Loaded Language

[fisherman]

Probity,

There's no change of logic (false logic) in the passage Peter cited. A modifying clause doesn't alter the validity of the dominant claim preceding it.

"The raincoat in the closet is yours" AND "when you lose that, you'll get wet" What comes after the word "AND" doesn't change the ownership of the raincoat.

Likewise, "WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself" is not altered by the modifying clause "AND when you lose that you have lost everything."

In other words, all the versions of "What is true for you..." contain the same fallacy.

Nonetheless, the version Peter cites, coming under the heading "Personal Integrity" is even less convincing than the phrase from the Scientology homepage.

[probity]

True that, fisherman. While we're on the topic of truth, notice that Scientology has hijacked truth on their homepage.

the entire text of the Scientology homepage:

[Dorothy]

Fisherman, I think I am getting what you are getting at here. You are coming from an angle of philosophy, and I am relating it to what I am currently studying- mind control.

[fisherman]

Excellent points from everyone! These deserve reiteration:

Probity re solipsism: "The quickest way to win an argument with one of them is to kick their ass and when they decide to call the authorities ask them if they're going to indict a figment of their imagination" GREAT!

Caroline's Hubbard quote: "Positioning" is the technique of formulating and implanting "instant opinion" that bypasses "human emotion and reaction." Yes, this is fundamental to 'advertising' !! You may recall the book "The Hidden Persuaders" was a bestseller in the 1960's.

Dorothy wrote: "...He also did not come up with the following ideas either!" This point can't be overstressed -- Hubbard 'spins' and repackages 'age old' ideas with 'fancy new labels'. Unfortunately, he also seems to corrupt them in the process.

Dorothy's list of examples:

'The greatest good concept / Golden rule / Granting Beingness- known as "unconditional positive regard" / Anti-Social Personality- stolen from psychology / The reactive mind- stolen from Freud / Confronting your very own good and evil spirits (when you are exteriorized)- stolen from Buddhism / Looking someone in the eye when you speak to them (my parents and teachers knew this one) / Org boards, command channels, stats, etc. / Past lives. Known to psyches and eastern religions before Hubbard was born.'

Probity wrote: "While we're on the topic of truth, notice that Scientology has hijacked truth on their homepage...Scientology positions itself so anyone opposed to Scientology is an enemy of truth. Scientology attempts to corner the market on truth, to become synonymous with truth, and nothing could be further from the truth."

Fascinating point! Scientology seems to envelop, smother, reinvent and control whatever concept serves their purpose. I hadn't thought of it in quite that way, before.

Dorothy wrote: "When I first read the "What's true for you..." my reaction was "Duh!" But it does end up having more meaning when you are placed in the numerous situations as a scientologist- when you are asked/ordered/expected to compromise your integrity as a person, in order to be a good scientologist. There's that "cognitive dissonance" again. The result is always the same. Give up your own identity for the cult identity."

That's incisive!! COGNITIVE DISSONANCE seems to be the key to so much. As you say, it's "mind control" and Mr. Hassan describes the aspect of confusion very well.

As you suggest, Scientology is most accurately described and understood in psychological terms. Or in terms of advertising psychology.

BTW: I started 'coming from the philosophic direction' because Mr. Hubbard claimed that Dianetics is an extension of philosophy. Actually, he wrote that Dianetics is the correction for the failure of philosophy.'

Also, it's Mr. Hubbard who puts a premium on "word clearing". I never much liked philosophy courses that focus on 'line analysis' -- but if that's what Mr. Hubbard wants, we might as well oblige him.

Personally, I don't think there's anything extra-special about philosophy. It offers analytic tools that enforce close reading. Philosophy can be fun, fascinating, enriching, and even inspiring, but it holds no magic answers or secret truths.

fisherman

[nightsinger]

Also the 'What is true for you is what you have observed to be true' statement is both subjective and unscientific. It presupposes an infallible observer who accurately evaluates all. It also requires no validation beyond the self, so it is also solipsistic. And Caroline I think that every 'goody two shoes' moral person who succumbs to the influence of $cilonotry eventually become a practicing nihilist. Or maybe moves toward an Anton LaVey type of Satanist: 'Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.' Of course it's really 'Do as Hub wilt.'

Seriously, re cognitive dissonance: I see that Hub mentioned the stopping of thought, the cessation of the ability to process information. I assert that he KNEW it would happen as a result of one's existing ideas coming into conflict with the increasingly outlandish $cio claims, and wrote his 'tech' accordingly to encourage thought reform. Dissent is never allowed, it's always a 'misunderstood word' or 'counter intention/overt/withhold.' Hubbard, like God, is never wrong.

PS this thread has fulfilled my wildest dreams, I love reading these posts. I feel smarter just opening the page in my browser, so I must be, and that must be true for me! Who needs Dianetics to raise the IQ?
_________________
Meet people where they're at, and not where you think they ought to be.
These three things are for always: faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love.

[caroline]

[peter]

[peter]

Fisherman wrote Posted: 17 Apr 2009 18:30