$cientology = Psychology
gerry armstrong
and spiritual. I say $cientology sells psychological "healing."
$cientology does the same thing, although far less honestly and
effectively, as psychology. $cientology's practices have nothing to do
with spirituality or spiritual healing.
So, you $cientologists, ex-$cientologists, Free Zoners or anyone else,
a question: Is there any basis at all, beyond tax and litigation
advantages, for $cientology's claim that it is a spiritual practice
and auditing is spiritual healing?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Spiritual Research Workgroup
>So, you $cientologists, ex-$cientologists, Free Zoners or anyone else,
>a question: Is there any basis at all, beyond tax and litigation
>advantages, for $cientology's claim that it is a spiritual practice
>and auditing is spiritual healing?
If you can cleanly distinguish between the potential of SCN tech
like designed by Hubbard, and the poor sad excuse for a technology
to which it deteriorated during the years, then yes, it's a spiritual
practice.
Psychology, although "psyche" would mean "soul", is still based on
behaviourism which is derived from research with animals. It conceives
the personality as a product of brain chemistry and is as such not
spiritual. It might have some EFFECTS of spiritual practice, as the
personality who answers up in the dialogue is actually the spiritual
being himself, NOT the brain.
SCN auditing done with the basics "in" and "thinking with the data",
as it is being done in the freezone, is definitely a spiritual
practice, as it makes a clear distinction between spirit, mind and body,
and thus allows the spirit to analyze the interactions between these
three and train up to a masterful handling of these interactions.
Heidrun Beer
Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training
http://www.sgmt.at
Rebecca Hartong
Spiritual Research Workgroup wrote in message
<36143ec6...@newsact.lightlink.com>...
>Psychology, although "psyche" would mean "soul", is still based on
>behaviourism which is derived from research with animals. It conceives
>the personality as a product of brain chemistry and is as such not
>spiritual. It might have some EFFECTS of spiritual practice, as the
>personality who answers up in the dialogue is actually the spiritual
>being himself, NOT the brain.
No, no, no...
Behaviorism is just one approach/philosophy under the broad umbrella of
psychology. Behaviorists are primarily interested in --as the name
implies-- the observable behavior of individual people and animals. While
some behaviorists spend a lot of their time doing research with animals,
many concentrate exclusively on human behavior. Behaviorists generally
don't care much about the physiological or cognitive processes that might
affect or inspire any given behavior. Pavlov, Watson and Skinner, for
example, were behaviorists. When you think "behaviorism," think "classical
and/or operant conditioning."
The psychologists who are interested in brain chemistry and the neurological
bases of behavior, personality, and cognition would be neuroscientists
(another specialty within the field of psychology).
Psychology is an amazingly broad field and there are sometimes huge
differences between the perspectives taken by the different specialties (and
sometimes even between different individuals within a single specialty!)
Many psychologists are deeply religious people. Many psychologists are not
religious or spiritually-oriented at all. Those who are of a
religious/spiritual orientation believe that behavior, personality and
cognition are very much affected by spirit. Those who aren't of that
orientation, of course, don't believe such a thing is an influence.
James J. Lippard
Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Spiritual Research Workgroup wrote in message
><36143ec6...@newsact.lightlink.com>...
>
>>Psychology, although "psyche" would mean "soul", is still based on
>>behaviourism which is derived from research with animals. It conceives
>>the personality as a product of brain chemistry and is as such not
>>spiritual. It might have some EFFECTS of spiritual practice, as the
>>personality who answers up in the dialogue is actually the spiritual
>>being himself, NOT the brain.
>
>No, no, no...
>
>Behaviorism is just one approach/philosophy under the broad umbrella of
>psychology. Behaviorists are primarily interested in --as the name
>implies-- the observable behavior of individual people and animals. While
>some behaviorists spend a lot of their time doing research with animals,
>many concentrate exclusively on human behavior. Behaviorists generally
>don't care much about the physiological or cognitive processes that might
>affect or inspire any given behavior. Pavlov, Watson and Skinner, for
>example, were behaviorists. When you think "behaviorism," think "classical
>and/or operant conditioning."
>
>The psychologists who are interested in brain chemistry and the neurological
>bases of behavior, personality, and cognition would be neuroscientists
>(another specialty within the field of psychology).
And psychologists who are interested in cognition are cognitive
psychologists. For an introduction, see John R. Anderson's excellent
book, _Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications_. Chapter headings: The
Science of Cognition, The Neural Basis of Cognition, Perception and
Attention, Memory Elaboration and Reconstruction, Problem Solving,
Development of Expertise, Reasoning, Language: An Overview, Language
Comprehension, Language Generation, Cognitive Development.
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
aaspa...@primenet.com
Spiritual Research Workgroup
>Psychology is an amazingly broad field and there are sometimes huge
>differences between the perspectives taken by the different specialties (and
>sometimes even between different individuals within a single specialty!)
>Many psychologists are deeply religious people. Many psychologists are not
>religious or spiritually-oriented at all. Those who are of a
>religious/spiritual orientation believe that behavior, personality and
>cognition are very much affected by spirit. Those who aren't of that
>orientation, of course, don't believe such a thing is an influence.
Hm, that was interesting to read. Good to know, many thanks!
Rebecca Hartong
James J. Lippard wrote in message <6utn8a$1ti$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com>...
>In article <6utibe$a...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
>And psychologists who are interested in cognition are cognitive
>psychologists. For an introduction, see John R. Anderson's excellent
>book, _Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications_. Chapter headings: The
>Science of Cognition, The Neural Basis of Cognition, Perception and
>Attention, Memory Elaboration and Reconstruction, Problem Solving,
>Development of Expertise, Reasoning, Language: An Overview, Language
>Comprehension, Language Generation, Cognitive Development.
Yes! I think I've heard of this book!
Two *other* kinds of psychologists are evolutionary psychologists and
psychologists who approach the subject from the perspective of the
Computational Theory of Mind (a subset of the bigger category of cognitive
psychologists.) A weighty (literally!) introduction to both philosophies
can be found in Steven Pinker's book _How the Mind Works_. It's a wonderful
book. Check out, in particular, Pinker's explanation for why people have
religion. Most people will either find a lot to agree with him on... or
they'll want to reach through the book--all the way to MIT where Pinker is
in charge of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience--and slap him! ;-) I
strongly recommend this book.
wgert
armstrong) wrote:
>There are at least 4 kinds of healing: physical, psychological, faith
>and spiritual. I say $cientology sells psychological "healing."
>$cientology does the same thing, although far less honestly and
>effectively, as psychology.
...
>(c) Gerry Armstrong
It's a bit much that you're trying to be so noisy when there is an
arrest warrant outstanding on you which you are desparately
trying to avoid from being activated.
As it stands, the members of any religion have the right to form their
own church and churches. It does not require the approval from
anyone else other than the members themselves. You are *not*
a member of the Church so you have no say in this matter. You can
certainly have your opinion but that is your opinion and nothing else.
Now go to California to report to your community service --- or jail
sentence, whichever you prefer.
wgert
gerry armstrong
Harrington) wrote:
>
>Fewer than 3% of current members have any formal training/experience
>as auditors, so very little spiritual practice and auditing actually
>occurs. And what "auditors" they do have left are far beyond
>incompetent, The FSO is the Mecca of Incompetence for the idle rrich
>that $cientology panders to.
>
>This is not the case amongst those who continue to practice
>Scientology or audit outside the shadow of the RTC, as THEY see fit.
>
>The "Church" of Scientology is not a "Church" as most would understand
>it. Its a money-management network and their primary activity is the
>marketing of LRH products and the glorification of Hubbard.
>
>For the most part, $cientology Inc is a spiritual graveyard, the blind
>leading the blind. .
>
>Joe
>
$cientology = Spiritual Graveyard. Great, insightful picket sign and
campaign.
Isn't the mechanism of auditing, however - the asking questions and
getting answers, the search of the mind, the search of the past - the
same mechanism as psychological counseling?
$cientology says it is different, and not psychology because it
"addresses the thetan," whereas "psychology thinks man is mud." I say
that's all a lie. Psychology doesn't think man is mud. That's just
Hubbardian black PR of his "competition" in the psychological healing
field. And psychologists, when they ask their patients questions or
direct them to look at the past, are talking to exactly the same
"entity" as $cientology "auditors" addressing their pcs.
What $cientology says is the "thetan" is actually the "ego."
$cientology is possibly the most egoistic branch of psychology.
I have no dispute with psychological healing. Asking questions and
getting answers, the search of the mind and the search of the past can
all be beneficial skills. It simply is not spiritual healing.
Spiritual healing and spiritual practices are completely different
mechanisms and functions from psychological healing.
If, however, people involved in psychological healing which they are
wrongly calling spiritual healing admitted that they were doing
psychological healing, they would be subject to the same licensing and
standards as psychologists involved in psychological healing.
You will recall that it was licensing problems which brought Hubbard
to set up his clinic as a church with his "religion angle."
Aren't people cut off from actual spirituality and actual spiritual
healing when they buy Hubbard's misnomer, and allow to be misnamed,
the non-spiritual psychological healing which is auditing?
I believe this is one of Hubbard's and $cientology's great crimes: the
luring in and entrapping of people seeking healing (and who isn't at
some time), selling them two-bit, unprofessional, evaluative,
invalidative, generally useless, and, in the hands of Hubbard and
Miscavige and company, dangerous psychology, and convincing these
people that they're involved in a spiritual practice and becoming more
spiritual.
I think the independent auditors have continued, probably unknowingly,
the Hubbardian con of mislabeling auditing as a spiritual practice and
calling various psychological phenomena or experiences "spiritual
gains." Thankfully the independents have stripped away the rest of the
criminality which surrounds the organization's core money-making
auditing activity.
Spiritual healing, being free, would not, I suppose, be very welcome
in the cult of greed.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Spiritual Research Workgroup
>It's a bit much that you're trying to be so noisy when there is an
>arrest warrant outstanding on you which you are desparately
>trying to avoid from being activated.
How about letting people discuss in peace? Gerry's arrest warrant
is not on topic, neither in this newsgroup nor in this thread.
It's YOU who is being noisy here - the term noise used as in
radio matters - interfering with the signal that is carrying data.
The Demon
>As it stands, the members of any religion have the right to form their
>own church and churches. It does not require the approval from
>anyone else other than the members themselves. You are *not*
>a member of the Church so you have no say in this matter. You can
>certainly have your opinion but that is your opinion and nothing else.
>
"..their own church OR churches..." If they've founded churches, then it
stands to reason they've founded a church. So saying they've done both
doesn't make any sense, unless you're trying to perform some subtle
manipulation of the English language to make a point (which you've miserably
failed to do, so I hope that wasn't your intention). OR best represents the
meaning I think you were attempting to convey.
"...require the approval OF anyone else..." or "...require approval from
anyone else..." (THE removed) This is just poor grammar.
Oh, and your point is completely ludicrous. If everyone thought that in
1941, Nazi Germany would probably control the world, and you'd have been
culled.
Something that is obviously wrong is obviously wrong. You don't have to
be a victim to speak out against it. You'd be a fool to think otherwise,
and you're not a fool, are you?
cap'n_turd
says...
>
>On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 03:26:40 GMT, arms...@dowco.com (gerry
>armstrong) wrote:
>
>>There are at least 4 kinds of healing: physical, psychological, faith
>>and spiritual. I say $cientology sells psychological "healing."
>>$cientology does the same thing, although far less honestly and
>>with spirituality or spiritual healing.
>>
>>a question: Is there any basis at all, beyond tax and litigation
>>advantages, for $cientology's claim that it is a spiritual practice
>>and auditing is spiritual healing?
>>
>
>
>Fewer than 3% of current members have any formal training/experience
>as auditors, so very little spiritual practice and auditing actually
>occurs. And what "auditors" they do have left are far beyond
>incompetent, The FSO is the Mecca of Incompetence for the idle rrich
>that $cientology panders to.
>
>This is not the case amongst those who continue to practice
>Scientology or audit outside the shadow of the RTC, as THEY see fit.
>
>The "Church" of Scientology is not a "Church" as most would understand
>it. Its a money-management network and their primary activity is the
>marketing of LRH products and the glorification of Hubbard.
>
>For the most part, $cientology Inc is a spiritual graveyard, the blind
>leading the blind. .
Smooogle. Bloople! Cloople!
ROTFL!
Tommy
> < DA attack snipped >
> As it stands, the members of any religion have the right to form their
> own church and churches. It does not require the approval from
> anyone else other than the members themselves.
Really? Then why does $cientology attack and persecute the Freezone? I
can't believe a $cientologist would make a statment like this - this is
Doublethink at its finest.
Tommy
--
'I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.'
-- Hubbard, 1967 letter to his wife submitted to the court in the
Armstrong
case, authenticity unchallenged by LRH/CoS lawyers
Rebecca Hartong
Tommy wrote in message <361371...@xs.net>...
>wgert wrote:
>> < DA attack snipped >
>> As it stands, the members of any religion have the right to form their
>> own church and churches. It does not require the approval from
>> anyone else other than the members themselves.
>
>Really? Then why does $cientology attack and persecute the Freezone? I
>can't believe a $cientologist would make a statment like this - this is
>Doublethink at its finest.
Jeesh, no kidding... this is such a blatant display of hypocrisy that it
makes me wonder whether this is the real wgert or just some clever troll.
Marie
Workgroup <in...@sgmt.at> writes
>On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 03:42:46 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>
>
>>It's a bit much that you're trying to be so noisy when there is an
>>arrest warrant outstanding on you which you are desparately
>>trying to avoid from being activated.
>
>
>How about letting people discuss in peace? Gerry's arrest warrant
>is not on topic, neither in this newsgroup nor in this thread.
>
>It's YOU who is being noisy here - the term noise used as in
>radio matters - interfering with the signal that is carrying data.
>
>
>Heidrun Beer
( Go on Wgert - prove me wrong now & admit there's a flourishing
freezone )
--
"To live outside the law you must be honest" - Absolutely Sweet Marie.
You can reply to davidguest AT unforgettable.com
Podkayne
> >
> >
> >>It's a bit much that you're trying to be so noisy when there is an
> >>arrest warrant outstanding on you which you are desparately
> >>trying to avoid from being activated.
> >
Likewise, "Heber"
roger gonnet
>
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 04:39:49 GMT, joe...@cybertours.com (Joe
> Harrington) wrote:
>
> >
> >as auditors, so very little spiritual practice and auditing actually
> >occurs. And what "auditors" they do have left are far beyond
> >incompetent, The FSO is the Mecca of Incompetence for the idle rrich
> >that $cientology panders to.
> >
> >This is not the case amongst those who continue to practice
> >Scientology or audit outside the shadow of the RTC, as THEY see fit.
> >
> >The "Church" of Scientology is not a "Church" as most would understand
> >it. Its a money-management network and their primary activity is the
> >marketing of LRH products and the glorification of Hubbard.
> >
> >For the most part, $cientology Inc is a spiritual graveyard, the blind
> >leading the blind. .
> >
> >
>
> $cientology = Spiritual Graveyard. Great, insightful picket sign and
> campaign.
>
> Isn't the mechanism of auditing, however - the asking questions and
> getting answers, the search of the mind, the search of the past - the
> same mechanism as psychological counseling?
>
> $cientology says it is different, and not psychology because it
> "addresses the thetan," whereas "psychology thinks man is mud." I say
> that's all a lie. Psychology doesn't think man is mud. That's just
> Hubbardian black PR of his "competition" in the psychological healing
> field. And psychologists, when they ask their patients questions or
> direct them to look at the past, are talking to exactly the same
> "entity" as $cientology "auditors" addressing their pcs.
>
> What $cientology says is the "thetan" is actually the "ego."
> $cientology is possibly the most egoistic branch of psychology.
>
> I have no dispute with psychological healing. Asking questions and
> getting answers, the search of the mind and the search of the past can
> all be beneficial skills. It simply is not spiritual healing.
> Spiritual healing and spiritual practices are completely different
> mechanisms and functions from psychological healing.
>
> If, however, people involved in psychological healing which they are
> wrongly calling spiritual healing admitted that they were doing
> psychological healing, they would be subject to the same licensing and
> standards as psychologists involved in psychological healing.
That's exactly what i'm thinking too. Between the various
movements to which I had some infos, scientology is by far
the least spiritual one. Scientology techs adresses only to
the mind, and in the mind, to purely intellectual ways of
thinking.
Being bound by its own wording of what could happen in the
mind shows also very much: dianetics evolved to scientology,
decades ago. Then, it evolved into a double standard system,
NED + scientology. Expanded Dianetics was one of those
mixing practices, where one can find engram running as well
as grades running specially designed to "erase" some
presumed evil purposes. OT levels were presumed only
spiritual, but later, elrong evolved a new upper dianetic
system wrote an OT8, called New Era Dianetics for OTs",
which has almost nothing comparable to old dianetics.
Then he (or someone else)invented the last system without
much relationship to tecks posterior to the 1950-52 period,
as this sort of inventory of past identities found in
auditing and the reading of History of the Man have not much
to do with BTs or else...
>
> You will recall that it was licensing problems which brought Hubbard
> to set up his clinic as a church with his "religion angle."
>
> Aren't people cut off from actual spirituality and actual spiritual
> healing when they buy Hubbard's misnomer, and allow to be misnamed,
> the non-spiritual psychological healing which is auditing?
Most certainly.
>
> I believe this is one of Hubbard's and $cientology's great crimes: the
> luring in and entrapping of people seeking healing (and who isn't at
> some time), selling them two-bit, unprofessional, evaluative,
> invalidative, generally useless, and, in the hands of Hubbard and
> Miscavige and company, dangerous psychology, and convincing these
> people that they're involved in a spiritual practice and becoming more
> spiritual.
Certainly so too: you could add the fact that such people as
Buddhists consider it a sin to present self as having some
sort of superhuman or supernatural powers. It is a sort of
sin. And it's rather worse if those "powers" don't exist, as
in scientology!
>
> I think the independent auditors have continued, probably unknowingly,
> the Hubbardian con of mislabeling auditing as a spiritual practice and
> calling various psychological phenomena or experiences "spiritual
> gains." Thankfully the independents have stripped away the rest of the
> criminality which surrounds the organization's core money-making
> auditing activity.
I don't think that every auditor do that: many of them have
doubts, strong ones, but the ethics system inhibits every
critic.
roger