Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fließendes · 10-21-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whichphilosophy

The axiom is observable by self as it relates to self. There are courses and auditing sessions etc. The subject is not always addressed unless the subject brings it up.

So, the subject of the nature and substance of "life" is brought up by the auditee, then the auditor leads the auditee to the idea that "Life is a static"?

I know that one of the heavily stressed practices in Scientolgy is cumulative learning--mastering simple problems and increasing complexity as "understanding" advances. This sounds like a perfect method for indoctrination: 1) the auditee feels he needs to understand the basic nature of his life 2) the auditor tells or leads him to the idea that "life is a static" 3) the auditee feels he's made a breakthrough 4) the auditor then leads him to the more complex aspects of the "life static" idea 5) the auditee then feels he's privy to knowledge no non-Scientologist could possibly understand--and thus no non-scientologists can understand him.

Quote:

You have to scrutinise this yourself, which is why the terminology and word definitions have to be as precise as possible.

Only in logical fictions must words be precise. Examples of logical fictions are mathematics and logic. They are completely internally consistent systems. Even among these systems, different words have different meanings depending on context. For instance, a derivative in grammar is totally different from a derivative in calculus.

In the rest of life, words have a multitude of connotations and associations, some of which are found in the dictionary, some not, and most are changing as we speak due to human interaction. LRH created his own logical fiction. If it's helped you understand the world better, I'm happy for you.

Quote:

As the person gets more training in the study courses etc and through observations in life (from experience) this axiom become more logical.

You mean the inside of LRH's brain becomes clearer? If you're using fixed definitions, and I'm using words as I understand them from interacting with people, reading, and experiencing life, how are you and I to communicate?

Communication itself requires some consensus. Words have the meanings we collectively give them. There are even certain words you can have a basic understanding about with your dog. (Granted for you it might mean "sit" and "obey me", while for him it might mean "sit" and "maybe I'll get a treat"). Communication is never perfect even if we delude ourselves with the idea of absolute definitions.

Nice talking with you.

whichphilosophy · 10-22-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fließendes

If it's just to do with ourselves it may be scientific in nature, but nothing becomes a "law of the physical sciences" until it is observed by others, with criteria based on the scientific method, in multiple experiments done by multiple people which always produces the same results.

Again, Newton's Law of Gravity is always proven (at human-scale level) with the only caveat being air-resistance (as with a feather)--but that was worked out by performing experiments in a vacuum.

My problem with Hubbard's "axioms" is that he is characteristically misleading and vague by saying that the axioms are "on the order of the physical sciences". Most of us know the "physical sciences" as physics, chemistry, biology, etc. LRH's axioms are not in the same rank as the Laws of physics. They are hypotheses at best--until he provides experimental data and they are reviewed by third parties not affiliated with Scientology. Then they might qualify as theories with some level of acceptance among the wider scientific community.

Just by reading this it is difficult. However you have a right approach about doing this. Now I will be accused of preaching here as the intent is not to convert but by studing relevant texts on this axiom but not new (which is a conclusion) a greater depth can be understood. This is why the subject is open to misinteretation by others. However your views from just seeing it is pretty valid and a greater understanding then most I have seen who had read this for the first time.

whichphilosophy · 10-22-2005, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fließendes

So, the subject of the nature and substance of "life" is brought up by the auditee, then the auditor leads the auditee to the idea that "Life is a static"?

I know that one of the heavily stressed practices in Scientolgy is cumulative learning--mastering simple problems and increasing complexity as "understanding" advances. This sounds like a perfect method for indoctrination: 1) the auditee feels he needs to understand the basic nature of his life 2) the auditor tells or leads him to the idea that "life is a static" 3) the auditee feels he's made a breakthrough 4) the auditor then leads him to the more complex aspects of the "life static" idea 5) the auditee then feels he's privy to knowledge no non-Scientologist could possibly understand--and thus no non-scientologists can understand him.Only in logical fictions must words be precise. Examples of logical fictions are mathematics and logic. They are completely internally consistent systems. Even among these systems, different words have different meanings depending on context. For instance, a derivative in grammar is totally different from a derivative in calculus.

In the rest of life, words have a multitude of connotations and associations, some of which are found in the dictionary, some not, and most are changing as we speak due to human interaction. LRH created his own logical fiction. If it's helped you understand the world better, I'm happy for you.You mean the inside of LRH's brain becomes clearer? If you're using fixed definitions, and I'm using words as I understand them from interacting with people, reading, and experiencing life, how are you and I to communicate?

Communication itself requires some consensus. Words have the meanings we collectively give them. There are even certain words you can have a basic understanding about with your dog. (Granted for you it might mean "sit" and "obey me", while for him it might mean "sit" and "maybe I'll get a treat"). Communication is never perfect even if we delude ourselves with the idea of absolute definitions.

Nice talking with you.

Really it is by studying and auditing. The auditor is a listener and must be careful not to give hints or clues, for what life itself is only what we see it to be from our own reality. An e-meter is used. As I don't live near you or have an e-meter with me anyway I can't give you a demonstration.

I am sure you can get a free demonstration from any booth etc. I'm sure there are a lot. Actually I found the courses fun and not tiring. When we discover inherent abilities and truths how can we be exhausted.

fließendes · 10-22-2005, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whichphilosophy

When we discover inherent abilities and truths how can we be exhausted.

Untapped inherent ability I believe in. Absolute truth, I don't.

whichphilosophy · 10-23-2005, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fließendes

Untapped inherent ability I believe in. Absolute truth, I don't.

I tend to believe that absolute truth may not be attainable, but I don't know.

We are all capable then we give ourselves credit for or in many cases others let us think we are. This doesn't go down too well with autocratic societies.

The axioms are not that hard if done with course data and practical application. It may seem daunting at first.

To be able to learn and apply there are study courses that raise the person's level of comprehension and application, hence they move faster.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.