ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Yep these are the folks who are going to clear the planet of insanity

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn, Jul 16, 2009.

View Users: View Users
  1. ChronicEnturbulator

    ChronicEnturbulator Patron with Honors

  2. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    :omg: I guess that means I am nuts. I have the firm opinion that thought and awareness do not stem from "physical processes" involving chemical reactions in the brain. It "may", but there is NO REAL PROOF OF THAT anywhere. Some people believe it regardless, out of some compulsive opinion, just like some others do so in the other extreme.

    When I was in Scientology, I remember seeing these sort of "movies" and thinking to myself, "why the excessive dramatization, and why the exaggerated drama"? Heck, if you wanted to make a person reflexively NOT accept the idea that chemical reactions in the brain were NOT the cause of thought and awareness, then SHOW somebody this over-the-top video. It is a typical Scn "foot-bullet".

    This is an example where I agree entirely with the idea, but not at all with the presentation and delivery.

    Cripes, if someone really wanted to give the idea of "spirit" a bad name, the best way to do it would be to create something like Scientology, push those ideas HARD, but then also do it in such a way that makes the related field look INSANE. People often 100% identify a) the observable craziness of LRH and the Church with b) everything LRH may have said or written anywhere. This results in some people reflexively (reactively, automatically) throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Simply, this involves severe irrational thinking due to ones failure to notice false identities, actual similarities and actual differences.

    Also, from where I am sitting I simply do not see that the use of ice picks on frontal lobes was ever "legitimate". Go watch Jack Nicholsen in "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest". That movie makes certain points about all of this VERY well. Running electricity through a brain as a "solution" has never made sense to me - well before Scn. Members of the psychiatric community often referred to the effects of various tranquilizers as "chemical lobotomies".

    Actually spend some time researching what was going on at this time in the field of psychiatry. I agree with Thomas Szasz and Breggin that a large part of psychiatry functions as an "ideology", not at all as science and harms people in many ways. I agree with LRH on all of that, more than I disagree with him. But, also, he goes so over-the-top in his presentations, he just ratchets up the "drama factor" so high, to make it unpalatable to so many people. In a certain regard, LRH was his own worse enemy! But fundamentally, I cannot disagree with a basic dislike and mistrust of psychiatry. But remember that LRH was describing and responding to a reality of MANY years ago. I am not sure how much things have changed, but they have changed in some regards.

    Read some Szasz or Breggin. They are both intelligent psychiatrists who see fundamental and major flaws in psychiatry. But, unlike Hubbard, they express it in a a way that is calm, detached, detailed and intellectually solid. LRH just goes so nuts in so many presentations of so many things - I think THAT was due to the "ego-maniac" aspect of Hubbard's personality. He was always "on display", "creating some effect" and being the "center of attention". He seemed to revel in it.

    Philosophically, I just will never be able to agree with "psychiatry". It is an entirely materialistic interpretation of people and their minds. For me, with all that I have experienced, and in alignment with all that I have studied (Scn making up only a SMALL part of that), I have the opinion that thought and consciousness stem from the invisible realm of sprit. For me, "awareness" IS the fundamental reality. All else stems from THAT. To the materialists though, all thought and awareness stem from dead matter. These are two traditional views that portray a philosophical conflcit of ideas about reality that goes back many centuries.

    Yes, for sure, the brain and thoughts are somehow "related", just as the body and mind are somehow "related". THAT is not the same as a direct causal relationship though. Drinking coffee (phsyical) can brighten up the mind and thoughts (invisible). And in reverse, meditation (invisible thought) can relax the body (physical), and in extreme cases Yogis can slow down their heartbeats and breathing entirely by thought control. It is a two-way street. But which came first? I fall on the invisible side (spirit and fundamental autonomy of pure awareness). Many others fall on the other side - the visible materialistic interpretation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2009