"Doubt" is actually a high state of consciousness

When Hubbard placed 'doubt' low on the scale, he did his flock a great disservice. So much so, I would assert that Scientology is suppressive.

Putting it low on the scale is a control method. IF someone goes into 'doubt', Hubbard deliberately made it so that it is stigmatized and punished. Don't want souls leaving the cult, eh?

But, history shows us that wherever there is a mass uplift in human consciousness, doubt precedes the advancement.

Is it not true that the Renaissance occurred because of humans doubting old ways, and considering new ways of thinking, about philosophy, art, and science?

Doubt is your friend, and it is precisely the state which will free you from the bonds of any cult or any path that seems like a dead end.

Where doubt might be bad is when it becomes doubt about oneself, doubt, introspectively speaking, isn't particularly a good thing, unless one is doing it constructively, such as reassessing one's abilities and coming to terms with who one is, one's realistic capabilities, and accepting oneself, and so forth.

When I was a child, my dream was to be a jazz saxophonist. As the years past, I understood that to be a good jazz saxophonist, one must be great at improvisation, and after a number of years of practice, I finally came to realize my limitations, and realized that I would never become a professional. However, I discovered I was great at songwriting, and so I switched instruments to guitar and piano, which allowed me to study harmony which is better for songwriting. One of my songs has gotten over 100k spins on Spotify. ( I'm not going to say which song, for it would reveal my true identity, which I prefer to remain anonymous ).

There, I used 'doubt' in a constructive way. Where doubt, introspectively speaking, is bad is when you ARE capable of something, and you doubt it.

That's my take on it. Look' y'all, I'm new to this forum, and I was a Scientologist some 50+ years ago, so no doubt similar posts have been made on the subject, after all, what new thought can someone come up with after 50 years?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
What a great post!

I never looked at it that way! You’re so spot on! To doubt is to question, to analyze, to reassess. It is definitely way up there for one of mankind’s greatest analytical abilities.

Thank you for such a thoughtful post and enlightening perspective. 😊

PS: Congratulations on your hit song 🎵 on Spotify!
 

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
When Hubbard placed 'doubt' low on the scale, he did his flock a great disservice. So much so, I would assert that Scientology is suppressive.

Putting it low on the scale is a control method. IF someone goes into 'doubt', Hubbard deliberately made it so that it is stigmatized and punished. Don't want souls leaving the cult, eh?

But, history shows us that wherever there is a mass uplift in human consciousness, doubt precedes the advancement.

Is it not true that the Renaissance occurred because of humans doubting old ways, and considering new ways of thinking, about philosophy, art, and science?

Doubt is your friend, and it is precisely the state which will free you from the bonds of any cult or any path that seems like a dead end.

Where doubt might be bad is when it becomes doubt about oneself, doubt, introspectively speaking, isn't particularly a good thing, unless one is doing it constructively, such as reassessing one's abilities and coming to terms with who one is, one's realistic capabilities, and accepting oneself, and so forth.

When I was a child, my dream was to be a jazz saxophonist. As the years past, I understood that to be a good jazz saxophonist, one must be great at improvisation, and after a number of years of practice, I finally came to realize my limitations, and realized that I would never become a professional. However, I discovered I was great at songwriting, and so I switched instruments to guitar and piano, which allowed me to study harmony which is better for songwriting. One of my songs has gotten over 100k spins on Spotify. ( I'm not going to say which song, for it would reveal my true identity, which I prefer to remain anonymous ).

There, I used 'doubt' in a constructive way. Where doubt, introspectively speaking, is bad is when you ARE capable of something, and you doubt it.

That's my take on it. Look' y'all, I'm new to this forum, and I was a Scientologist some 50+ years ago, so no doubt similar posts have been made on the subject, after all, what new thought can someone come up with after 50 years?
A great point. I always felt the doubt formula achieved a predetermined outcome, I have been there and have the t-shirt to prove it.
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars


Meaning that it is incorrect to say that you "know" that X is true, only that the data you currently have indicates that X is true.

A real scientist is always open to the possibility that new data today will overturn (or at least modify) what he thought was true yesterday.
 


Meaning that it is incorrect to say that you "know" that X is true, only that the data you currently have indicates that X is true.

A real scientist is always open to the possibility that new data today will overturn (or at least modify) what he thought was true yesterday.
Yes, I'm mindful of the Socrates quote, and I think he said it on more than one occasion, particularly in the first person.

Moreover, I've often harbored the suspicion that Socrates did not exist, and that Plato invented him because he was such a humble man that he did not want to take credit. Here's my evidence: Imagine you are, with ancient writing tools, a quill and papyri, writing down every word your colleague utters? Imagine doing that. Can you do it? If you think you can, the next time someone gives a speech, without the benefit of knowing shorthand, try doing it with a fountain pen, let alone a quill and ink well. It's well nigh impossible because normal speech is at about 200 words per minute. No one can write that fast without knowing some kind of shorthand. However, IF the words are YOURS, then you have all the time in the world to put down your own thoughts.

What evidence do we have of Socrates, beyond what Plato tells us? How was he able to transcribe Socrates's every word?

Now, it's entirely possible Socrates was a real person, but Plato merely projected HIMSELF into Socrates, out of humility. Is not a truly wise, enlightened man, a humble man?

And, why wouldn't Socrates write anything down for posterity? If he were so wise, one would think, at the very minimum, he would have thought of that? Surely he would have been mindful that Plato was doing it for him, that might have given him the idea to do it himself, but, alas, no such record exists by the hand of Socrates. Surely Socrates was educated and could read and write, eh?

No, I believe what Plato wrote of Socrates IS Plato, or at least the majority of his words. Not only that, I believe Plato kept the fact he was doing it from Socrates, for not the benefit of Socrates, but for the benefit of posterity, because there is where the wisdom lies. I believe Socrates may have existed, and did, indeed, rant in the marketplace to the annoyance of many, and perhaps his annoyance led to his death sentence, but the might words he supposedly utter, most of it were Plato's words, and that is my opinion.

But, that quote may have very well been that of Socrates, as he spoke it often. Socrates would have been at least wise enough to think of something like that, and his words were a supreme annoyance to the ruling class, because, well, you know the old adage' 'truth to power'. And truth to power in an age before there was due process, could easily lead to a death sentence.

The more I think about it, is that Socrates is an amalgam of both Plato and Socrates, rolled into one.

And the reason I think that is that Socrates may have had some notable lines, which he repeated often, and those would have been easy to recall and thus transcribe, but the more contemporaneous writings of Socrates by Plato, are not Plato's contemporaneous writings at all, they are Plato's thoughts disguised as Socrates. That, to me, makes a lot more sense. However, not having done due diligence, reading all the Socrates allegedly spoke by Plato's hand, I'm still open on the matter, but I am suspicious.
 
Last edited:

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
Yes, I'm mindful of the Socrates quote, and I think he said it on more than one occasion, particularly in the first person.

Moreover, I've often harbored the suspicion that Socrates did not exist, and that Plato invented him because he was such a humble man that he did not want to take credit. Here's my evidence: Imagine you are, with ancient writing tools, a quill and papyri, writing down every word your colleague utters? Imagine doing that. Can you do it? If you think you can, the next time someone gives a speech, without the benefit of knowing shorthand, try doing it with a fountain pen, let alone a quill and ink well. It's well nigh impossible because normal speech is at about 200 words per minute. No one can write that fast without knowing some kind of shorthand. However, IF the words are YOURS, then you have all the time in the world to put down your own thoughts.

What evidence do we have of Socrates, beyond what Plato tells us? How was he able to transcribe Socrates's every word?

Now, it's entirely possible Socrates was a real person, but Plato merely projected HIMSELF into Socrates, out of humility. Is not a truly wise, enlightened man, a humble man?

And, why wouldn't Socrates write anything down for posterity? If he were so wise, one would think, at the very minimum, he would have thought of that? Surely he would have been mindful that Plato was doing it for him, that might have given him the idea to do it himself, but, alas, no such record exists by the hand of Socrates. Surely Socrates was educated and could read and write, eh?

No, I believe what Plato wrote of Socrates IS Plato, or at least the majority of his words. Not only that, I believe Plato kept the fact he was doing it from Socrates, for not the benefit of Socrates, but for the benefit of posterity, because there is where the wisdom lies. I believe Socrates may have existed, and did, indeed, rant in the marketplace to the annoyance of many, and perhaps his annoyance led to his death sentence, but the might words he supposedly utter, most of it were Plato's words, and that is my opinion.

But, that quote may have very well been that of Socrates, as he spoke it often. Socrates would have been at least wise enough to think of something like that, and his words were a supreme annoyance to the ruling class, because, well, you know the old adage' 'truth to power'. And truth to power in an age before there was due process, could easily lead to a death sentence.

The more I think about it, is that Socrates is an amalgam of both Plato and Socrates, rolled into one.

And the reason I think that is that Socrates may have had some notable lines, which he repeated often, and those would have been easy to recall and thus transcribe, but the more contemporaneous writings of Socrates by Plato, are not Plato's contemporaneous writings at all, they are Plato's thoughts disguised as Socrates. That, to me, makes a lot more sense. However, not having done due diligence, reading all the Socrates allegedly spoke by Plato's hand, I'm still open on the matter, but I am suspicious.
I think Socrates actually existed, as Plato could not get away with making up the existence of somebody who was his teacher.

As far as Plato ascribing to Socrates stuff he didn't say, that is something he could get away with.
 
Top