Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father

[DuvalHMFIC]

No OT, as far as I know, can pick up a plane like superman. Sometimes what we do with our hands is all that we can do.

This pretty much sums me up in a nutshell, and I'm not OT...

 

[hgc]

A prayers like: "God, I ask that you don't let this plane crash" or "I hope this plane doesn't crash" seem to work but there's no double blind study that's been done.

Seem to work? How seem? I mean, how do you detect and evaluate the data on this question? What have you observed that makes it seem like don't let this plane crash or I hope this plane doesn't crash work to prevent plane crashes?

How do you know how many and what quality of prayers have been offered for crashed vs non-crashed plane flights?

 

[Myriad]

No OT, as far as I know, can pick up a plane like superman.

Okay, that's an example of something you can't do. I'm asking for some examples of things you can do.

Sometimes what we do with our hands is all that we can do.

What about the times when you can do more than what you can do with your hands, and effect changes by thinking about them, like you mentioned before? Can you give some examples?

What happens to me, more often than not, is that an OT postulate gets converted to inspiration.

This might be an earnest attempt to answer my question, but the meanings of the words aren't clear. What are the OT postulates? What does it mean to convert one into inspiration? Inspiration, as I understand it, occurs in the mind, so are you saying that higher level OTs can be the cause of MEST but only in their own minds?

Once again, providing some examples might be the easiest way to clarify this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[The Dark Lord]

I was once on a I thought was going to crash. So I prayed to the FSM (the one true God), "please extend your noodley appendages down from the heavens and prevent this plane from crashing." And guess what, the plane didn't crash! Thus prayer works! But only if you pray to the correct God (the FSM).

 

[Myriad]

A prayer like: "FU God, I'll burn down a church if you don't start doing me some favors" just doesn't get the job done.

A prayers like: "God, I ask that you don't let this plane crash" or "I hope this plane doesn't crash" seem to work but there's no double blind study that's been done.

I agree that the second type of prayer is better than the first, but those are still pretty low-toned (to borrow your terminology) as prayers go. And that type of prayer has been tested by double blind study, and clearly demonstrated to have no effect upon the thing prayed for -- e.g. in the example case, the plane or its probability of crashing. (Though it hasn't been tested on planes specificially; most tests have been for medical intercession.)

There is one prayer that is the highest toned prayer known. It always, absolutely always, works.

It is only five words long, and it's hidden in plain sight in Christian tradition, but this is not dangerous because it cannot be understood except by those who are spiritually ready to receive it. That's also why I can tell it to you without too much fear that the knowledge will harm you.

"God, Thy will be done."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[pakeha]

This is your typical MO as you try to inculcate your opinions (brainwash) all who read your responses.

Are you connected to any psychiatric or medical organization and/or company including drug manufacturers?

I am a lifelong Scientologist. What's your gig?

After reading your description of a 'Two Way Comm'

No. 'Two Way Comm' on the Emeter is first process run on a new PC. It's part of the bridge called 'Life Repair'. During comm with the PC, when the auditor sees a read, he gets the PC to talk about the thought/idea that caused the read. Usually that brings about a quick resolution to the communication with a burst of tears followed by laughter and smiles. A PC isn't allowed to free wheel.

I'd be tempted to conclude you're committed to a therapy related to 'rebirthing'.
Remember those endorfins we dicussed earlier?

...
A prayers like: "God, I ask that you don't let this plane crash" or "I hope this plane doesn't crash" seem to work but there's no double blind study that's been done.

You mean, it works except when it doesn't?

...What happens to me, more often than not, is that an OT postulate gets converted to inspiration.

Ah, working with mottos?
Simple and effective for beginners.
You said you were an OTVIII?
Interesting.
How much did it cost you to learn to work with mottos?

 

[marplots]

Marplots said, "This makes me wonder what I might hold to be true or useful now that my grandchildren will understand to be bunk. It also makes me wonder if it ever works the other way round -- the judged-to-be-worthless turns out to be valuable instead."

Is this a rhetorical question?

It wasn't rhetorical, it was an honest expression of something I'm curious about.

You aren't making an argument that if an unknown percentage of the things we believe are true will turn out to be false, and an unknown percentage of things that we believe are false will turn out to be true, then all beliefs are equal, are you?

No, I am not making that argument.

Do we have no basis for saying that aspirin is good for headaches has more claim to truth than a belief that the leaves are green because leprechauns paint them?

I think we do have a basis to make that claim, yes. But that's what generates my question. I have the same basis for holding everything I think to be so, while at the same time suspecting that some subset of what I think is so will turn out to be false.

 

[shuttlt]

I think we do have a basis to make that claim, yes. But that's what generates my question. I have the same basis for holding everything I think to be so, while at the same time suspecting that some subset of what I think is so will turn out to be false.

Rereading this I don't understand. You agree that aspirin being clearly good for headaches is a more reasonable claim than leprechauns are responsible for painting leaves... then you say you have the same basis for believing everything you think is so. Do you mean something different by "basis to make [the] claim" than I do? I mean that there is good evidence that the claim is objectively true. Personally I believe in lots of things that I have far less rational grounds for believing than this. I find it difficult to believe that all your beliefs are well supported.

 

[marplots]

I care if my beliefs are true. Do you?

This is a good and a serious question, so I'll try to give a detailed response.

The tl;dr answer is that, with limitations, I do care.

The longer version recognizes some of the constraints. First, I know I am not the best instrument to measure the truth value of my own beliefs. When they have changed (I hope for the better) the change came by way of taking in new information from outside of myself. So I am familiar with making mistakes. I also admit I am biased and need to try to overcome unreasonable bias.

But there is more. For example, I think we could both construct situations where false beliefs have more benefit than true beliefs. Or at least, we could give examples where the consequences of knowing the truth were less than optimal. I'll give just one...

A child is admitted for transplant surgery and the usual tests are done, including antigen testing (to help prevent rejection). The doctors realize that the the child cannot be the offspring of the husband because of the test results.

The context is an otherwise loving and stable marriage and family. The husband and wife both believe (falsely) that the child is theirs, but in truth, the child is the result of a one-time misstep on the wife's part.

Should the wife and husband be told the truth of the matter, knowing the likely consequences would be damage to the marriage?

The deeper problem comes from the landscape we operate in. Truth is quite often a poor way to measure value. When I look at how I spend my day, those things that I find enjoyable and useful, truth rarely enters the mix. For example, before I started with this post, I had watched a television drama. I found it gripping and evocative. Of course, I realize the entire thing was made up and not true -- this has little bearing on the value to me. I also listen to music I like. I eat food I find tasty. None of these things have to do with true beliefs.

I also find a very pragmatic test on offer. Among those with whom I disagree and would say they hold false beliefs, they are able to operate as well or better than I in the world. Arguably, these false beliefs have done them no harm and may have done them some good. If, for example, someone believes in God's plan, and that belief helps stave off depression about mortality or gives them a sense of participation in a larger good despite personal setbacks, why would I deny them this?

I rather think false beliefs are very common and serve a useful purpose. Ask a set of players whether they believe their team will win the championship. Arguably, many do believe it. But so do the players on the other teams. All but one team is using a false belief for motivation. Without it, they might trigger a self-fulfilling prophecy of "I cannot win. Why should I try?"

Finally, I'd point out that false beliefs do not appear false to those who hold them. I will stipulate that we cannot willfully believe things that we also know to be false. And this cycles back to being poor measuring instruments.

So, the longer answer to the question of whether I value true beliefs, I will say that I can hold no other beliefs than those which I deem to be true.

 

[dafydd]

, I want to be protected by smart people.

Stay away from Scientologists and Freezoners.

 

[marplots]

I believe the value resides in intelligence, growth, and progress. If you waste your time on things that aren't real or don't exist, it's taking away time from learning and building upon that which does exist.

How handicapped were our ancestors years ago by the church, for instance? For everything they learned, for the progress they made, how much more could have been made if it wasn't for the threat of excommunication, for example? Having to research in secret for fear of your life?

Just the other day I was listening to an old episode of SGU and they were talking about how Newton spent his life studying alchemy in secret. What a waste of time! He never learned anything from it, and he could have spent that time learning even more about the universe than he did in his accomplished life.

I think you've introduced an axiom that I disagree with. If I read that right, you are saying that time spent on nonsense is time wasted.

I cannot say how the study of Alchemy (or his belief in God) contributed or detracted from Newton's other feats. The products of his mind we value come from the same mind as the things we now dismiss. Would Newton have been Newton otherwise? It could be that contemplating the infinity of God led to the infinitesimal in calculus.

But there's more. I'd argue that Newton was exploring the world and investigating many things. To bind him post hoc to areas of investigation we no longer value is to forget the landscape he was operating in.

We simply do not know, from his perspective, what was going to bear fruit. Constraining the explorer by examining the map he drew and pointing out only those destinations we like is disingenuous. We can wonder what Einstein would have produced had he accepted quantum theory's implications, but exploration doesn't work that way.

 

[shuttlt]

I will stipulate that we cannot willfully believe things that we also know to be false.

I'm not altogether certain that it's quite so clear cut as that. Compartmentalization is a wonderful thing. It also kind of makes me think of adults who know that there is no such thing as ghosts, yet get spooked going to the toilet in the middle of the night.

 

[marplots]

Rereading this I don't understand. You agree that aspirin being clearly good for headaches is a more reasonable claim than leprechauns are responsible for painting leaves... then you say you have the same basis for believing everything you think is so. Do you mean something different by "basis to make [the] claim" than I do? I mean that there is good evidence that the claim is objectively true. Personally I believe in lots of things that I have far less rational grounds for believing than this. I find it difficult to believe that all your beliefs are well supported.

If you ask me what I believe about Leprechauns and aspirin, I do not take several minutes to lay out the facts for and against. I do not hold an internal debate and weigh the evidence. When it came up earlier, I took zero apparent time to come to a conclusion. The "answer" is already in my brain. To ask about a belief I hold or do not hold is to get me to take a sort of internal poll, an observation about my own mind.

In this way, all beliefs I hold have the same basis. They have the same observational basis as if you asked me if I were right or left handed.

If you then ask me to justify my belief, I will dredge up other things to support what I said. But now I am doing something different. I am trying to convince you my belief is rational and supported. Still, the belief itself exists pre-formed and has the same strength as any other belief I hold, whether or not I convince you stands outside of how the belief appears to me.

 

[shuttlt]

I cannot say how the study of Alchemy (or his belief in God) contributed or detracted from Newton's other feats. The products of his mind we value come from the same mind as the things we now dismiss. Would Newton have been Newton otherwise? It could be that contemplating the infinity of God led to the infinitesimal in calculus.

If so, then only by accident. Perhaps it held him back from greater achievements? Do you really not think on the whole scientists find it more helpful to work on the basis of correct information and true theories as opposed to false information and mistaken theories? I mean a stopped clock, blah, blah... but that it isn't an argument for using a stopped clock to tell the time.

But there's more. I'd argue that Newton was exploring the world and investigating many things. To bind him post hoc to areas of investigation we no longer value is to forget the landscape he was operating in.

Nobody here blames Newton for not being born an atheist in the 21st Century.

 

[marplots]

Marplots said, "I will stipulate that we cannot willfully believe things that we also know to be false."

I'm not altogether certain that it's quite so clear cut as that. Compartmentalization is a wonderful thing. It also kind of makes me think of adults who know that there is no such thing as ghosts, yet get spooked going to the toilet in the middle of the night.

I think you are correct. I should have put in something about, "at the same time." But it's a nice method, to bring two contrary beliefs to someone's attention at the same time to see what emerges.

I know in myself, I tend to do a kind of elide-skip that introduces nuance or frameshifting to resolve the conflict.

I can induce the feeling of belief conflict by immersing myself in paradoxes of the logic/mathematics type. It's actually an interesting, and I'd even say enjoyable feeling. But with paradoxes, I am going in knowing the game, I'm forewarned.

In the real world, such conflicts, when resolved, give a rather different feeling -- paradigm shift and epiphany. Not always as enjoyable, but pretty cool nonetheless.

 

[shuttlt]

If you then ask me to justify my belief, I will dredge up other things to support what I said. But now I am doing something different. I am trying to convince you my belief is rational and supported. Still, the belief itself exists pre-formed and has the same strength as any other belief I hold, whether or not I convince you stands outside of how the belief appears to me.

My beliefs aren't like that. There are some that I believe in strongly and with great certainty. If I stand at the top of a cliff I believe I will fall and hit the ground very hard if I step off the cliff. Other beliefs I hold loosely - that the world is basically a good place and things tend to work out, but I'm also aware that other people believe the world is a ****** place and everything always goes wrong in the end, so I recognize my contrary belief to be personal to myself and poorly supported.

Those beliefs are at very different ends of the spectrum, but I certainly believe both of them. I think I'd be quite confused if I treated all beliefs equally.

 

[tsig]

That would certainly be cause over MEST that a clear might have at 4.0 (enthusiasm) on the tone scale. If it made you happy, then it was a moment at clear.

An OT can effect changes just by thinking about them when he is really, really up tone. Denial and anger don't produce OT changes.

Christians sometimes effect MEST by uptone prayer (as opposed to a command to God). If you want to be an OT, learn how to pray politely while exterior and happy.

Resorting to jargon, not a good sign.

 

[marplots]

If so, then only by accident. Perhaps it held him back from greater achievements? Do you really not think on the whole scientists find it more helpful to work on the basis of correct information and true theories as opposed to false information and mistaken theories?

To your second, of course I agree. But the true theories are being developed and not yet available to check against.

As to your first, I cannot reconstruct the argument and do it justice, but I have read that religious motivations led directly to scientific methods. The story goes like this: We believe that God will be evidenced in the patterns and processes we can discover in the world. We should explore the natural world to gain insight and information about God.

The attempt, of course, ended up largely dismissing God, but the motivation to discover "God's hand" was driven by what we would say are now false beliefs.

All I am saying is that it makes no sense to separate out those attributes of a man that we find admirable in hindsight from those we find less so. Aren't we, as humans too complex for that?

 

[shuttlt]

To your second, of course I agree. But the true theories are being developed and not yet available to check against.

As to your first, I cannot reconstruct the argument and do it justice, but I have read that religious motivations led directly to scientific methods. The story goes like this: We believe that God will be evidenced in the patterns and processes we can discover in the world. We should explore the natural world to gain insight and information about God.

The attempt, of course, ended up largely dismissing God, but the motivation to discover "God's hand" was driven by what we would say are now false beliefs.

All I am saying is that it makes no sense to separate out those attributes of a man that we find admirable in hindsight from those we find less so. Aren't we, as humans too complex for that?

If I am going on a trip across France, am I better of taking a map of France, or a map of Narnia? Sure I might end up following the map of Narnia to some bit of France I'm glad to go to, I might even fluke it and get to where I intended, but that's blind luck, it doesn't mean that the map of Narnia contained any genuinely helpful information.

If there was some stuff connected to belief in false Gods that happened to lead to people making sensible decisions, that is blind luck.

Also, to give a contrary narrative to your divine inspiration one... the version I had heard was that by looking back to a golden age - Eden, by seeing the world as fallen from that Golden age, by relying on ancient religious texts there was a tendency to put too much weight on knowledge from the past, i.e. Aristotle, Paracelsus, etc.. and not actually check anything when in fact they contained errors that any fool could have seen if they'd thought to double check.

 

[marplots]

My beliefs aren't like that. There are some that I believe in strongly and with great certainty. If I stand at the top of a cliff I believe I will fall and hit the ground very hard if I step off the cliff. Other beliefs I hold loosely - that the world is basically a good place and things tend to work out, but I'm also aware that other people believe the world is a ****** place and everything always goes wrong in the end, so I recognize my contrary belief to be personal to myself and poorly supported.

Those beliefs are at very different ends of the spectrum, but I certainly believe both of them. I think I'd be quite confused if I treated all beliefs equally.

Would you say then that your beliefs are ranked by how easily you think they might be contradicted and changed? That's what I think you are saying.

But here's the rub. Until they are contradicted and changed, you cannot know the strength of a belief. So, for example, someone who undergoes a conversion experience (either toward or against religious belief) would have argued beforehand, and will argue afterwards, that their belief was immune from alteration, invincible and unassailable.

I think, what you are describing, isn't about the strength of a belief, but how clearly it appears, how well explored and described. That I would have to agree with. The emotional hook for me seems to come from ideas about self worth and relevance. So, for example, I don't care much about how accurate the white pages are in my town. If you ask me what I believe, I will give one answer but you could quite easily convince me otherwise. The belief is the same (in my view), but the emotional attachment is different.

If the white pages turn out to be chock-full of errors, I can be "converted" easily. But now, in this new position, I have invested some investigative effort and the belief is now more relevant. I've explored it, clarified it, put it into play. So, let us say you then want to convince me my new belief is false. Perhaps you've tricked me. I will be harder to convert now, not because my believe is necessarily of a different type, but because I've invested in it. The emotional attachment is different.

There's an interesting experiment to try. Construct some flip flopping series of "convincers" to lead a person through a binary cycle of changes in beliefs. My prediction is the result will be frustration and abandonment of surety and clarity. They will end up, not with a well formed belief, but a kind of watchful suspicion, the "sense of belief" dissolves.

I have a hunch that interrogators use this to good effect by removing predictability in a series of pattern forming and breaking. The purpose of which would be to break down the belief mechanism itself and impose what they desire from their "clients." I think this is related to how deprogramming works in trying to rescue someone from a cult.