From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: exteriorization
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:51:36 GMT
	<BvnMvx.4sz.2@cs.cmu.edu><1992Oct5.181626.3533@memstvx1.memst.edu>
	<GISLE.92Oct6104646@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
	<1992Oct13.205817.3650@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Oct13.205817.3650@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> In article <GISLE.92Oct6104646@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct5.181626.3533@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>> All the mechanics of the physical universe are the result of
>>> considerations made by a thetan and agreement between thetans.  Anyone
>>> who truly wants to know the truth can walk this path called Scientology
>>> and find out for himself.  
>> 
>> Or they can read the works of any modern idealist philosopher, where
>> the same ideas is expressed with much greater clearity of thought and
>> logic.  Recommended starting points: George Berkeley (1685-1753) and
>> Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860).

> But how do you know they are expressed with GREATER clarity, logic, etc.
> Did you ever study what LRH wrote?  If you haven't, then its kind of
> irresponsible of you to say they said it better....   If you have ever
> read Scientology 8:8008 or studied one of the Philadelphia Doctorate
> Course lectures I humbly appologize.

No, I haven't read "Scientology 8:8008", or studied "The Philadelphia
Doctorate Course".  My opinions of Mr. Hubbard's powers of logic and
clarity of presentation is based upon careful reading of two of his
other works: "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", and
"The Way to Happiness".  I happen to think that those two books (both
highly recommended by a Scientologist friend) was a complete waste of
time -- rambling, pompous, confused, with overtones of megalomania and
self-importance.  Hubbard seemed ignorant about the most basic
priniciples of logic and causality, and the unscrupulous use of prior
art without citation made me add "dishonest" to the adjectives I
would use to characterize the author of those two books.

By induction (which -- btw -- is a very scientific way to go about
things according to a much quoted dictionary definition of the word
"science") I concluded that the rest of his works also was garbage and
devoting my time to more fun activities, such as baiting
Scientologists, wasting computer time and countless other hidden
crimes.

> But there is really no sense in me being mean about it.  The difference
> is that LRH PROOVED it, and developed a technology to take advantage of it.
> Regardless of which one of the three (or anyone else) wrote about it, only
> one, as far as I know ever was able to use the data.

Sigh, so here we go again.  What exactly did the man "prove"?  That
counselling and compassion can help the friendless, the frustrated and
the distraught?  We knew that already -- and it works just as well
without the cans.  That all the mechanics of the physical universe are
the result of considerations made by a thetan and agreement between
thetans?  I don't think so.  Not in the ordinary, everyday use of the
word "prove" anyway -- but you don't need to take my word for it.
Check it out in a good dictionary.

--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)
  OSI:   C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=nr;S=Hannemyr;G=Gisle (X.400 SA format)
         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
------------------------------------------------