A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
ArnieLerma
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:37 pm
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system
Contact:

A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by ArnieLerma » Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:55 am

This was a thread of 8 pages on ESMB is HERE
This post is a trunicated condesation of the 8 pages (there is some fluff posts)

In dianetics I always thought A=A=A should have been A=B=C to fit they way hubturd was explaining how the bank makes different things into identities.. the same thing... well...perhaps it was THE confusion technique (hypnosis tech) to THE UNIFORMED which what I assumed his intent was...

BUT...

i happened to buy a book in a used bookstore in the little town Im in.. a book of mythology definitions.. a dictionary..

A is kabbalist abbreviation when used in its LOW form for cunning, and to use magic for devious ends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, AND it also is the letter symbol for Magus!!! (The Magician)...

We just used the wrong dictionary!

The Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols by Gertrude Jobes 1962

[QUOTE=Lermanet_com]

-----------

Oh and from the same dictionary, to break a spell, simply say 'abracadabra'... "A cabalistic word written in triangular form and worn as a curative charm against all diseases, enemies and pains. Also recited to break spells. In some accounts said to be made up from the initials of An (father), Ben (Son, and Ruach Acadsch (Holy Spirit). In other accounts coined from the word abraxas, the mythical equivalent of Mithras, which (both) express mathematically the unspeakable name of the Supreme Spirit." (note using hebrew numerology both abraxas and Mithras add up to 365 (as in days of a year)[/QUOTE]

I swear this thread was NOT contrived to be timed for this week, but please check this out:

Full lunar eclipses are not rare they have roughly a one-in-365 chance of landing on any particular calendar date you happen to pick. But what is special is that tonight's happens upon the night of the winter solstice. Odds are 365 x 365 or one chance in 133,325 days or once every 365 years!

"It hasn’t happened since Dec. 21, 1638 — four years before the death of Galileo and the birth of Isaac Newton. And it won’t happen again until Dec. 21, 2094."
www.greenbaypressgazette.com

And as the magic phrase for breaking a spell is Abracadabra... and it is based upon the word Abraxas that as pointed out in a previous post above is also EQUAL to 365... perhaps, those wishing to end any (if there was or is any) MAGICAL influence that may have been conjured up by old El Rum Hubtoad that may have helped to turn you into a scientologist,

Tonight, during the total eclipse might be a serious spell breaking opportunity, to end scientology.

And if it be only the power of 'self suggestion', then that's okay too, I bet it will make you feel a bit more free.
< and that is my suggestion!

Arnie Lerma

And here is a song to listen to
Do you believe in Magic by the Loving Spoonful


WHEN IS IT?: "A total lunar eclipse is expected to take place in the sky on December 20 to 21, 2010. It will be visible after midnight Eastern Standard Time on December 21 in North and South America. EST/12:17 a.m. PST. Observers along South America’s east coast miss the late stages of the lunar eclipse because they occur after moonset.

According to space.com, if you are residing in the US particularly in the East Coast, expect to see the lunar eclipse as it begins half an hour after midnight on Tuesday, December 21, 2010. On the West Coast, it begins around 9:30 p.m. PST Monday. In all cases, the whole eclipse will be observable before the moon sets in the west just as the sun is rising in the east. Maximum eclipse is at 3:17 a.m."

And it doesn't matter whether you can SEE it, (cloud cover okay)
I's prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speake

Lermanet.com Exposing the CON since 1993
arnielerma.wordpress.com

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by caroline » Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:19 am

Interesting, Arnie! Here's how Hubbard wrote about A=A in his early material. He definitely associated the concept with Korzybski.
L. Ron Hubbard in DMSMH wrote:The reactive mind bank is composed exclusively of these engrams. The reactive mind thinks exclusively with these engrams. And it “thinks” with them in a way which would make Korzybski swear, for it thinks in terms of full identification, which is to say identities, one thing identical to another.

If the analytical mind did a computation on apples and worms, it could be stated, probably, as follows: some apples have worms in them, other don’t; when biting an apple one occasionally finds a worm unless the apple has been sprayed properly; worms in apples leaves holes.

The reactive mind, however, doing a computation on apples and worms as contained in its engram bank, would calculate as follows: apples are worms are bites are holes in apples are holes in anything are apples and always are worms are apples are bites, etc.

The analytical mind’s computations might embrace the most staggering summations of calculus, the shifty turns of symbolic logic, the computations requisite to bridge-building or dress-making. Any mathematical equation ever seen came from the analytical mind and might be used by the analytical mind in resolving the most routine problems.

But not the reactive mind! That’s so beautifully, wonderfully simple that it can be stated, in operation, to have just one equation: A = A = A = A = A.

Start any computation with the reactive mind. Start it with the data it contains, of course. Any datum is just the same to it as any other datum in the same experience.

An analytical computation done on the woman being kicked, as mentioned, would be that women get themselves into situations sometimes when they get kicked and hurt and men have been known to kick and hurt women.

A reactive mind computation about his engram, as an engram, would be: the pain of the kick equals the pain of the blow equals the overturning chair equals the passing car equals the faucet equals the fact that she is a faker equals the fact that she is no good equals the fact that she changes her mind equals the voice tones of the man equals the emotion equals a faker equals a faucet running equals the pain of the kick equals organic sensation in the area of the kick equals the overturning chair equals changing one’s mind equals.... But why continue? Every single perception in this engram equals every other perception in this engram. What? That’s crazy? Precisely!

Let us further examine our post-hypnotic positive suggestion of the touched tie and the removed coat. In this we have the visible factors of how the reactive mind operates.

This post-hypnotic suggestion needs only an emotional charge and physical pain to make it a dangerous engram. Actually it is an engram of a sort. It is laid in by sympathy between the operator and subject, which would make it a sympathy engram: pro-survival.

Now we know that the operator had only to touch his tie to make the awakened subject remove his coat. The subject did not know what it was which caused him to remove his coat and found all manner of explanation for the action, none of which was the right one. The engram, the post-hypnotic suggestion in this case, was actually placed in the reactive mind bank. It was below the level of consciousness, it was compulsion springing from below the level of consciousness. And it worked upon the muscles to make the subject remove his coat. It was data fused into the circuits of the body below the command level of the analytical mind and operated not only upon the body but also upon the analytical mind itself.

If this subject took off his coat every time he saw somebody touch a necktie, society would account him slightly mad. And yet there was no power of consent about this. If he had attempted to thwart the operator by refusing to remove the coat, the subject would have experienced great discomfort of one sort or another.

Hubbard, L. R. (1950). Dianetics : the modern science of mental health : a handbook of dianetics procedure (2007 ed., pp. 77-79). Los Angeles, Calif.: Bridge Publications.
L. Ron Hubbard in DTOT wrote:Engramic thought is irrational identity-thought, by which the mind is made to conceive identities where only vague similarities may exist. It is necessary that the auditor thoroughly understand engramic thought, for itis with this complete irrationality of identity that he will basically deal. Ashe works with any individual, sane or insane, he must continually employ in the bulk of his computation on the case the equation of engramic thinking.

Engramic thinking can be stated by: A=A=A=A=A.

Hubbard, L. R. (1948). Dianetics, the original thesis (2007 ed., p. 66.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Bridge Publications, Inc.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by peter » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:58 am

Soderqvist1: if engrams are unable to differentiate how come that a restimulator say a man’s voice can key in one engram, but not all engrams? I mean if the reactive mind exists, then a man’s voice should be identified or equal with all other perceptions in engrams!

Soderqvist1: Korzybski reject A = A
The formula says that an object is equal with itself, that may be truth in our fantasy world of abstract mathematics, but in our empirical word which contain 'time’, an object is not same from one moment to the next as exemplified with a bottle of milk which turn sour after a week or so. Is it same milk? Ok same, but not in every respects! Korzybski ’s General Semantics is A non-Aristotelian system, which fundamentally rejects Aristotle’s, is of Identity, and it differs from said system in as much as non-Euclidian geometry differs from the Euclidian Geometry! Euclid ‘s fifth axiom has always been suspect, and is rejected by Albert Einstein theory of relativity which is a four dimensional non-Euclidian geometry! Brouwer has challenged Aristotle’s excluded third which states that either an object is, or it is not! Nowadays the excluded third is proven false by modern mathematics by the fact that some mathematical functions are computable, close to all others are not, and some is just formally undecidable!
More about here!
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg ... #msg_13555
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by peter » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:43 am

Soderqvist1: I have read Daniel Dennett book; ‘Breaking the Spell’ and he has said in this book that the case Kim Philby is an example of undecidable proposition from the real world. It is undecidable if Kim Philby was a spy, or counter spy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_t ... Phenomenon

Kim Philby in the Data series by L. Ron Hubbard
http://caliwog.wordpress.com/2010/11/22 ... ent-facts/

Wikipedia Kim Philby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

JohnS
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 5:42 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by JohnS » Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:15 am

peter wrote:Soderqvist1: if engrams are unable to differentiate how come that a restimulator say a man’s voice can key in one engram, but not all engrams? I mean if the reactive mind exists, then a man’s voice should be identified or equal with all other perceptions in engrams!

Soderqvist1: Korzybski reject A = A
The formula says that an object is equal with itself, that may be truth in our fantasy world of abstract mathematics, but in our empirical word which contain 'time’, an object is not same from one moment to the next as exemplified with a bottle of milk which turn sour after a week or so. Is it same milk? Ok same, but not in every respects! Korzybski ’s General Semantics is A non-Aristotelian system, which fundamentally rejects Aristotle’s, is of Identity, and it differs from said system in as much as non-Euclidian geometry differs from the Euclidian Geometry! Euclid ‘s fifth axiom has always been suspect, and is rejected by Albert Einstein theory of relativity which is a four dimensional non-Euclidian geometry! Brouwer has challenged Aristotle’s excluded third which states that either an object is, or it is not! Nowadays the excluded third is proven false by modern mathematics by the fact that some mathematical functions are computable, close to all others are not, and some is just formally undecidable!
More about here!
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg ... #msg_13555
A bottle of milk is a bottle of milk...since it was not defined as a bottle of "fresh milk", it is still
the bottle of milk a week later, albeit a bottle of "sour" milk. A=A=A is the fundamental law of identity
on which Aristotelian logic is built. If "A" is defined as a bottle of "fresh milk" and "B" defined as
a bottle of "sour milk", then A bottle of fresh milk is equal to a bottle of fresh milk; a bottle of sour milk
is equal to a bottle of sour milk (A=A, B=B) but a bottle of fresh milk is not equal to to a bottle of sour
mikl ( A not= B). Without this fundament of logic; reason, rational thinking is impossible.
Since Hubbard held "A=A" was "reactive mind thinking", it follows that he was defining
reason and rationality as "insane"; conversely he held that A=B=C=D=F etc ("everything is equal
to everything else") as "clear" thinking. No wonder the guy was nuts!

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10387
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by Wieber » Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:40 am

The book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (DMSMH) is not a manual on how to do dianetics. It is a book about dianetics. There is very little instruction on how to do dianetic auditing in that book. What there is in there is sketchy and incomplete.

Having read that book if one wants to do the auditing technique to try it out one pretty much has to seek further instruction on how to do it.

In the seventies we sold that book like crazy but there was no course on what is now called "book one auditing." The book was on the dianetic auditor course but the dianetic auditing done in session with a meter is extremely different to what is described in DMSMH. In scientology book one auditing is taught and done now though whether this came to be under Hubbard or whether it came under Miscavige I don't know.

I think Hubbard wrote DMSMH to confuse and mesmerize the reader after promising that one will achieve incredible abilities from doing the techniques, which are poorly and meagerly presented. The incredible abilities promised in that book had not been achieved with anyone when Hubbard wrote that book and I think no one has achieved them since then either. (If you're lurking and object to that statement then go find someone to set up scientific double blind testing and prove that dianetics delivers what L. Ron Hubbard promised.)

From Encarta Concise English Dictionary:
engram n a hypothetical physical impression made in neural tissue by a mental stimulus suggested as an explanation for the persistence of memory (Early 20C < German Engramm < Greek gramma 'something written')
As to A=A=A, I think that's more of Hubbard working at being hypnotic.

In a way it's like asking someone to divide any number by zero.

If there's magic involved it's stage magic that uses sleight of hand and distraction.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by peter » Tue May 10, 2011 1:57 pm

JohnS wrote:
peter wrote:Soderqvist1: if engrams are unable to differentiate how come that a restimulator say a man’s voice can key in one engram, but not all engrams? I mean if the reactive mind exists, then a man’s voice should be identified or equal with all other perceptions in engrams!

Soderqvist1: Korzybski reject A = A
The formula says that an object is equal with itself, that may be truth in our fantasy world of abstract mathematics, but in our empirical word which contain 'time’, an object is not same from one moment to the next as exemplified with a bottle of milk which turn sour after a week or so. Is it same milk? Ok same, but not in every respects! Korzybski ’s General Semantics is A non-Aristotelian system, which fundamentally rejects Aristotle’s, is of Identity, and it differs from said system in as much as non-Euclidian geometry differs from the Euclidian Geometry! Euclid ‘s fifth axiom has always been suspect, and is rejected by Albert Einstein theory of relativity which is a four dimensional non-Euclidian geometry! Brouwer has challenged Aristotle’s excluded third which states that either an object is, or it is not! Nowadays the excluded third is proven false by modern mathematics by the fact that some mathematical functions are computable, close to all others are not, and some is just formally undecidable!
More about here!
http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg ... #msg_13555
A bottle of milk is a bottle of milk...since it was not defined as a bottle of "fresh milk", it is still
the bottle of milk a week later, albeit a bottle of "sour" milk. A=A=A is the fundamental law of identity
on which Aristotelian logic is built. If "A" is defined as a bottle of "fresh milk" and "B" defined as
a bottle of "sour milk", then A bottle of fresh milk is equal to a bottle of fresh milk; a bottle of sour milk
is equal to a bottle of sour milk (A=A, B=B) but a bottle of fresh milk is not equal to to a bottle of sour
mikl ( A not= B). Without this fundament of logic; reason, rational thinking is impossible.
Since Hubbard held "A=A" was "reactive mind thinking", it follows that he was defining
reason and rationality as "insane"; conversely he held that A=B=C=D=F etc ("everything is equal
to everything else") as "clear" thinking. No wonder the guy was nuts!
Soderqvist1: I have not noted your answer before!
But if you put a bottle of fresh milk on a table and claim this is bottle A, you will be disproved one week later when the milk is sour and has been turned into bottle B. Furthermore Darwinian Evolution would be impossible under Aristotelian law of identity, or Platonian Essence or its philosophy of elementalism, since there is no species A, because of slight variation within said species, and there is no exact point in a evolutionary line when one species turn into another species, and so on, because the change is smooth and gradual. And there is no such thing as straight lines because of gravitational bend, or if you write a straight line on the ground in order to prove me wrong, you can go along with this until you have write a curved line around the world, in example a longitude line and have come back to the point you started at, just as it is said you will do if you travel in a space rocket in one direction you will come back in the opposite direction because space is bent. So where exactly is the dividing line between straight and curved in this case? There has never been a straight line there, because straight lines, or species A, are only approximations our minds do in order to make sense of the world!
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

User avatar
StevieRayFan
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:13 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by StevieRayFan » Fri May 13, 2011 4:08 am

No, I don't believe in Magic.

Wieber, yours is the only post I can grasp here! I can certainly draw a straight line, for goodness sake! I mention your post, though, because there are in fact techniques in Book One which can be followed. If you compare it to the Dianetics Course, then there is no comparison in terms of instruction... but within the Book, it can be followed to eliminate engrams or chains of engrams (if you believe in that sort of thing). Of course the Book is bullshit. But it does in fact have it's technique woven within the covers, and many throughout the years have practiced this "technique".

That is, of course, as I recall from many years ago.

So is it implied that this book is a form of Magic? A few above need to speak or think in a way which can be understood by the average person. Does anyone feel like jumping in and clarifying? Or does it matter anyway?

Yours truly!
“Oh, crip, he’s a crapple” - Peter Griffin
-----
Could be: "Oh crap" <smile>

------

It's getting closer to, "Oh Crap".

http://www.scientologydisconnection.com/

anondelmundial
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:41 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by anondelmundial » Fri May 13, 2011 9:44 am

I have read through this series of posts, and the only thing that comes into my mind is that ALL OF YOU ARE BAT-SHIT INSANE!

The fact that you can supposedly discus some oddity like A=A=A as if it is a concept that can be justified, is simple insanity.

All of you that contributed to this thread need to be restrained in a rubber room so that you are not dangerous to yourselves.

:afro:

Gumbythetruth
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by Gumbythetruth » Sat May 14, 2011 1:28 pm

anondelmundial wrote:I have read through this series of posts, and the only thing that comes into my mind is that ALL OF YOU ARE BAT-SHIT INSANE!

The fact that you can supposedly discus some oddity like A=A=A as if it is a concept that can be justified, is simple insanity.

All of you that contributed to this thread need to be restrained in a rubber room so that you are not dangerous to yourselves.

:afro:
:proud: Pretty much my summation too! :crazy:

User avatar
skeptic2girl
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:14 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by skeptic2girl » Sat May 14, 2011 3:19 pm

anondelmundial wrote:I have read through this series of posts, and the only thing that comes into my mind is that ALL OF YOU ARE BAT-SHIT INSANE!

The fact that you can supposedly discus some oddity like A=A=A as if it is a concept that can be justified, is simple insanity.

All of you that contributed to this thread need to be restrained in a rubber room so that you are not dangerous to yourselves.

:afro:
I don't think anyone's talking about justification here -- just about what the origin of the concept might have been. In fact, I think the origin question is very relevant since L. Ron Hubbard frequently implied that he was some sort of genius who made all of this stuff up by his lonesome -- it's informative to see whom he ripped off. (or, off of whom he ripped :)) And that's not to say that the concepts are sound anyway -- just that he took someone else's concept or used a term and reworded things and called them his own.

If we only debated Hubbard concepts that could be justified, there wouldn't be anything to post.
"The truth is out there."

User avatar
StevieRayFan
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:13 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by StevieRayFan » Sun May 15, 2011 7:56 am

Skepicttwogirl,

I admire your diplomacy. But the fact is that anyone who has worked their way through the labyrinth of scientology, like those who want to get out of the labyrinth of “mind fuch” know early on that Korzybski and many others have contributed to the Hubbard history, and contributed to the Hubbardian methods we have all come to know as L.Ron Hubbard.

Ok, so where are we on this thread?

This is some sort of joke or something. Even Arnie makes sense for shit (BTW, I respect Arnie very much). That said, I am with BAT SHIT, 100%.

I sense a dangerous dive off the deep end. There are things being said on this thread which are unintelligible… period.

There’s more than Plato or Aristotle being said here, and I’ve read them both several times.

I myself was trying to be diplomatic… and then Bat Shit posted and frankly, he/she put it all in perspective!

This is rubber-wall English. The dude is right. Maybe I should coin this as BAT SHIT ENGLISH!

Christ what a waste of time. I deciphered the Hubbaradian affect on me many years ago. I dismantled the tech, played it page by page, and rid my mind of the malignancy bit by bit, so I am no dumb-ass. I have written reams of my revelations for others so they might follow in the path… but this thread is purely incomprehensible… understood ONLY by those who wrote it, and this is a disservice to those of us who read here! It’s a mind-fuck as bad as anything I have ever seen written by the hubbard himself.

Those who wrote this crap are being called upon to MAKE SENSE! Or let it die, ether way. But in the future, stop being so cryptic and spell it out without the mystery… please?

For Christ’s sake who are you communicating to! Yourselves?
“Oh, crip, he’s a crapple” - Peter Griffin
-----
Could be: "Oh crap" <smile>

------

It's getting closer to, "Oh Crap".

http://www.scientologydisconnection.com/

peter
Posts: 846
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by peter » Sun May 15, 2011 10:39 am

Lot of complaining here without spill the beans whom, or who the insane is!
A=A=A is pulp fiction, and I am equally impressed by Hubbard as I am by Bozo the Clown. To me what have been said here is trivially simple. I cannot understand why some do not understand that a”straight line” is only a mental construct which fit our everyday living. But suppose that for the sake of argument you believe perfectly straight lines exist and point out a highway which pointing straight forward and the way is straight both you and my eyes. But I know that there are more going on in the world which our eyes cannot see, in example every grains of sand on the way are too tiny for our gross perception like sight to see, so the way in the main seems to have no grains of sand on it. But I don’t bother much about it, and instead ask you; it is possible to build such a straight highway around the world along the equator and we will come back were we started if we travel in a forward direction with a car since the equator is circular, but how can the way be straight when the way is circular? Read here the equator is an imaginary line!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator

Btw, I am reading the renowned Richard Dawkins‘s book: “”The Greatest show on Earth, the Evidence for Evolution, and he has said on page 200 -203 that taxonomy is a mental construct with no real counterpart, since every organism who has ever lived belong to the same species as his parents, and children does, all organisms are intermediates and it is paradoxically the scarcity of fossils that make taxonomy possible!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist

User avatar
StevieRayFan
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:13 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by StevieRayFan » Mon May 16, 2011 5:52 am

Peter, I for one do understand that a straight line is only as straight so long as it begins to take on the curvature of the earth!

But for practical sense, it will take miles before the straight line will begin to curve along the curvature of the earth... so this is way out there in practical terms.

I for one am a wood worker and a carpenter. Believe me in my trades there are straight lines, and BTW, flat surfaces. Measured by thousandths of inches.

A=A=A was never meant to be measured in a "straight" line... I don't know where you guys get this. A=A=A, in hubbardian "think" was never meant to be measured thus. One thing equals another thing equals another thing. Period. That was his meaning... and wrongfully so because his definition was based on the belief of a Bank... and that is more bullshit... a BANK, for Chirst's sake. As if such a thing actually exists beyond the borders of scientology.

Within the borders and boundaries of hubbard's craming square pegs into round holes, so long as one accepts such nonsense, one can expect anything.

In the hubbarian tredition, A= one thing (let’s say a rag doll) and the next A= again equals a rag doll (but it is REALLY a pillow) and the next A= a rag doll (but it is really a blanket). That’s his warped way of explaining the Bank in Book One and from then on forward. He is attempting to say that when one is influence by the Bank (his creation… or should I say his RULE) one can’t tell the difference between a rag doll, a pillow, or a blanket.

THAT’S A=A=A. There is no linear issue. No one goes around the world, and nothing there comes back upon itself. This is a practical explanation of hubbard’s “great” discovery of the 1950’s.

Of course he was wrong. There is no Bank, and there is no A=A=A.

So what the hell are you guys trying to say? Why does Arnie use cryptic A=B=C? There is no A=A=A let ALONE an A=B=C!

-=-=-=-

This may sound arrogant on my part… but back in the day when I read philosophy for some years in a row, I’d stumble across some strange shit… but you have to keep reading past that to the next philosopher and so on. Combined… philosophy is ONE LONG ARGUMENT… one philosopher to the next answering the one before. You can’t stop. You have to read it all! It’s History. And the argument is never complete. Hubbard attempted to add his view to the whole mix, but instead of adding, he attempted to usurp all others. Am I wrong on that one?

Not only did he do a disservice to those before him by his “generous” attempt to synthesize the Greats before him, hubbard attempted to take credit from those before him (who were simply adding to the universal Argument in an ethical and meaning way).
Hume Brought us Empirical Evidence. To this day Hume has not been shot down; though hubbard thought he was smarter and sought to bring in his own terminology in order to escape Hume’s Empirical Evidence. Epic Fail! Anecdotal is NOT Empirical. Try flying to Venus on hubbard’s instruction. You’d be a Clam in a few hours.
-=-=-=-
Please folks… take a break. Clear your heads. Have a few beers or take up target shooting or play the guitar. It’s getting too thick. Focus on something else for a time. It’s good-willed advice.

Sincerely yours,

SRF
“Oh, crip, he’s a crapple” - Peter Griffin
-----
Could be: "Oh crap" <smile>

------

It's getting closer to, "Oh Crap".

http://www.scientologydisconnection.com/

User avatar
skeptic2girl
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:14 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: A=A=A=A Do you believe in Magic?

Post by skeptic2girl » Mon May 16, 2011 6:54 am

philosophy is ONE LONG ARGUMENT… one philosopher to the next answering the one before. You can’t stop. You have to read it all! It’s History. And the argument is never complete. Hubbard attempted to add his view to the whole mix, but instead of adding, he attempted to usurp all others. Am I wrong on that one?

Not only did he do a disservice to those before him by his “generous” attempt to synthesize the Greats before him, hubbard attempted to take credit from those before him (who were simply adding to the universal Argument in an ethical and meaning way).
Hume Brought us Empirical Evidence. To this day Hume has not been shot down; though hubbard thought he was smarter and sought to bring in his own terminology in order to escape Hume’s Empirical Evidence. Epic Fail! Anecdotal is NOT Empirical. Try flying to Venus on hubbard’s instruction. You’d be a Clam in a few hours.
-=-=-=-
well-said, SRF.
"The truth is out there."

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest