Talk:Dianetics/Archive 4

message: ChrisO, do you have any objections to having my Philosophy of Dianetics added to the article? Spirit of Man 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spirit of Man, I've just looked over your contribution quickly.  I don't think that long section belongs in the article as written, but I do think that some of your material will enhance the article if incorporated in a more concise, encyclopedic form. For example, a short description of the concepts of "Survive!" "Confront" and "Create!", and the importance Hubbard assigns them seems useful. My suggestion would be to drop the whole "Dianetics as philosophy" premise: attempting to describe the relationships between multiple Dianetic claims and pre-existing philosophical thought on these matters seems way beyond the scope of the article and is likely to complicate matters further. Rather, I'd try to extract a few central Dianetic concepts and incorporate them into a narrative account of "concepts and practices" or some such.  I'd also try to make it clear how the ideas of Dianetics changed over time: there was nothing about the "whole track" in the early days, for example.  I hope that some experienced editor will take on the task of incorporating some of your info into the existing article.  I may have time to give it a crack next week, if somebody else doesn't jump in first. BTfromLA 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment. Maybe we could extract some of the less important controversy items to allow a little room to provide a balance with the most important issues of the actual subject? In fact the subject is far more important than the entirety of the controversy, in my humble opinion. To me the philosophical basis in early Dianetics blends smoothly into the applied religious philosophy of Scientology. In terms of the whole track, the clearing techique of 1947 and the four techiques used in 1950 did not need to address the whole track to produce clears. The 1947 technique only addressed one picture, like the time one entered the room. That one picture was then erased. As it says in the philosophy I presented. If you improve the quality of one picture you improve the quality of all pictures in the mind. Likewise with ability, if you improve the ability to erase one picture, you improve the ability to erase ALL pictures. One lock, then a few engrams were addressed and that was it in 1947. In 1950 while training others, it was found prudent to include ones entire physical lifetime from conception foreward. By 1951 it was very obvious that the entire time track of this universe needed to be addressed. By 1952, the nature of universes was developed and well, a clear must be able to operate in any universe he or she wishes. Spirit of Man 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with BT. I'll give it a go, if I get the time this weekend. Thanks for taking the time to write that section, Spirit - your efforts are appreciated (honestly!) :-) -- ChrisO 10:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have demonstrated that you are a good writer. But the article lacks balance and you have  not, at least initially, represented both views fairly. Do you agree both sides of the issue should be presented fairly as NPOV requires? This section on philosophy is actually the only section that represents the subject as opposed to the controversy engendered by the subject and that tends to represent an intention to make nothing of an important subject. Do you care to convince me that you understand enough of Dianetics philosophy to represent the subject fairly, or will you only alter the material presented to make less of its scope and importance? Spirit of Man 15:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I should add, by the way, that it would have been better for Antaeus to explain why he deleted that section. There seems to be a lot of unexplained reverting going on on this article - that's never a good thing. -- ChrisO 10:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review: Why the entire Philosophical content of the article was removed by Antaeus. 

message: So, Hubbard is to be treated as primary source as outlined at WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources within the very confined boundries of "theory of Dianetics", "practice of Dianetics", "theory of Scientology", "practice of Scientology" and "Scientology, organization"  (I hope).  If anyone has comments, please say so.  I feel we are isolating the area(s) of disagreement.Terryeo 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a comment; I second Modemac's doubts that you truly understand even now, even though you claim to, what it means for something to be a primary source (note:  "a primary source", not "primary source" or "Primary Source").  If you are under the illusion, for instance, that Hubbard being a "primary source" would mean that nothing he claimed on those subjects would ever again be phrased as "Hubbard claimed X", then I'm afraid you're still substituting what you wish to be true for actual understanding. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you, Antaeus Feldspar doubt that I understand what "primary source" as spelled out at WP:NOR#Primary_and_secondary_sources means. I'll reply to this and then, because your second comment requires some looking and referencing, I'll reply to that later.  "Primary Source" means a source of raw, unfiltered information which has not been interpreted nor modified but is presented as the individual who first presents it, wished to publish it.  To reply to you about quoting Hubbard, I'll give an example of what I think would be an acceptable quote under the standards of "primary source".Terryeo 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hubbard said, "most people go around thinking that a misunderstood is just something they obviously don't know --a 'not-understood.'" in a bulletin.  Hubbard continued, "A 'not-understood' is a misunderstood, but there are additional ways a person can misunderstand a word.  In the bulletin, Hubbard went on to list 10 ways in which a word can be misunderstood.(signing for clarity)
Terryeo 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There you go, that's an example of my understanding, how to quote a primary source.  Maybe my example is a poor choice but that's the situation as I understand it to be.  I also understand we don't quote Hubbard on any issues which is not utterly, totally obvious (like "they sky is blue") except that we first discuss his statement as a theory and resolve the discussion of his theory as per WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theoriesTerryeo
WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories tells us what we can do in this sort of situation.  Hubbard makes statements which he is the source of, but those statements are "claims" because they are far-fetched, inconceivable, etc?  So our manner of dealing with his theories is spelled out there.  Which means we are going to have to talk about "the key concepts" because our various ideas of what is "key" and what is not is going to vary.  In fact, that's what a whole lot of the editing has been about.  Spirit of Man puts in a big theory section and people look and go "oh hell, that doesn't have much to do with the subject", etc.  So okay, let's attempt some consensus ! :) Terryeo 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Funny, I can't remember a single instance of anyone saying "the philosophy of Dianetics doesn't have much to do with the subject of Dianetics".  I just remember people saying things like "this particular attempt to describe the philosophy of Dianetics is rambling and  disorganized, and states as facts both unverifiable personal opinions and factual inaccuracies".  Perhaps you'd be kind enough to actually show us some diffs that actually support your claim that people said anything of what you're claiming here that they said? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I re-read your question more carefully, I see you are addressing the same question I am posing.  That is, How do we deal with a primary source of information, the source is publishing theories which are not apparent.  I have to agree, one editor creating a relatively large amount of "theory" without the consensus of other editors isn't going to work.  I believe we would have to work over and come to agreement about each "key point" of Hubbard's theory or theories.  In fact, when it comes to Dianetics I don't believe I have ever read a basic statement of the foundations in good, clean english.  Hubbard states his axioms but I don't think I've read "key points" of  his theories anywhere and we might be able to come up with information which has not be presented in quite the way we might come up with.  Terryeo 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that would be a "no," then? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My reply is not meant to be a "no" but an agreement.  I agree that raising more than one point in a "theory" section is contrary to WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories which says to arrive at a consensus of editors.  Each key point of a theory should be discussed, a concensus reached whether it is a point which can be presented as an obvious datum or not.  For example, "A memory can be considered a mental image picture"  Well, that is Dianetics theory but because a lot of people don't consider that a memory can be a viewable mental picture, there is disagreement, at least it is not intuitive to everyone, right?  Therefore we should arrive at a consensus about how to present that key element of Dianetics theory, per WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories.  But it is wrong to create a wholesale theory section without concensus of us editors.  Does this make more sense? Terryeo 18:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that would be "no, I can't support my claims about what other users have given as their reasons for particular edits that I disagree with," then. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand you now.  My statement which prompted your request for verification was about User:Spirit of Man theory section.  I stated that people thought: "oh hell, that doesn't have much to do with the subject" as editor's motivation for deleting his theory section.  My claim is that people deleted his theory section.  My proposal is that editors deleted Spirit of Man's theory section because they thought what I stated.  No, I can not support that editors thought that.  I can support that editors deleted his work.  Editors thoughts?  no, I can't support that.  The statement I made was an over-simplification, I stated it to propose that a group of key points was presented by one editor, all in a block and without concensus from other editors.  I use that as a point to present that we follow [[WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories.  To follow that we would arrive at a concensus of one "key" issue of Dianetics theory at a time, present it into the article as we have concensus in this discussion page.  Thanks for asking Antaeus Feldspar. Terryeo 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: May I propose the article is quite good the way it is.  Terryeo has made a valiant effort attempting to cast himself as the only one following Wikipedia policy (or rather, the way he wants to define it), while the other contributors to this article are engaged in egregious violations of Wiki policy because they disagree with him.  However, his attempts to change and re-write the article are not being accepted by the Wikipedia community at large, as noted by the many different users making efforts to keep this article legible, accurate, and NPOV. --Modemac 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I appriciate that you distancing yourself from me and aligning yourself with others by declaring me to be "over there, spouting Wikipedia Policy incessently" and you "over here with many other like-minded people who should all pat themselves on the back about the wonderful article, I completely disagree.  The article as it stands right now does not communicate anything about the meaning of Dianetics.  No meaning of Dianetics, no glimmer of the good sense of Dianetics transmits itself through the article in the mind of the reader.  (my opinion).  The article says things. Those things are not really false, but they don't communicate what Dianetics is, How Dianetics has been used, is used or manifests within the Church of Scientology.  It is talking about the yeast bubbles and not the bread, the steam and not the tea. Terryeo 02:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, can you offer a concise sentence that describes Hubbard's concept of "mind"?  BTfromLA 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll sure try.  Hubbard departs from other disipliens because he considered "mind" seperately and independently from "body and brain."  His approach to the subject differed. Rather than look at the physical and figure out the mind from that.  He looked at the mind and characterized the mind.  The sentence:  Hubbard considered it a workable theory to consider the mind to be made of pictures of experiences.  There, is that enough or too little? Terryeo 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks for that response. "Considered it a workable theory to consider" doesn't really add anything, but "Hubbard considered the mind to be made of pictures of experiences" seem reasonable, and the concept of "mental image pictures" which have actual mass (right?) seems like a legit one to include when describing Dianetics, and a good lead-in to "engram" and "reactive mind."  Are there other crucial concepts that aren't mentioned in the current draft? BTfromLA 03:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <surge of joy> Yes, that is the sequence. A mind is can be thought to be made of mental image pictures.  Some mental image pictures contain pain.  Those are not so easily looked at and are called engrams.  The collection of engrams together are called the reactive mind because they react to stimulii without a person being aware that they are in restimulation and causing feelings and reactions.  That's the sequence.  Last I read the article, none of that meaning was present.  I state a definition and it gets deleted right away. Terryeo 03:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What you've written above strikes me as much more concise and informative than most of the other things I've read by you: maybe we're actually making progress! If you want to add to it, I suggest you do so here on the talk page first, and we can work out difficulties here without the usual exasperating reverts.  BTfromLA 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right then, I'll create a "theory" subdivision on this page for discussing what key elements are theory and how to state them for deployment on in the article page. Have a cheeful BT ! Terryeo 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Here are some ideas for a theory section. Hubbard discovered certain basic things, but he went through the process alone or with close associates and conducted a great many tests. So the scientific process of limiting the subject to what science can observe, was done philosophically. Other so-called mental sciences have not done this. To them the mind is not visible, except possibly as the brain with tomography viewing the activity of radioactive indicator materials. In Dianetics the mind consists of mental image pictures only, and these are visible to the owner and viewer. They are also visible electronically with an ohm meter or a household scale for measuring one's weight. The pictures have mass. They have resistance that can be measured when the picture impinges on the body. All of these things are scientific developements that other mental studies have not gotten to yet. So mental image pictures can be viewed, sensed, measured, weighed, counted and tabulated. When one exists it can be experienced and when it is gone this can be measured as well. All mental image pictures together are call the Time Track. The basic element of the mind is the mental image picture. So from 1938 with the discovery of the dynamic priciple of existence and the need to know what it ment and to develope a workable therapy, to 1948 or so, that basic principle evolved to an "axiom" or a simple statement understood to be more or less a natural law. Dianetics currently has about 200 such axioms that can be read and understood to learn what the subject consists of. In 1948 there were just six. By 1950 there were about 30, but unnumbered. There are about 29 Logics as well, but I think I would include those in Philosophy rather than scientific theory. By the early 50s the scope of the philosophy underlying these axioms had become so vast that the main organization carried forth as an applied philosophy. The individual techniques evolved very rapidly. For those that were at this level of perception of the subject, the subject seemed to change continuously. By 1952 the value of the individual, the person going clear became the focus. This was most important. Even more important than the entire mind. So by 1952 the first axioms of Dianetics describe the individual himself, the spirit, the static or thetan. At that time it was known that one had to address the thetan as an individual. By 1959 this became so evident that even the dynamic principle of existence had to be expanded to reflect the actual capabilities of the thetan. In Scientology the dynamic principle of existence is "CREATE!" So the current theoretical basis of Dianetics should reflect this. Thetan, mind, and body. Dianetics can increase the abilities of the thetan to a level where he no longer needs the mind or the body to experience the fullness of existence. Of course he can retain the body and mind, and do all of the things bodies and minds can do as well. Spirit of Man 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steps toward alignment of effort, conflict resolution 

message: I noticed that Terryeo has been deleting chunks of the introduction again with the odd excuse "removed some editor's personal opinion of what the book contains". The bizarre thing is that it's substantively very similar to an earlier version with which he was apparently fine (see ). So are we to assume that he disagrees with himself? In any case, deletionism isn't a good thing... -- ChrisO 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre excuses