Someone quoted,"analytical versus reactive",that is just the best quote in ages,if anyone cant see that in society then they should stick to their comics because it is just beyond their comprehension,sounds mean but its true.How great to be fully analytical to life and not react to it like some primate animal,I know what I would prefer
Once you get through what is a heavy book and get total conceptual understanding of what he is on about then it does begin to show its ugle head amongst the people of the world,what you also must realise is that this is the first in a sequence and is just the tip of the iceberg as he goes onto much greater levels of explanations,after this one if you read science of survival it makes enormous sense but would be total jibberish done the wrong way around
To answer your question about the research,the idea is to read the book and apply the tech and that way you get to see the facts and axioms if you like for yourself,then if you are in denial about any reactive mind being in existence then the fact of the matter is you dont know the subject,quit your inner dialogue it is a fact.Its not the easiest book to get through and I know from my own experience that nearly all readers think they know what dianetics means but actually have the derivation
This is not about dianetics at all is it?what i will say though is the church does fit into the definitions of what a cult is and the huge prices it demands are just an element that can not be justified but saying all that it withour any doubts at all that a reactive mind exists and although scientology may have a lot to explain...LRH was not talking shit and discovered more than you,me and everyone else around.I will never defend the church or sing and dance about it but it is not lies.
You DO realize there is a group of about 15 thick dictionary sized volumes called, "The Research & Discovery" volumes, right? Every bit of research and discovery is in them, and Scientologists can look at them anytime they wish.
Has LRH's research been peer reviewed? Thick dictionary sized volumes don't make it valid. The only reason I bring up peer review is the fact that Dianetics does say Modern SCIENCE
You're very right, dictionary sized volumes don't make it valid. But, what's contained inside is another story.
My answer to your question, has LRH's research been peer reviewed, is the book is available to anyone who desires a copy of it and there's nothing stopping anyone from peer reviewing it if they wish to.
There's nothing stopping a group of "scientists" trying it out for themselves and testing the theories. There's also nothing stopping a group of regular people testing it out.
Why put "science" and "scientist" in scare quotes? Interestingly enough though... the only books by LRH i've ever found in book stores are his fiction stories published by Galaxy Press. I've yet to find one Scientology text book in a bookstore but that's just me.
Statements like the single source of aberration being discovered and the fact this can be demonstrated in a laboratory test tends to make me skeptical of any research that led to these conclusions.
Well I've found Dianetics, Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, and Scientology: A New Slant On Life in my local Barnes & Noble. I dunno if it's national, but I'm in NJ and there's NY org that's fairly close so that could be why.
But to me it's simple. You take an individual, say a young child who's learning to ride a bike. Through the process of learning how to ride, the kid falls over a lot of times scraping his knees and elbows. As we're both human, we understand those happenings are rather painful. Logically, there will be a memory of that particular incident stored in the child's mind. But this particular incident isn't an analytical one, it's painful. Any painful incident, whether it's physical or (continued...)
emotional pain, is stored as an engram. An engram being a moment of pain, unconsciousness and antagonism experienced by an individual.
At this point, I use Dianetics to differentiate between a person being analytical versus reactive. Take that same child who got hurt a lot riding his bike, as an adult, he might forbid his child to ride a bike, which is irrational, or if he does, might experience painful elbows or knees in remembering those days when he was a kid learning how to ride.
Or it could be a worse incident, where a person gets into a terrible car accident. They break their legs and can't walk. Years later, the person might develop an irrational fear of cars, or might feel the pain from the accident they had witnessing a car crash, or even going near a car, because the memory of what happened never went away. It's still very real in memory.
So all Dianetics does is helps a person directly contact incidents they can remember that were painful both physical and emotional, and by going over and over those same incidents again and again, the person can view what happened from multiple aspects and perspectives, weakening the amount of charge the engram contains. Charge would be the negative energy, the pain/unconsciousness...whatever it may be. Pain would obviously be negative.
So as a result, you have a person look at a bunch of painful or unconscious incidents built up from a lifetime, go over and over them again, and they no longer are incidents which are hidden negative sources of trouble for a person. They become memories that a person can then analyze and use as experience.
I guess what I'm getting at is I don't see why one would choose Dianetics over say... an intense therapy session with a psychologist. I'd venture to guess that the feeling one has after a standard counseling session and the feeling one has after running a particularly painful incident with an auditor are going to be pretty similar. I've written about painful incidents in my past and after wards it seemed "ok." I felt lighter. I could be jovial about it. I guess I don't see whats unique about..
I think its a profoundly good thing to confront moments of pain and trauma and be able to get past them. What I couldn't get past in reading the very dense prose of LRH in Dianetics is I really didn't see anything revolutionary at all. I didn't see anything that warrants those "philosopher staring off into the distance poses" we see him in or rhetoric about LRH being the most dynamic genius individual who ever lived which I've heard some people say.
I don't think he was the most dynamic genius who ever lived, but I think he was a genius nevertheless. I think you're mind would be changed if you actually got Dianetics auditing. If it worked for you that is.
Dianetics is nothing more than an example of pseudoscience trying to legitimize itself ... Hubbard, had he indeed been a scientist, would have known that truth is not built on axioms, and facts cannot be found from some a-priori knowledge. A true science is constructed on hypotheses, which are arrived at by the virtue of observed phenomena. Scientific knowledge is gained by observation and testing, not believing from some subconscious stipulation, as Hubbard would have us believe.
Scientology is a bait-and-switch scheme. People come to Scientology hoping for increased intelligence, improved personality, and help in dealing with personal problems. They don't come in to learn a system of beliefs based on science fiction stories, infestations of alien spirits and exploding volcanos. People deserve to know the content of the upper levels when they sign up.
Well the book IS available in pretty much any bookstore you go to. What's stopping you and bunch of guys getting together and testing out the theories to see if they work? What's stopping "science" from peer reviewing it? Any scientist on their day off can buy the book and conduct an experiment. As for professional peer reviews, I don't know of any. It's also true that the early practitioners of Dianetics started the Dianetics foundation, not Hubbard.
Video Summary: This is the weakest attempt to invalidate Dianetics as a Science but this CrazyDude offers not one valid argument.
He just spouts off quotes from the book that he obviously does not understand and attempts to nullify their validity by some false pretense of "authority".
It's an "I'm an AUTHORITY and therefore I MUST BE RIGHT." but fails to give anything to support his argument.
You just cannot conceive that someone can read Dianetics and not find it so incredibly profound that it changes everything about their life. Sorry for not buying it but I'm a fan of critical thinking. End of story.
You are so uniformed. Further the information you almost have but won't allow yourself to have is studied with such an obvious contempt that I don't see how you could learn anything.
When you read Dianetics it is NOT to obtain information but only to nullify and invalidate. Look those up when you read SOS and where those are on the tone scale.
Further, you speak condescendingly "boys & girls" like your some authority and from a more informed position you only come across as an idiot.
You are so very welcome. I feel its my duty to point out the idiocy of others when they are so obviously misinformed and yet speak as if they are an authority.
Tell me, did you really make it past Chapter Two?
I did not find anything "wrong" but I did recognize that some element were not fully considered and this technology although effective was VERY time consuming. 500 to 1000 hours per case.
That is regard to Dianetics. I find 98.8% of Scientology true for me.
Ballerina dear, I was not speaking to you about only reading 2 chapters, that communication was intened for Crazy dude.
DIANETICS was a time consuming effort. It was a technology that worked ONE incident at a time. Later techniques addressed larger "areas" and were more time effective.
I'd still recommend Dianetics to another b/c it is still very effective, just one incident at a time. PM me a more detailed request for data and I will reply.
And I guess the other thing that really bugs and maybe you can clear this up. If Dianetics was such a significant discovery how come it has not gained more traction? There are some extraordinary claims made in the book and it seems that if they were true they would have truly revolutionized the planet but they have not and Scientology is mostly ridiculed.
Do a little more research on the powers that be that might want to keep mankind "in the mud". Then Google thier net worth as well as their power and influence. Then look to see how many money lines Dianetics cuts across to have people helping people without drugs or 12 year degrees. But its mainly the aforementioned powers that be.
Really, look it up. Find out. It will blow you away. Were all mostly no more than slaves.... to the economy, to fear, to media, to special interests... etc.
I really make every effort not to lie, even by accident, so don't call me a lier. TY.
Again you are also correct, one's one consderations are the senior element to their reality and existence.
I was anwering the Q on why Scn wasn't so more widespread if it works so well, and others are a major factor in this regard. Others that wish ill of mankind.
Others that believe they can only stay on top if everyone stays down, that if people became more able they would be destroyed.
He was speaking like that to be humorous and ability you seem to lack but anyway on with talking about Dianetics. Dianetics is all about giving you information, if it wasn't why would Ron have wasted the ink on the time to write it?
You say, Scientologists should have access to the research and they have access to so much research that when you look at how much research is available again, it makes you look like an idiot, as in, Wow, this guy has no fucking clue!
Further, you quote Hubbard like he is insane to make such statements as Dianetics can stop a nuclear holocaust. Tell me, is it rational and survival activity to blow up the planet as was a major concern in the 50s, no? And Dianetics resolves irrationality.
And then you say that Scientologist cant question anything and again, you are so wrong you look like a ranting idiot to those that are informed. Any Scientologist can question anything and is in fact expected to evaluate everything.
If they dont find it true, then nobody is going to cram it down anyones throat.
Perhaps you think this b/c so many do agree, but that is because it makes sense and when technology is applied it WORKS. Its hard to disagree with something that WORKS.
Why not? You can PM me if you would like. I am free to discuss anything. If you have observed errors then there ARE errors. You can study tech, pure tech.
Now youre talking and you are totally correct. Only wihen it is correctly applied.
Many of the "issues" some have with Scientology are actually because of misapplications of tech or policy including ethics and justices policy and proceedures.
If you only have one hat the KOT (Keeper of the Tech) hat is probably the most important. This and Qual.
I am not surprised you consider KSW nonsense because you seem to have misunderstandings all over the place regarding Scientology.
And yet you present yourself like your some kind of authority.
Things dont make sense to you b/c of first misunderstood words in the text that you are reading and second your learning anything is blocked by a "fixed idea" and a consideration that "you know all there is to know, its bunk" mentality.
So really, your uninformed invalidations are validating Scn.
I'm simply reading it from a different perspective than you are and an environment that is different from yours... namely one where Scientology isn't supposed to nor does it need to work. There are large portions of Dianetics I find to be incomprehensible but that's not because of misunderstood words it's because it's meaningless. Hubbard didn't have any more qualifications to talk about the human mind that I do.
I totally agree you have the right and freedom to question anything. I believe we should have more of that in society. But you seem to be restraining animosity for Dianetics? It is revealed in the cynical restraint displayed in your voice and annunciation. Why you hating on L Ron Hubbard?
Well.. it'd be interesting to take a look at an older version to see the changes made. However, I have a bit of trouble seeing it make more sense as I find Hubbard's skills as a writer a bit lacking.
Thats fine with me I mean like Ron said "Nothing in Scientology or Dianetics is true for you unless you have observed it."
^.^
To answer your question the RTC is headed by David Miscavige and they are out simply to gain money and they dont care who they walk all over to get it.
No, screw that looking for a older copy. Get the latest copy because it has the best glossary of terms and actually the best typeset. I think its the 2007 version
And READ IT. And don't read it with some contemptable "how is this wrong, what can I find that I can show to others to make Dianetics wrong" You have to be WILLING TO LEARN. FIRST BARRIER TO STUDY IS the consideration you KNOW ALL ABOUT IT. If you reading thinkin, I KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS (its wrong) then you wont tlearn anything
....LRH was a very clever trickster. I have read some self help books by other Authors like Paul McKenna, and they made perfect sense, and didnt require expensive Auditing
courses to make you a better person, it's a whole heap of false propaganda.....Oh my God, I feel so "Aberrated", somebody please remove my "Engram".
Great Idea! We should demand to see the peer reviewed double blind studies that confirm dianetics works.
Co$ members get into car accidents at the same rate as everyone else.
Co$ members of die of cancer at a higher rate then everyone else(probably because so many of them smoke and because of the aspestos on the Freewinds. Also they often dely real treatement in favor of vitamines and Dianetic$.)
Science, or proper Science more specifically, demands that the information is constantly challenged. It is how we come up with more accurate definition of the world we live in. Science can define our way of life, so it is absolutely necessary to always check if we are right. This is important because even intelligent people can be wrong (people once thought the world was flat).
They can't, I've had to explain to several of them that their cult is based on "revilation"(read in bullshit) not anything even remotely resembling science.
Oh! Interesting...
4417989 5 months ago
This video seems to be a bit biased against scientology. I think all religions are prone to bullshit.
TheWillwillwill 2 years ago
Someone quoted,"analytical versus reactive",that is just the best quote in ages,if anyone cant see that in society then they should stick to their comics because it is just beyond their comprehension,sounds mean but its true.How great to be fully analytical to life and not react to it like some primate animal,I know what I would prefer
yorkermiles 2 years ago
Once you get through what is a heavy book and get total conceptual understanding of what he is on about then it does begin to show its ugle head amongst the people of the world,what you also must realise is that this is the first in a sequence and is just the tip of the iceberg as he goes onto much greater levels of explanations,after this one if you read science of survival it makes enormous sense but would be total jibberish done the wrong way around
yorkermiles 2 years ago
To answer your question about the research,the idea is to read the book and apply the tech and that way you get to see the facts and axioms if you like for yourself,then if you are in denial about any reactive mind being in existence then the fact of the matter is you dont know the subject,quit your inner dialogue it is a fact.Its not the easiest book to get through and I know from my own experience that nearly all readers think they know what dianetics means but actually have the derivation
yorkermiles 2 years ago
This is not about dianetics at all is it?what i will say though is the church does fit into the definitions of what a cult is and the huge prices it demands are just an element that can not be justified but saying all that it withour any doubts at all that a reactive mind exists and although scientology may have a lot to explain...LRH was not talking shit and discovered more than you,me and everyone else around.I will never defend the church or sing and dance about it but it is not lies.
yorkermiles 2 years ago
You DO realize there is a group of about 15 thick dictionary sized volumes called, "The Research & Discovery" volumes, right? Every bit of research and discovery is in them, and Scientologists can look at them anytime they wish.
7tilsleep 2 years ago
Has LRH's research been peer reviewed? Thick dictionary sized volumes don't make it valid. The only reason I bring up peer review is the fact that Dianetics does say Modern SCIENCE
CrazyDelaney 2 years ago
... of Mental Health. I hit enter too soon.
CrazyDelaney 2 years ago
You're very right, dictionary sized volumes don't make it valid. But, what's contained inside is another story.
My answer to your question, has LRH's research been peer reviewed, is the book is available to anyone who desires a copy of it and there's nothing stopping anyone from peer reviewing it if they wish to.
There's nothing stopping a group of "scientists" trying it out for themselves and testing the theories. There's also nothing stopping a group of regular people testing it out.
7tilsleep 2 years ago
Why put "science" and "scientist" in scare quotes? Interestingly enough though... the only books by LRH i've ever found in book stores are his fiction stories published by Galaxy Press. I've yet to find one Scientology text book in a bookstore but that's just me.
Statements like the single source of aberration being discovered and the fact this can be demonstrated in a laboratory test tends to make me skeptical of any research that led to these conclusions.
CrazyDelaney 2 years ago
Well I've found Dianetics, Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, and Scientology: A New Slant On Life in my local Barnes & Noble. I dunno if it's national, but I'm in NJ and there's NY org that's fairly close so that could be why.
7tilsleep 2 years ago
But to me it's simple. You take an individual, say a young child who's learning to ride a bike. Through the process of learning how to ride, the kid falls over a lot of times scraping his knees and elbows. As we're both human, we understand those happenings are rather painful. Logically, there will be a memory of that particular incident stored in the child's mind. But this particular incident isn't an analytical one, it's painful. Any painful incident, whether it's physical or (continued...)
7tilsleep 2 years ago
emotional pain, is stored as an engram. An engram being a moment of pain, unconsciousness and antagonism experienced by an individual.
At this point, I use Dianetics to differentiate between a person being analytical versus reactive. Take that same child who got hurt a lot riding his bike, as an adult, he might forbid his child to ride a bike, which is irrational, or if he does, might experience painful elbows or knees in remembering those days when he was a kid learning how to ride.
7tilsleep 2 years ago
Or it could be a worse incident, where a person gets into a terrible car accident. They break their legs and can't walk. Years later, the person might develop an irrational fear of cars, or might feel the pain from the accident they had witnessing a car crash, or even going near a car, because the memory of what happened never went away. It's still very real in memory.
7tilsleep 2 years ago
So all Dianetics does is helps a person directly contact incidents they can remember that were painful both physical and emotional, and by going over and over those same incidents again and again, the person can view what happened from multiple aspects and perspectives, weakening the amount of charge the engram contains. Charge would be the negative energy, the pain/unconsciousness...whatever it may be. Pain would obviously be negative.
7tilsleep 2 years ago
So as a result, you have a person look at a bunch of painful or unconscious incidents built up from a lifetime, go over and over them again, and they no longer are incidents which are hidden negative sources of trouble for a person. They become memories that a person can then analyze and use as experience.
7tilsleep 2 years ago
I guess what I'm getting at is I don't see why one would choose Dianetics over say... an intense therapy session with a psychologist. I'd venture to guess that the feeling one has after a standard counseling session and the feeling one has after running a particularly painful incident with an auditor are going to be pretty similar. I've written about painful incidents in my past and after wards it seemed "ok." I felt lighter. I could be jovial about it. I guess I don't see whats unique about..
CrazyDelaney 2 years ago
I think its a profoundly good thing to confront moments of pain and trauma and be able to get past them. What I couldn't get past in reading the very dense prose of LRH in Dianetics is I really didn't see anything revolutionary at all. I didn't see anything that warrants those "philosopher staring off into the distance poses" we see him in or rhetoric about LRH being the most dynamic genius individual who ever lived which I've heard some people say.
CrazyDelaney 2 years ago
I don't think he was the most dynamic genius who ever lived, but I think he was a genius nevertheless. I think you're mind would be changed if you actually got Dianetics auditing. If it worked for you that is.
7tilsleep 2 years ago
Dianetics is nothing more than an example of pseudoscience trying to legitimize itself ... Hubbard, had he indeed been a scientist, would have known that truth is not built on axioms, and facts cannot be found from some a-priori knowledge. A true science is constructed on hypotheses, which are arrived at by the virtue of observed phenomena. Scientific knowledge is gained by observation and testing, not believing from some subconscious stipulation, as Hubbard would have us believe.
OpenComments 2 years ago
Hubbbard's theories..
CrazyDelaney 2 years ago
Scientology is a bait-and-switch scheme. People come to Scientology hoping for increased intelligence, improved personality, and help in dealing with personal problems. They don't come in to learn a system of beliefs based on science fiction stories, infestations of alien spirits and exploding volcanos. People deserve to know the content of the upper levels when they sign up.
OpenComments 2 years ago
Well the book IS available in pretty much any bookstore you go to. What's stopping you and bunch of guys getting together and testing out the theories to see if they work? What's stopping "science" from peer reviewing it? Any scientist on their day off can buy the book and conduct an experiment. As for professional peer reviews, I don't know of any. It's also true that the early practitioners of Dianetics started the Dianetics foundation, not Hubbard.
7tilsleep 2 years ago
How about ONE fucking video that discusses Dianetics without prejudice??
Either i see loathe or love vids, sickening.
Hill258 2 years ago
Hubbard should have stayed with Fiction, wait....he did lol.
Xandirfan 3 years ago
Video Summary: This is the weakest attempt to invalidate Dianetics as a Science but this CrazyDude offers not one valid argument.
He just spouts off quotes from the book that he obviously does not understand and attempts to nullify their validity by some false pretense of "authority".
It's an "I'm an AUTHORITY and therefore I MUST BE RIGHT." but fails to give anything to support his argument.
Weak. Hes just another ranting egotistical idiot.
throughsoul 3 years ago
Ad hominem attack. Dianetics is not a science. Hubbard called it a science but it's not a science.
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
You just cannot conceive that someone can read Dianetics and not find it so incredibly profound that it changes everything about their life. Sorry for not buying it but I'm a fan of critical thinking. End of story.
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
You are so uniformed. Further the information you almost have but won't allow yourself to have is studied with such an obvious contempt that I don't see how you could learn anything.
When you read Dianetics it is NOT to obtain information but only to nullify and invalidate. Look those up when you read SOS and where those are on the tone scale.
Further, you speak condescendingly "boys & girls" like your some authority and from a more informed position you only come across as an idiot.
throughsoul 3 years ago
Ummm... ok...
I found Dianetics poorly written and Science of Survival just scared me.
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
Thanks for the insults.
So.. did Hubbard make any mistakes in the formulation of Dianetics? Where was Hubbard wrong for you?
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
You are so very welcome. I feel its my duty to point out the idiocy of others when they are so obviously misinformed and yet speak as if they are an authority.
Tell me, did you really make it past Chapter Two?
I did not find anything "wrong" but I did recognize that some element were not fully considered and this technology although effective was VERY time consuming. 500 to 1000 hours per case.
That is regard to Dianetics. I find 98.8% of Scientology true for me.
throughsoul 3 years ago
Yes, I read the entire book. I am not so dense as to read 2 chapters and make an opinion.
Scientology is tome consuming? Seems to me you need to reorganize your priorities.
:)
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
Ballerina dear, I was not speaking to you about only reading 2 chapters, that communication was intened for Crazy dude.
DIANETICS was a time consuming effort. It was a technology that worked ONE incident at a time. Later techniques addressed larger "areas" and were more time effective.
I'd still recommend Dianetics to another b/c it is still very effective, just one incident at a time. PM me a more detailed request for data and I will reply.
throughsoul 3 years ago
And I guess the other thing that really bugs and maybe you can clear this up. If Dianetics was such a significant discovery how come it has not gained more traction? There are some extraordinary claims made in the book and it seems that if they were true they would have truly revolutionized the planet but they have not and Scientology is mostly ridiculed.
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
Do a little more research on the powers that be that might want to keep mankind "in the mud". Then Google thier net worth as well as their power and influence. Then look to see how many money lines Dianetics cuts across to have people helping people without drugs or 12 year degrees. But its mainly the aforementioned powers that be.
Really, look it up. Find out. It will blow you away. Were all mostly no more than slaves.... to the economy, to fear, to media, to special interests... etc.
throughsoul 3 years ago
Your lying there. Why not tell them the truth? They are a slave to themselfs because of the enviorment they create or agree to creating.
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
I really make every effort not to lie, even by accident, so don't call me a lier. TY.
Again you are also correct, one's one consderations are the senior element to their reality and existence.
I was anwering the Q on why Scn wasn't so more widespread if it works so well, and others are a major factor in this regard. Others that wish ill of mankind.
Others that believe they can only stay on top if everyone stays down, that if people became more able they would be destroyed.
throughsoul 3 years ago
Alright. Sorry Youtube must have glitched.
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
He was speaking like that to be humorous and ability you seem to lack but anyway on with talking about Dianetics. Dianetics is all about giving you information, if it wasn't why would Ron have wasted the ink on the time to write it?
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
You say, Scientologists should have access to the research and they have access to so much research that when you look at how much research is available again, it makes you look like an idiot, as in, Wow, this guy has no fucking clue!
Further, you quote Hubbard like he is insane to make such statements as Dianetics can stop a nuclear holocaust. Tell me, is it rational and survival activity to blow up the planet as was a major concern in the 50s, no? And Dianetics resolves irrationality.
throughsoul 3 years ago
And then you say that Scientologist cant question anything and again, you are so wrong you look like a ranting idiot to those that are informed. Any Scientologist can question anything and is in fact expected to evaluate everything.
If they dont find it true, then nobody is going to cram it down anyones throat.
Perhaps you think this b/c so many do agree, but that is because it makes sense and when technology is applied it WORKS. Its hard to disagree with something that WORKS.
throughsoul 3 years ago
What was Hubbard wrong about? If you can critically examine Hubbard then surely you've found something wrong with what he said... right?
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
I have observed errors but I will not discuss them with you.
throughsoul 3 years ago
Why not? You can PM me if you would like. I am free to discuss anything. If you have observed errors then there ARE errors. You can study tech, pure tech.
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
Yes, throughsoul the tech does work but only when it is applied correctly.
KSW I keep on that hat
:)
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
Now youre talking and you are totally correct. Only wihen it is correctly applied.
Many of the "issues" some have with Scientology are actually because of misapplications of tech or policy including ethics and justices policy and proceedures.
If you only have one hat the KOT (Keeper of the Tech) hat is probably the most important. This and Qual.
throughsoul 3 years ago
Exactly!
:)
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
*yawn*
"Now youre talking and you are totally correct. Only when it is correctly applied."
Same old KSW nonsense.
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
I am not surprised you consider KSW nonsense because you seem to have misunderstandings all over the place regarding Scientology.
And yet you present yourself like your some kind of authority.
Things dont make sense to you b/c of first misunderstood words in the text that you are reading and second your learning anything is blocked by a "fixed idea" and a consideration that "you know all there is to know, its bunk" mentality.
So really, your uninformed invalidations are validating Scn.
throughsoul 3 years ago
I'm simply reading it from a different perspective than you are and an environment that is different from yours... namely one where Scientology isn't supposed to nor does it need to work. There are large portions of Dianetics I find to be incomprehensible but that's not because of misunderstood words it's because it's meaningless. Hubbard didn't have any more qualifications to talk about the human mind that I do.
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
I totally agree you have the right and freedom to question anything. I believe we should have more of that in society. But you seem to be restraining animosity for Dianetics? It is revealed in the cynical restraint displayed in your voice and annunciation. Why you hating on L Ron Hubbard?
Articulas2000 3 years ago
the research is in the boook Evolution of a science
No1EvaRlyDies 3 years ago
Okay first question!
What year is your book one?
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
2002...
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
Okay try and get an older copy
The older the purer tech it is
and the more sense it will make
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
Well.. it'd be interesting to take a look at an older version to see the changes made. However, I have a bit of trouble seeing it make more sense as I find Hubbard's skills as a writer a bit lacking.
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
Okay.
You have to realize however, that the book you hold in your hands is altered by the RTC and really isnt Ron.
go get an older version
you can find book one online for free or you can go to ebay or something like that and get it (hoping that the CofS hasnt taken them off yet).
^.^
Read the real stuff then make your decision.
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
I remain skeptical but I'll give that a try one of these days. Tell me more about that though.. why did the RTC alter the text of the books?
CrazyDelaney 3 years ago
Thats fine with me I mean like Ron said "Nothing in Scientology or Dianetics is true for you unless you have observed it."
^.^
To answer your question the RTC is headed by David Miscavige and they are out simply to gain money and they dont care who they walk all over to get it.
GREEDY MISCAVIGE IS GREEDY!
BallerinaSmiles 3 years ago
No, screw that looking for a older copy. Get the latest copy because it has the best glossary of terms and actually the best typeset. I think its the 2007 version
And READ IT. And don't read it with some contemptable "how is this wrong, what can I find that I can show to others to make Dianetics wrong" You have to be WILLING TO LEARN. FIRST BARRIER TO STUDY IS the consideration you KNOW ALL ABOUT IT. If you reading thinkin, I KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS (its wrong) then you wont tlearn anything
throughsoul 3 years ago
Very well said, keep up the good work........
....LRH was a very clever trickster. I have read some self help books by other Authors like Paul McKenna, and they made perfect sense, and didnt require expensive Auditing
courses to make you a better person, it's a whole heap of false propaganda.....Oh my God, I feel so "Aberrated", somebody please remove my "Engram".
Gimme3GramsOfMadman 3 years ago
ok..retoric...dude?
notchies 3 years ago
Thanks for digging through this dreck so we don't have to.
anon8109 3 years ago
Hubbard was a liar and a cult leader!
BlueAsbestosCosBlues 3 years ago
"...don't think about it in a sec-check." lol
Reveal it oh great Dissector!
usaforeveryours 3 years ago
CrazyDelaney. Here is how Co$ got charitable status taken away for it in canada.
3w(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=X_RbeNo25ww
Canada has one man to thank for Co$ defeat and that is Greg who presented the breif in 97 to revnue canada(our IRS)(sub to his videos, they are great)
soulinite 3 years ago
50 bucks canadian says that Dianetic$ turns out to be the ramblings of a Homophobic idiot.
not to spoil it for anyone.
soulinite 3 years ago
Great Idea! We should demand to see the peer reviewed double blind studies that confirm dianetics works.
Co$ members get into car accidents at the same rate as everyone else.
Co$ members of die of cancer at a higher rate then everyone else(probably because so many of them smoke and because of the aspestos on the Freewinds. Also they often dely real treatement in favor of vitamines and Dianetic$.)
soulinite 3 years ago
Great work man, I can't wait to hear you break LRH's bullshit down for the entire world to see!
soulinite 3 years ago
You read Dianetic$? Wow, that is like the troll 2 of self help books man. You are brave.
soulinite 3 years ago
5/5 To our Spiritual Ralph Nader .... keep it up!
anotheranonymoose1 3 years ago 2
Wave your macho pink stick at us, baby ;P
Dianetics, available at 2nd hand stores for $2 everywhere.
My challenge to all Scientologists is:
"Where are the academic independent research results of LRH's claims?"
Another point is, "As a Christian/Muslim/etc can you challenge a passage in your holy book[s] to a clergy member? What would happen if you did?"
I doubt you would be considered a troublemaker if you did. Most reasonable religions encourage debate/discussion about their tomes.
AnonOutreach 3 years ago 3
CoS isn't legally a "church" in Canada. They have only one "registered charity" here--NarCONon and that may not last much longer.
CoS is whining "bigotry" because Germany won't let them become a church--uh have they not noticed a precedent here?
For once it might be wise for USA to follow our example not vice versa ;)
AnonOutreach 3 years ago 3
Wow, great video, especially the ending.
CultUpdate 3 years ago 3
Science, or proper Science more specifically, demands that the information is constantly challenged. It is how we come up with more accurate definition of the world we live in. Science can define our way of life, so it is absolutely necessary to always check if we are right. This is important because even intelligent people can be wrong (people once thought the world was flat).
GetTheCans 3 years ago 4
I wonder if a scientologist can define Scientific method, and if in doing so it might make them think some.
CultUpdate 3 years ago 2
They can't, I've had to explain to several of them that their cult is based on "revilation"(read in bullshit) not anything even remotely resembling science.
hail Xenu.
soulinite 3 years ago
Where did you get the book?
GetTheCans 3 years ago 3
good video
alucard9692005 3 years ago 4
All hail the Pink Highlighter Pen of Truth! Nice video yet again CD!
TheEvilOfScientology 3 years ago 4