change.)
Bringing the two together and gleaning the truths from each, will go a long way to make a better product. Also, it is important to remember that this world is full of traps and for everything genuine, there is a perfect counterfeit. )
There are other good groups, but the largest group that I know of are the people who rightly study the bible and live by it’s principles. (I should add: the teachings of Jesus. ) And it is a relatively small body of data compared to Scientology.
In terms of evidence: Generally speaking, to me it appears that it was the bible that made Europeans the most successful people on earth, which led to the founding and development of the USA and Canada and made the USA and Canada the best countries in the world to live in, until capitalism and materialism drew many from the teachings, to what we have today, an increasing deteriorating society.
In other words, the proof is determined by testing the pudding, not by authority, arguments or beliefs and opinions and other such arbitraries.
To believe something is to accept something as true without proof. A belief is what people revert to in the absence of facts. This is irrational. A belief is a confession of ignorance.
A person who says they believe something is actually saying that they do not know what they are talking about. They are raising an opinion or a fabrication or a hearsay to the level of a fact or truth, without proof.
Being that Scientology is the science of knowing how to know, (that begs the question: Know what?, that can only mean to know the truth of something, including “a fulfillment of, or a means to “Know thyself”) and if those who did Scientology, did it right and understood it, should not have to believe anything.
Beliefs, believers, opinions and opinionators are from about the same tone level as the “glee of insanity”, but in it’s own column on the Chart of Human evaluation, a column that Hubbard did not include, that I recall.
The glee of ignorance (as in: ignorance is bliss) is kin to the glee of insanity.
Hubbard, in essence, said that those who can only parrot the author, are slightly aberrated.
So, the main common reality here will be Scientology and the bible, at least for starters.
I don’t know if presenting other data from other subjects of comparable magnitude will work or not, but we could try. That is what Hubbard actually meant in: “How to study a Science”.
Other data from others sources could work if properly backed up and explained to bring it into context, if necessary. Some data will stand on it’s own. Each to be evaluated on it’s own merits.
I have also done a fair bit of research, similar to what Hubbard did. I did most of this before I got into Scientology in 1997. So I have a fair bit. But we will start with Scientology and the bible and see how it goes. The bible being a relatively other common reality. Scientology helped me put everything else I leaned prior and since into alignment, and gave me increasing understanding. It also prevented me from committing suicide more than once.
Other key operating data for this blog:
1. Any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated and that is determined by workability, including the test of time.
2. I recall that Hubbard said somewhere that he was not source, and he was not an authority. He said he just did some research and he presented what he found and told people to take it and use it and decide for themselves. And it only stands to reason that what he meant was: not argue over what he said.
Hubbard also wisely said, the truth is not determined by authority. The truth is the truth and the value of a datum is determined by the number of problems it solves and not by any other criteria or means or via. And every datum has to be evaluated on it’s own merits and in relation to other data, when necessary.
So it follows that the truth is also not determined by beliefs, opinions, who wins an argument, majority vote, majority opinion polls, ideology or any other arbitrary.
My definition of truth, in my own words is: The truth is nothing more or less than the right answer to any question or problem. That which is true, or fact. That which can be proven. The truth of 2+2 is 4.
People fail in any endeavor for only one reason and that is for the lack of the right knowledge to solve the problem at hand. The right knowledge (the truth) solves every problem.
The right knowledge, scientific thinking, reason, evaluation, logic, workability, common sense will be the basic methods or criteria of determining truth and facts.
The primary objective of this blog is to find data of comparable magnitude and complementary data in the bible, to Scientology, to make a better bridge. And glean false and limiting data from Scientology.
In a private conversation with John MacMaster, Hubbard, in essence, said that standard tech is for people who need instructions on how to pet a cat.
Please spread the word of this blog to anyone else you know who meets the criteria of this blog, to join us.
I am looking forward to seeing how this experiment will work and evolve.