Not Ex-Member; Studying for Insights

Isaac

Well-known member
I appreciate it.

And yeah, I doubt he is involved with the church. The initial resources he sent me to look at were from freezone sources.
I'm interested in the philosophy and it's practical application, and then whether there really is a *human soul* & what this indicates about reality.
Originally, I found Chris Langan's CTMU the most compelling argument but the mathematical formalization of his argument either doesn't exist or hasn't been published by Langan. Most people misinterpret the CTMU without more thorough study or background in metaphysics & logic, but I will try to explain it briefly (this may be some heavy metaphysics for some):
So far that languages such as those used in speech or mathematics can be used to make deductions about reality, we can infer facts about reality from facts about languages.
Reality must be self-confined by definition of reality - if it were confined by something else, that would be included in reality. Therefore, the language describing reality as a total must be self-referential.
Langan leaps to the conclusion that in order for a finite language to be self-referential & consistent, it must reconfigure itself & evolve, otherwise statements can be generated by this language without a decidable status of true/false. This self-configuration allows undecidable statements such as 'this statement is false' to be defined by the language. However, new undecidable statements can now be made, and the language continues to evolve & self-configure. One example Langan gives is Godel's incompleteness theorems. There are arguments that Godel's theorems only apply to peano arithmetic, and I cannot find Langan's formalization of this generalization - I don't believe it has been published or otherwise exists.
The way that reality is realized is naturally by perception, for perception is what 'decides' the truth value of something - or else it isn't perceivable. For example, schrodinger's cat is an example of an 'undecidable phenomena' which upon perceiving gives it a truth value.
So the language of reality must continuously evolve, configuring itself & processing itself (self-referential), and therefore reality evolves. Hence, the example of schrodinger's cat.
Langan argues that consciousness is self-configuring & self-processing, and so this characteristic of reality's language implies that reality is conscious. There is a primary consciousness - reality/god, & there are secondary consciousness - e.g. humans. Both reconfigure the language of reality through the process of perception.

Langan's argument for the spiritual is by far the most first-principle & grounded I have ever seen. The issue with his argument IMO is that it isn't rigorous enough. Until we see more formal arguments put forth regarding language, or some substantial evidence of a workability unique to the CTMU, it is simply a brilliant thought.


Hubbard on the other hand, is very inarticulate. For someone who has courses on communication, it's pretty funny. I wonder if there are specific hypnotic techniques he is using that inadvertently obfuscate the meaning e.g. repeating specific words. Otherwise, I wonder if the obfuscation is intentional. Hubbard does have some intelligent views on some things, but I wonder how much of it is original or coincidence. He may seem to plagiarize other works, but this doesn't necessarily indicate falsity - there may be fine differences or levels of understanding he presents that are not in the original works. For example, someone without a thorough familiarity will mistakenly accuse the CTMU of similarity with other works without realizing that what they've identified is just one thing that has similarity or consistency with one piece of the CTMU.

My friend questions that the conservation of energy is an assumption which he believes is a component of the CTMU. i don't subscribe to the CTMU for reasons given, but I think it is a useful point of comparison to Hubbard's ideas given it's proximity to first principles. I've found some disagreements between them & similarities. Two points of interest at the moment for me are:
-Life is a game (this would illuminate the applicability of language to the CTMU)
-Attention creates space & identity closes this space. (possible semantic differences or actual differences between Hubbard & CTMU).

At the moment, I'm working on these points of interest, so I was wondering what others might think of these two statements:
1. life is a game
2. attention creates space & identity closes space.
Study other philosophies like the Kybalion
Hermedic Philosophy’s
HeremesTristmagistist
“Three initiates” Chanel on you tube
Studying this will lead you to other studies
and increase your awareness
Hubbard copied some good stuff from these teachings
He got ideas for processes here imo
 
Last edited:

scientia

New member
Without looking into those materials, it seems to me that this contradicts his original metaphysics.
Welcome to scientology.

Hubbard is an unreliable narrator.

He made a number of "discoveries" that contradict earlier claims. Rather than update/streamline Hub's entire output, current organisations force the student to wade through a huge amount of erroneous and irrelevant material (typically spending huge sums of money and several years in the process) before learning basics he can't really be blamed for thinking are purposely being kept hidden.

Today's med students don't start their training by learning to apply leeches. Yet here we are, discussing leeches.

I'm looking into scientology as I try to understand why my friend recommended I do so. I may conclude & have considered many times that maybe he was just a fool.
I don't think he's a fool. But he should be prepared.

Crowley, for example, discusses the risks of attaching significance to the results of his techniques and specifically warns against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity.

Hubbard, meanwhile, actively encourages it. The euphoria addiction and "zen sickness" many scientologists suffer is a result of this, imho. Not from the experiences themselves, per se, but the heady significances Hubbard conditions his students to assign to them.

The problem I have with both of them is that application and self exploration always follows an extensive level of altitude instruction and, thus, conditioning.

The absorption of Hubbard's whole track fantasia, for example, will arguably influence the student's recall in auditing.

Would a scientologist have recalled blowing up a distant planet, gazillions of years ago, if Hub hadn't already told him repeatedly that he could?

If not, then much of scientology's therapeutic potential relies, at least in part, on an individual's preconditioned state. This is the realm of suggestion and the placebo effect.

Which is fine if therapeutic benefit is your goal. Not so much, perhaps, if you're seeking "truth."

I'll probably look into Crowley for a bit then revisit Scientology. Anyone know a good place to start?
Hub's fave was Magick in Theory and Practice (Part III, Book Four) but Crowley stans typically recommend Liber AL (The Book of the Law) and 777. Magick Without Tears is a decent primer.
 

Reyne Mayer

Pansexual Revolutionary
I'll probably look into Crowley for a bit then revisit Scientology. Anyone know a good place to start?
it sounds like you've gotten a couple of good suggestions.

i've read a bit about Crowley, and have friends who have read more, who've explained things useful to know. while i think he's important to understand as a major source Hubbard failed to adequately acknowledge, i don't see that he really added much to 19th century occultism other than his particular take on will; if, like him and Hubbard you're a psychopath lacking empathy and remorse, looking to exercise your ego and power over others, then he might have something for you, otherwise maybe not so much.
 

Veda

Well-known member
....

Hub's fave was Magick in Theory and Practice (Part III, Book Four) but Crowley stans typically recommend Liber AL (The Book of the Law) and 777. Magick Without Tears is a decent primer.
There are two main categories of Crowley: His (supposedly) channeled writings, such as The Book of the Law, which are then to be de-coded numerologically (germatria), or explained by Crowley (non channeled) in follow up books such as The Law is for All; and there's Crowley writing as himself, such Book 4, Eight lectures on Yoga, Little Essay Towards Truth, Aleister Explains Everything (re-titled Magick Without Tears), and much of the Equinox, etc.

My guess is that Jack Parsons explained The Book of the Law to Hubbard, or perhaps had the edition with a short Introduction by Crowley as himself, not channeled.

Then there a things by those who knew and studied under Crowley, which are few, such as:

The book, The Middle Pillar, was written by Israel Regardie in 1936.


Regardie was both a student of the writings of Carl Jung and Aleister Crowley, working for Crowley for a while.

Excerpt from The Middle Pillar:

_______________Begin quote________________​

Analysis is the logical precursor of spiritual attainment and magical experiment... Not until the mind and the emotional system have been cleansed and unified by the cathartic process... can the full spiritual benefits of magical work be reflected into the mind of man.

We should remember the parables of the archaic philosophical religions whose fundamental tenet was that within man was a spirit, a dynamic center of consciousness which, because of its contact and association with matter, had been plunged into a profound sleep, a state of somnambulism...

By endeavoring to extend the horizon of consciousness, to enlarge the field of awareness so as to embrace what previously was unconscious, is obviously a logical method. To become aware of all our actions, our thoughts and emotions and unsuspected motives, to regard them in their true light as actually they are and not as we would like them to be or as we would wish an onlooker to perceive them. It requires, to take this step, an extraordinary degree of honesty and courage... The more of this suppressed and forgotten material stored in this at one time unknown or dormant side of our nature that can be raised to the clear light of day, by exactly so much do we awake from the inert stupor into which we have in the past been plunged.


____________End quote____________


Aleister Crowley's ten volume Equinox


Hubbard imitated Crowley's habit of photographing himself
in many poses and expressions.


"I'm a friendly guy. I'm not a psychopath."
And as with Crowley, the photographs were not all displayed,
but were preserved, and used by his followers after his death.



Hubbard spoke affectionately of Crowley while lecturing during late 1952, but later, recognizing Crowley as a potential public relations liability - as Hubbard activated what he called the "religion angle" in late 1953 and 1954, and sought to make Scientology a "Church" - went quiet on the topic.

During the late 1952 lectures, Hubbard actually recommended a book by Crowley. He called the book The Master Therion, although its title was Magick in Theory and Practice.



Quoting from Magick in Theory and Practice:

"The whole and sole object of all Magical training is to become free from every kind of limitation."

Crowley added a 'k" to the word magic to separate his version of magic from other versions which, according to him, had attracted "weaklings" and "dilettantes."

Quoting Hubbard, from his late 1952 lectures:

"Our whole activity tends to make an individual completely independent of any limitation... Old Aleister Crowley had some interesting things to say about this. He wrote The Book of the Law."

I first encountered The Book of the Law, in 1978, while browsing in a small shop in Manhattan that sold occult literature and Voodoo paraphernalia. It caught my attention as its color was identical to the Scientology Red (Technical) Volumes - I had recently purchased a set of the first edition of the Red Volumes at the New York Scientology Org.





The Introduction of The Book of The Law - an introduction which is absent from copies available on the Internet - contained surprising similarities to Scientology, so I purchased a copy.

The Introduction was by Crowley as himself, and not channeled gobbledygook.

Avoid the channeled material unless you have tremendous patience and a lot of free time.











 

Reyne Mayer

Pansexual Revolutionary
My guess is that Jack Parsons explained The Book of the Law to Hubbard, or perhaps had the edition with a short Introduction by Crowley as himself, not channeled.
Are you implying that Hubbard didn't actually read Crowley himself?

i've thought that maybe some of Crowley's 'work' was about the only thing he was motivated to actually work through himself -- but then again, it wouldn't surprise me if as with just about everything else, he lazily relied on what he picked up from others.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Are you implying that Hubbard didn't actually read Crowley himself?
No.

i've thought that maybe some of Crowley's 'work' was about the only thing he was motivated to actually work through himself -- but then again, it wouldn't surprise me if as with just about everything else, he lazily relied on what he picked up from others.
I'm sure Hubbard read a fair amount of Crowley. He also likely had some interesting conversations with Jack Parsons.

Hubbard described Crowley's writings as "a splendid piece of esthetics" during the late 1952 lectures in Philadelphia. Hubbard admired conquerors, and also the builders of systems.

With the book What to Audit - "This is a cold blooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years," later re-titled History of Man, he began creating his own system, which his followers would agree upon and, thus, would become "real."

Crowley had a similar admiration for conquerors and the creators of systems - particularly if they were deceased and not rivals - and wrote, in his Treatise on Astrology:

"...such empire-builders as Napoleon, Cecil Rhodes, and Wilhelm II: and on a higher plane, we find two persons who actually invented new theogonies, which philosophy declares to be the highest creative work possible to human intelligence. We refer to Dante and Swedenborg, whose conceptions of Hell still hold sway over the minds of great masses of men. Such empires endure long after earthly thrones have crumbled."




Hubbard admired Crowley in a similar manner as Crowley admired Dante and Swedenborg, and Crowley was conveniently dead and not a rival.

Conquers and creators of systems tend not to like rivals, particularly if they're still breathing.



 

pineapple

Well-known member

pineapple

Well-known member
The Individual Track Map of June 1952, concurrent with technique 88. There are 21 maps going back sixty trillion years.

Look in Technical Volume #1.
Thanks. I don't remember seeing them before.

For those who, like me, threw away all their scn materials years ago ...
 

Sicilicy

New member
Thanks everyone for your suggestions! I will steadily go through these materials.
You've all been helpful beyond expectations & are a wonderful community of intelligent & critical thinkers.
 
Top