fließendes

The following is an outline of the basic premise of Dianetics.

With Dianetics, Mr. Hubbard discovered a previously unknown and harmful part of the mind which contains recordings of past experiences of loss, pain and unconsciousness in the form of mental image pictures. These incidents of spiritual trauma are recorded along with all other experiences of one's life in sequential order on what Scientologists call the time track. The painful incidents recorded on this time track exist below a person's level of awareness and collectively accumulate to make up what is called the reactive mind, the source of all travail, unwanted fears, emotions, pains, and psychosomatic illnesses--as distinct from the analytical mind, that portion of the mind which thinks, observes data, remembers it and resolves problems.

From Theology and Practice of Scientology

Anyone have an opinion on this? If you can, just take it at face value.

For my part, I have two thoughts/concerns:

1. The "time track" sounds like something a Kundalini yoga instructor once told me about--the idea that your soul "records" everything in your life within a certain radius, and that at the end of your life it all plays back, i.e. "your life passes before your eyes".
2. If the "reactive mind" is where our emotions are based, does that mean the goal of Dianetics is to place you in control of your emotions at all times? Never just let them run their course?

I'm sure the longer I look at this the more I'll see, but I'd like to hear anyone else's take.

Godless Wonder

Why the hell would anyone do that?

IMO, It's complete and total bullshit

Here: http://xenu.net/archive/fischer/

I can't take it at face value, because I know about this site: http://www.xenu.net

I see a lot of big claims, and zero evidence to back up those claims. How did Hubbard "discover" this? Well, he was a science fiction writer, and when he says he "discovered" it, what he really means is that he "made it up and wrote it down."

fließendes

For the same reason I've isolated this single paragraph--to examine the basic premise of Dianetics, which was a bestseller in the 1950s well before the founding of the "Church". There's lots of ideas taken from psychology, philosophy and other religions--so those ideas at least cannot be dismissed with "bullshit". I'm afraid you're going to have to discuss them.

Everyone knows about Xenu.net. Please point out the bullshit in the above paragraph, and explain how and why it qualifies. "Bullshit" typically indicates verbiage with certain pretensions masking ulterior motives. If you're going to scream "bullshit" on a discussion board, at least outline what you perceive are the false or insincere ideas.Which claims would those be?So, because Hubbard was a science fiction writer, it's impossible that he made an intellectual or spiritual "discovery"? While I'm by no means putting Hubbard in the same rank, we accept that Descartes crawled into an oven and discovered "I think therefore I am"--which is generally considered the beginning of modern philosophy. Why can't a science-fiction writer go into a shack in Washington state and come up with a discovery?

If you don't buy into the "discovery", let's attack that. Then the status of the "discoverer" will take care of itself.

IsItJustMe

With all due respect, Fliebendes, I think that the surer way of analyzing Dianetics is the one which Godless Wonder linked: Take the claims and test them scientifically. Does Dianetics do anything for you or doesn't it? The answer, according to what is apparently the only scientific study ever done on the subject, is that it will not do squat.

I support analyzing Freudian psychotherapy just the same way. The proof the pudding is in the eating.

fließendes

This is a discussion board. What are we going to test? I want to discuss these ideas. We're in the Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy forum, not Science and Skepticism.

I'm not a Scientologist. I'm an atheist. My only interest in religion is how does it appeal to people, and what does it do for them? Dismissing Scientology with reference to a study or to Xenu.net doesn't tell me anything about how these ideas appeal to people. Why is it we can discuss Buddhism or even something more contemporary like Christian Science with regards to its philosophies, but the best we can do for the book that launched Hubbard's fortunes and following (and thus Scientology) is post a link to Xenu.net?This is something I will likely never find out, because I don't intend to give them any of my money. That's why I'm on a discussion board and not at my local Scientology chapter.Yes, and lots of people have and still are eating Scientology up. Let's examine what they're eating.

IsItJustMe

I know, I know. That's why the "with all due respect" bit.

I think there is a good reason for this. Most religions avoid making testable claims. Even Christian Science does so for the most part. Scientology, Dianetics, etc., are different: They make testable claims. So a far simpler way of analyzing them is available: Test the claims.

One of Godless Wonder's links to Xenu was to a very interesting thing. This link is to an actual scientific test of the claims of Dianetics. So you CAN have a pretty good idea if Dianetic therapy works, just by looking at this study.

fließendes

But this thread isn't about whether or not Scientology "works", it's about the ideas in it. Whether a religion "works" isn't determined by scientific studies, but by whether or not people thinks it works for them. Whether or not everything the Catholic Church has defined as a "relic" or a "miracle" actually fits the bill (even by their own standards) doesn't tell us anything about the "idea" of Catholicism. Whether or not I'm an atheist or a Scientologist or whether Hubbard was sincere, a fraud, or just believed his own bullshit is not what I'm interested in.

Let's discuss the "analytic" an "reactive" minds and what Dianetics posits about them. Where were these ideas derived from? What's their appeal? What's the purported intent of Dianetics--and if it doesn't do what it claims to do, what is it that it does that maintains people's interest?

Those are the questions that interest me. All we can do is speculate, but that's what discussion boards are for.

David B

You say dianetics makes testable claims. And perthaps some of them are. But what about this one:-

Where is the test of the existence of Thetans?

David B (is not impressed by Thetans)

Thomas II

I learned quite a bit about Scientology from the South Park episode aired yesterday... :rolling:

fließendes

Nobody wants to discuss Scientology in terms of its ideas. There's something too disturbing to people. Are they afraid they'll see some things that actually make sense?

All belief systems with wide appeal have something good in them, but with Scientology people are only comfortable demonizing it.

The free-zoners are former Scientologists who have tried to salvage what was good from their experience after breaking with the organization. Perhaps they can say something more significant than I've been able to.