From: phil osborn (philosborn@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Aug 26 2000 - 23:52:54 MDT
>From: Charlie Stross <charlie@antipope.org>
>Subject: Scientology (was: Re: Limits of tolerance)
>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:00:36 +0100
>
>On the other hand, I've been reading up on the Church of Scientology in
>the past week or so -- research for a project -- and came across this
>fun web page:
>
>http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/terms.htm
>
>I'd like to urge any Extropians who don't know anything about the Co$ to
>read as much of it as they can stomach. It's a dictionary. It defines
>referents within a language: concepts and terms used internally within
>the Church. I don't think it's a fake. And I don't think I'm exaggerating
>much if I state that trying to put myself inside the mind of someone
>who thinks in these terms gives me the same queasy sensation I get when
>I try to understand Nazism........
>-- Charlie
>
The peculiar epistemology used by Hubbard involved long, long lists of
definitions of terms - defined very differently than their common usage. A
couple of decades ago, I picked up a set of Hubbard's "serious" works at
some garage sale, and took a look at how he thought. My impression was that
the definitions and concepts he used were themselves part of the programming
that scientologists receive, and that none of it was accidental.
A normal definition, as we non-scientologists use the term, consists of a
super-set - say "animal" - and then the criteria which distinguishes the
subset named from other members of the superset - as in "rational" for the
term human - "a rational animal."
Hubbard's definitions, as I recall, were more of the form: "human" - "an
unaware Thetan," altho I just made up that particular example. Like a nazi
defining a Jew, not by the religious heritage, but as "a subhuman enemy of
all humanity," Hubbard included his personal opinions and evaluations in the
definitions and often used them as the essential defining characteristics of
a term. I do recall that I was impressed that many of his definitions did
seem to strike at a core of meaning that Websters would not consider, but
that still leaves the problem of the many that appeared to be simply
imposing an evaluation.
Thus, a philosophically naive person, thru his or her willingness to accept
such nonsense as part of the "training," could easilly lose all grip on
reality as we know it, at least on a cognitive level. Out of consistency,
they would feel obligated to act in accordence with the conclusions that
would follow, once having accepted the epistemology and the conceptual set -
however bizarre those conclusions might be.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:37 MST