Scientologist get all bubbly, thinking that they’re on to something, thinking that they have some powerful and profound hook when they start explaining the “It’s only true if it’s true for you” concept.

Scientologists think this concept is a piece of profundity. They trumpet it as if Hubbard touched on some great Truth of Life. Seems to me critics do very little to offer up an intellectual counter to this. Every Hubbard-hook needs to be countered, and I don’t think this one gets it’s due.

But this concept is a mind-control technique, and I’d like to take a stab at knocking it down. I think Plato’s Cave Allegory is a great place to start. Most of us had this as mandatory reading back in high school, nearer for some than others, but I think it serves as a great antidote to Hubbard-think on this issue.

Plato has us consider people who spend their whole lives deep in cave, chained facing a wall. They’ve never seen the outside and know nothing off it. All that they have as their reality is shadows cast on the wall in front of them.

Plato make the case that would these shadows, as the only thing these people have as their actual experience, become quite real to them? Would they not even start naming the shadows, and giving them a “reality to them?” In fact, if someone came charging into the cave with a light from the outside, would not this light be quite alien to them? Would it not hurt their eyes, and would their first reaction not be to even attack the light-bearer? Would not their shadowy reality to be more real to them than the true light of the Sun? Being the only thing within their experience, would they not fight to protect their shadows over the light of reality?

What Hubbard convinced Scientologists of, is that the one’s ignorant state of “It’s only true if it’s true for you,” is actually a good thing. He took the fundamentally correct notion that one’s shadowy reality is limited by one’s actual experience, and turned this ignorance into some perceived state of good. Once you convince people of that, you’re on your way to getting them to turn off a very important switch that governs a critical part of the Human Condition, the part that searches for *Truth, above and beyond that which we are limited to by our own actual experience.*

This precludes growth of the Human Spirit. One cannot, for instance, if one is living a life trying to tear one’s own self-interests out of the world, surrounded by those doing the same, ever experience a Gift of Grace that moves them beyond their own shadowy experience. Understanding goodness that *exceeds* our own experiences is a key to personal spiritual growth. “It’s only true if it’s true for you,” is a mind-control medication that turns this spiritual gene off.

It’s not that it’s not correct, it is correct, relative to our limited shadowy world, but it is correct in a negative sense. It is correct in the same way that “Evil exists” is correct. Yes, evil exists, but Human Spiritual growth is to *step over evil* and move to the Good *completely irrespective* of how much Good we happened to have experienced. Limiting on to one’s own personal experience, is just that .. limiting. It is a precluding factor, not a growth factor.

And they (Scientologists) bubble up as if they’re actually onto some great profundity. When all they’re onto is the first part of intellectual realization. The next step is to completely step over one’s own personal experience, and move to the miraculous place where one’s spiritual realizations take us past out shadowy limitations.

What Hubbard does, is take the realization that one is initially limited by the shadows of one’s own experience, and passes off this initial realization as Truth itself. By doing so, he sets up a situation where *he* will be the shadow-master. *He* will be the one behind the chained person, throwing the shadows up on the wall for the person to name. *He* will be the controller of their shadowy reality, by having convinced them that only the shadow that within their own personal experiences are the “things that are real.”

Thereby negating the very goals of Wisdom and Spiritual Growth, that being to search for greater Truth, above and beyond the shadows in front of us.

In Plato’s allegory, the prisoners in the cave are living in a state of “It’s true if it’s true for them.” Forced to face the wall, the torch lights behind them create all kinds of shape-shifting shadows. With this as their only reality, the prisoners begin naming the shadows and assigning them personalities.

Hubbard wants people to remain in this condition. Only he is the one standing behind the prisoners casting only shadows that serve his purpose – Engrams, Ethics, Body Thetans and endless tail-chasing policy. This is the only reality the prisoners are permitted, and it is “True because it’s true for them.”

And this is a very early hook. It’s one of those few elements that Scientology dishes out on day 1. Available on it’s public website. They really do think “It’s only true if it’s true for you,” is a great piece of profundity, and they consider it a rock-sold early hook.

I think that the antidote to this is not to dispute it, but to illustrate how this is a bad thing, not a good thing. What it really is, is just a variant of Alistair Crowley’s motto “Do as thou wilt.” Like Crowley, Hubbard’s sought discard Truth and replace it with relativism. Unlike Crowley, Hubbard wanted this relativism not to offer up the intellectual underpinnings of Satanism as a legitimate alternative, but to make himself a gazillion dollars.

Hubbard tried to convince us of this equation:

Observed Truth = Absolute Truth.

Real religions tell us that the equation is actually:

Observed Truth = Absolute Truth – (Our limitation in understanding Absolute Truth)

Thus Hubbardism essentially claims that (Our limitation in understanding Absolute Truth) = 0.

So then the only thing one needs to do to increase Absolute Truth, is to simply increase Observe Truth. Limitations, all limitations that are associated with lack of spiritual development, prejudices and hatreds of all kinds, are zeroed out before hand. Being zeroed out, you have no need to seek resolution. You simply increase Absolute Truth by “observing” and experiencing more truth. But, the conundrum for the Scientologist is that there is only one supplier of "Absolute Truth." This, stated this way, is somehow *NOT* on th website.

Convinced of a false equation, your algebra is frozen unless you pony up, and pony up big.

“It’s true if it’s true for you” goes almost unchallenged. Because everybody knows that they grow with experience. And since it is seemingly correct enough of an assertion, they leave it alone. And yet it is a fundamentally false equation, used for evil design. It is, in fact, as ridiculous as Xenu, and needs to be hit just as hard. It is one of Scientology’s main early claws, and in need of clipping as much as any.

Interesting use of Plato's metaphor vis a vis scientology. I think Plato would have absolutely agreed with this:



As to the 'cave analogy' -- I think Plato's meaning was a little different

Plato believed in absolute reality. Plato's 'theory of forms' describes two worlds (or realms of reality) -- the one we live in and a counterpart 'somewhere else'

What exists in 'the other world' are PERFECT examples of everything that exists in our world -- perfect trees, perfect brown rocks, perfect truth, perfect love, perfect musical notes, etc. etc. Everything that exists in our world are the imperfect manifestations of the 'perfect' 'forms' stored in some 'heavenly warehouse.'

The CAVE analogy:

Since MAN lives in the 'imperfect world' it is like living in a cave. The 'imperfect reality' man encounters is like shadows of the 'perfect forms (outside the cave) being cast upon the walls. What man experiences IS real (and true) but imperfect -- like shadows.

Man desires to know the 'perfect forms' but he can't access the 'dual world' directly. He can't get 'outside the cave.' The best man can hope for is to get a little closer to the entrance, a little closer to the light. A little closer to truth (through the practice of philosophy).

The 'cave analogy' is an indeed an allegory. Plato uses it as an illustration of Man's condition relative to the 'dual worlds'.

Plato's belief in a 'dual reality' is not allegory. He asserted that TWO worlds, actually exist -- one housing the 'perfect forms' and our world which contains only imperfect constructions of those templates.

As Plato's student, Aristotle saw problems with the 'theory of forms'. For example: leaves on a tree are infinitely varied in size, shape, color, etc. How does the 'perfect world' contain templates of leaves that do not yet exist? Does the perfect 'dual' world contain an infinite number of leaves? Or ONE 'ideal' leaf that is infinitely variable. These paradoxes lead Aristotle to reject the 'theory of forms'.

"What's True For You, Is True" ?

Plato and Aristotle would have considered this claim -- RIDICULOUS

Plato and Aristotle were actively opposed to the 'Sophists' -- the tutors of the day who taught logical 'sleight of hand' to the sons of affluent Greeks. Plato and Aristotle would have considered 'What's true for you...' mere sophistry.

Plato's diaologues are largely a refutation of Sophistry -- portraying Socrates confounding the 'sophists' in numerous debates.

Plato's 'theory of forms' is the OPPOSITE of "What's true for you..." since 'absolute truths' absolutely EXIST -- housed in the dual world. The close approximations of those truths mirrored in Man's world are also 'true' -- but they are imperfect. There's no 'relativism' in Plato -- these truths exist.

Aristotle believed truth could be ascertained in reasoned analysis, leading to what he called 'the Golden Mean'. For Aristotle, truth is found in examining a subject, dissecting it, tallying the score, finding points of consistency and finding points of agreement.

There's no 'relativism' in Aristotle, either. For Aristotle, 'What's true' is pretty much what 'reasonable men' can see to be obviously true, supported by common sense and analysis. Aristotle is considered the father of 'experimental method'.

Excuse me for going on quite so long.

fisherman

Great discussion. Hubbard's "ultimate truths" go Pfft! by actual experiment.


So, if what's true for you is what's true and you're still here, you're WRONG. Here's Ron the Magus on reality:


Hubbard applied his "Infinity-valued logic" to Reality too. E.g., "Reality is proportional to charge off the case (card)" and the idea of raising and lowering someone's "ARC." If he wasn't so pathetic and evil, he'd be ridiculous.

Dear Alice

"unknownness" , Now that's fucking stupid.

Wow fisherman, your knowledge of things Plato is quite impressive. You should be a teacher, if you’re not already one.

What started me on this was the recent Tommy Davis interview. You can see how proud he is of the “What’s true” concept. He thinks it the means by which someone will put aside every and all criticism of Scientology, and “experience for themselves.” As if it were some kind of door-opener to Truth, when in fact it locks the door and throws away the key.

After all, what was true for Hitler was true for Hitler. It was his own set of “personal truths” that made putting human beings into ovens, assembly line style, seem reasonable to him.

It is the same logic that would keep the ovens working overtime “processing,” if you will, those less than 2.0 on the Tone Scale. All it takes, is a little bit of agreement.

Plato where art thou.

However, exploring the unknown is a cool thing to do.

True, but Hubbard's form of exploration through the use of rum, pills and comic books seems rather pointless as it is totally incapable of producing anything outside of fantasy.

L Ron's not even a faint shadow of Plato.

Yes, it’s so cool, that you should try it sometime.

It won’t be easy for you at first. You’ll have to give up your privlidges of entering into exclusive addresses. You’ll have to surrender your investment in your private little club. You’ll have to risk disappointing all the people who expect you to do a certain thing.

But if you make this investment, you’ll truly be exploring that which is unknown to you, Freedom.

And you won’t have to defend a system that is ultimately based on posthumously brainwashed space-alien ghosts created by the evil intergalactic warlord Xenu any longer. Truly a Country worth exploring, and you should do so. Plato would be proud of you, and you’ll be proud of yourself, for a change..

Morsicle,

Thank you for the compliment! I was detoured off the teaching track, but I may get back to it -- still time.

In Plato's day, 'Sophist' was the name given to the itinerant tutors who taught young nobles how to present arguments to civic bodies. 'Sophistry' is not a 'school of philosophy' but rather the style of rhetoric taught by these tutors. Many of the 'Sophists' were talented and 'sophisticated' (which is where that word comes from). I mention this because:

Calling Hubbard a 'sophist' might be an insult to other 'sophists'

'Sophist' arguments hang together only if you accept the terms and definitions of the 'sophist'. In Plato's dialogues, Socrates humorously defeats his 'sophist' interlocutors by turning their own word definitions against them.

Hubbard's emphasis on 'word clearing' is an obvious 'sophist' manuever to 'control the argument'. 'Word clearing' is characteristic of the kind of 'school-boy' argument that Socrates had fun punching holes into. It's sorta interesting that Hubbard's 'word clearing' works so hard to keep 'the playing field' at a juvenile level.

This is evident in "Axiom 38" where none of the phrases make logical sense unless you 'grant' Hubbard's terms and context 'prima facie'.

Lastly, an interesting historical tidbit:

Socrates was Plato's teacher, Plato was Aristotle's teacher, Aristotle was Alexander the Great's teacher.

At no other point have FOUR generations of teacher/student had such an overwhelming impact on world history, until...

Snake Thompson/Hubbard/Miscavage -- Hmmm.... We'll see if 'the world's fastest growing religion' can now produce an 'Alexander the Great'? Is it Tom Cruise?

fisherman

Yes, Word Clearing, another part of early Scientology, just like “What’s true..” does not get the Xenu treatment, and yet Word Clearing is every bit as dangerous and ridiculous.

I believe that in classical Western Education, one is told never to get hung up on an individual word. In fact doing so, you risk throwing out the whole baby with the bath water. Best not to lose your train of thought. Usually the word can be figured out via context. They key point being, do not sacrifice what the author is trying to say, the overarching concept imparted, because you’re stuck on a word. Your conceptual understand is key, pausing to look up words only hinders that, not helps it.

So step #1 in Hubbardism is to turn off the gene that would have a human seek Truth. This is done by “It’s true if it’s true for you,” which, when accepted, immediately mind-controls a person into accepting only what they’re fed. Then step #2 is to get them to diminish critical evaluations and instead replace it with worthless minutia i.e. Word Clearing.

Early Scientology is every bit as dangerous as later Scientology. Early Scientology is an assault. Nothing less than an assault on one’s humanity. Then, having been weakened by this assault, the pump is primed for a person to be reduced to a dog, on all fours, forever hopelessly chasing it’s tail. Auditing away posthumously brainwashed space aliens created by the evil intergalactic warlord Xenu.

Perhaps the purely dirtiest and most despicable enterprise ever put together.

Morsicle,

This is an excellent point:



I would add that words also evolve, as good authors layer them like paints on a canvas, creating new definitions and colorations through 'context' -- which, as you say, is critical to understanding.

Also, the activity of reading is a 'joint creation' of both READER and AUTHOR. Both supply meaning, color, and context, based on their experience.

Anyone who has read a good book more than once and come away with numerous insights is familiar with this creative interplay. An author has things to say, but it's the reader that gives those ideas weight and meaning. This is true of all writing, not just fiction. Even a cookbook recipe benefits from the reader's interpretion.

What you aptly call a 'human search for truth' is the product of this creative interplay. It requires the critical thinking skills of both READER and AUTHOR. Hubbard destroys that interplay by insisting that things mean what HE says they mean.

You describe the destruction of this creative process well, saying



Your post raises intriquing ideas. Thanks!

fisherman

Dana Plato trumped Hubbtard!

SM trying something new....like thinking for herself!

Great thread!

Hubbard really did tell us from day one and over and over again that he was lying to us:



I really think that his insistance on word clearing each and every definition of every word Methods 1 through 9 was nothing more than stage show sleight of hand con man distraction technique to get us lost in the significance of words and keep us from actually seeing the big picture.

People endlessly buying the scriptures to their own religion again and again and yet again, because they’re never right. Then endlessly chasing the uncatchable tail of word clearing.

The only sadder proof of human gullibility than the fact that Scientology does exist, is that Scientology can exist.