Hubbard said In the beginning and forever is the discussion to be

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Gib, Mar 1, 2019.

View Users: View Users
  1. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    It's in one of his logics or axioms or whatever, I forget.

    Little did I know I decided to be a scientologist. LOL

    Jeepers, I meant decision in the title. LOL, sorry about that, don't know how to fix.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2019
  2. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Part of the Great Hubbard bait and switch, Mate . . . . He did write about the "decision to be" . . . but left off the be "what" part which, for him, was for us "all men," to be his slaves as Scientologists.

    Ummmmmmm, the greatest bait and switch, deceptive con job in the history of con jobs! :oops:
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  3. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    Oh Jeezus! Don't get me started! The fuckin' Factors and the Axioms and all the rest of it. "In the beginning and forever is the decision ..."

    "The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint..." etc. etc. Creation of Human Ability wasn't it Rog? Old Suzette bought me that book. Did my fuckin' 'ead in all the shit that was in there. The spliffs I smoked tryin' to make sense of it all. I'm glad I finally found out it was a load of old tripe, or that it was some sublime truth from the mind of another that had been appropriated by the fat bastard to impress us all. Anyway, the book finally ended up in the garbage where it belonged.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • LOL LOL x 3
    • List
  4. F.Bullbait

    F.Bullbait Oh, a wise guy,eh?

    Wish you weren't there.:D

    [​IMG]
     
  5. TheOriginalBigBlue

    TheOriginalBigBlue Gold Meritorious Patron

    The Factors have been discussed before...

    https://www.forum.exscn.net/threads/the-factors-scientologys-trap.19700/

    If you try to word clear MEST (Matter, Energy, Space, Time) in the Scientology Technical Dictionary, after going back and forth in a perpetual loop where the definitions of each of these four things hopelessly refer back to each other, you will ultimately end up with the same conclusion as The Factors, which is that the physical universe is a cumulative byproduct of collective thetan's mental imagery generation.

    It's clever but Hubbard didn't provide a very good scientific explanation of it. I guess that is what he hoped to achieve with things like The Axioms which were even more incoherent. But where did this all come from? Was it the gleanings from all the whole track recollections people narrated in auditing sessions? Was it from his own superior spiritual enlightenment, the ability to recall his own whole track for trillions of years, to go exterior from the body with full perceptics at will? Is it rehashed OTO doctrine blended with quantum theory available to anyone?

    There is no convincing body of research that has been subjected to independent 3rd party verification to support his conclusions but he did create a mini-police state that exists to destroy anyone who opposed him and his ideas. That should tell anyone whatever they need to know about The Factors. This kind of open discussion is impossible within Scientology. You are told to find your misunderstood word and read it until it makes sense or you are essentially categorized as stupid or evil. Therefore The Factors serve as a premise upon which everything else follows. It becomes the Scientologist's "Stable Datum". That one thing around which all other confusions align. The Factors play an important role in becoming a Scientologist because once you accept it without question and demand that others accept it without question you have become a fundamentalist which is diametrically opposed to reason, science and individuality. By definition "Scientology" is supposed to mean "knowing how to know" but in application it is knowing how not to know and it all begins by integrating arbitrary concepts like The Factors into your own world view.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Love Love x 1
    • List
  6. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    Shortly after departing the Co$ I met a guy who was a huge fan of Aleister Crowley. When looking through some of my Scientology books he came across the Factors, and really liked them. It seemed to align with his understanding of the universe he had from studying Crowley.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  7. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    In another thread I came across (from 2008) Terril Park wrote: (note: the link in his post isn't working for me)

    "...I consider Crowley and his research part of what became scn.
    See his Naples arangement and compare to factors. And search more widely.
    http://lilytears.com/spirituality/thelema/qabalah/tarotandnaples.htm
    Note that Hubbard recommended reading Crowley in the PDC lectures.
    I liked Alan's comment that scientology was a splinter of Crowleyism."


    His full post (and the thread) over here:
    Aleister Crowley a Scientologist?
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/threads/aleister-crowley-a-scientologist.8509/
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
    • List
  8. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    "This kind of open discussion is impossible within Scientology. You are told to find your misunderstood word and read it until it makes sense or you are essentially categorized as stupid or evil."

    One of the cogs I had when I left and researched was on Hubbard's course room known as "The Academy". I researched "the academy" and found it was Plato's for open debate or skepticism.
     
  9. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    In fact there is "open debate" in Scientology.

    There is continuous debate by Scientologists about whether or not someone else is:

    -- ABERRATED​

    -- DEGRADED​

    -- NON-STANDARD​

    -- CLEAR​

    -- OT​

    -- KSW​

    -- SQUIRREL​

    -- RESIMULATED​

    -- UPSTAT​

    -- DOWNSTAT​

    -- ETHICAL​

    -- OUT ETHICS​

    -- ON SOURce​

    -- PTS​

    -- SP​

    -- 1.1​


    READER ALERT: Despite being "ABLE" to pass clay demos on the subject, Scientologists are the most "invalidative", "evaluative" and "gossipy 1.1s, on this planet. Although readers may feel that the previous statement lacks scientific proof, I respectfully remind you that the sentence concluded with "on this planet", which is in itself more than confirms the gravitas & veracity of what was stated.

    .
     
    • LOL LOL x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  10. DagwoodGum

    DagwoodGum Squirreling Dervish

    I soon saw why he coined MEST, because it sounds like MESSED!
    It was his backhanded slap at the entire universe which he saw as nothing but a trap and drilled that into our heads so that we wouldn't mind at all if he asked us for everything we had including our children.
    He was a master wordsmith and knew the hypnotic power of the language which we'd had drilled into our heads all of our lives.
    This was why he bundled all his courses with massive amounts of word clearing, because it seemed to validate everything he threw our way in our minds due to our previous programming which was THE DICTIONARY IS ALWAYS RIGHT.
    So Scientology VICARIOUSLY became ALWAYS RIGHT!
    BANG!
    Sometimes it takes another Pisces to see through and unravel the hideous, insidious and deadly aspects of crazed Pisces deviousness gone mad, because we swim in those same murky, bottomless depths - not as much fun as you might think!:eek:
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2019
  11. Operating DB

    Operating DB Truman Show Dropout

    So, I wasn't the only one who was baffled and confused by the Axioms and Factors crap. It's good to know there were others who were feeling the same way. It wasn't my shortcoming - it was hubbard's nonsense that was the problem.