Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Archive for the month “May, 2015”

Closed Mindedness

[I]f there’s anybody in the world that’s calculated to believe what he wants to believe, and to reject what he doesn’t want to believe, it is I.

L. Ron Hubbard, taped lecture The Story of Dianetics and Scientology, 18 Oct 1958

What Ron describes above is typically referred to as being “closed-minded”. It is, in today’s society, considered a Bad Thingtm. I’d like to present the case that it is not.

There is a sort of “closed-mindedness” that rejects and brands as heresy things like the Earth being round. This sort of closed-mindedness has been practiced by science and religion for hundreds or thousands of years. If you try to argue that science has not done this, you clearly have not studied the history of science. History is rife with examples of mainstream science ignoring and attacking theories and conclusions which did not conform to the orthodoxy of the time. One such example persists today in the subject of “global climate change”. Anyone who disputes global climate change is branded a heretic and holds in peril his future career by positing the idea that climate changes is not anthropogenic. Need proof? Try and get funding for a study intending to prove the opposite of current orthodoxy on the subject.

In any event, the above type of “closed-mindedness” is based on fixed ideas and (normally) false data. It would be appropriate to brand this type of closed-mindedness as unreasonable. It is.

However, there is another type of “closed-mindedness”, to which Ron refers, which is a different matter entirely. I practice this type of closed-mindedness, as do many others. If involves this: having observed something to be true, one then asks why such a thing would be. Going back to fundamental axioms and extending them forward, it then becomes clear why the observation is true. Once one reaches this plateau, further investigation and discourse is no longer necessary. The observation has become a fact.

In my youth, I did a fairly extensive survey of Eastern and Western philosophy. What I found was that the useful and/or true principles per square inch of ink were negligible. Moreover, there were just enough isolated truths to entice students into further study, and enough falsehoods to wrap a student around the nearest tree. But in Scientology, the opposite was true. Thus, I came to reject all older philosophies in terms of their usefulness. If you wanted to study them for the purpose of context in explaining history, then perhaps they might have some utility. But otherwise, not. This is why I rather discourage Scientologists, who, now free of the Church, seek wisdom and understanding by studying older philosophies and religions.

Ron, in the early days of his research, sought tools which would further his research and serve him in developing what he was discovering into a workable practice. He rejected, one after another almost all fields of human knowledge except science, and most particularly, the scientific method. This would give him a solid base from which to gauge his research and draw conclusions.

Getting back specifically to this idea of “positive” closed-mindedness (paragraph six above), I’m willing to listen to those who wish to argue some alternative conclusion, but their burden of proof will be significant. My overall experience with people like this is that they either haven’t thought the thought through, or are ignoring facts which contradict the conclusion they are trying to sell you on.

This type of “closed-mindedness” seems like a piece of arrogance to a lot of people who consider themselves “modern” and “enlightened”. However, popularity should never be substituted as something desirable over workability. By way of example, there is at least one auditor in the Independent Field who advocates for using Power Processes (Grade V) to handle exteriorization problems. This person would consider those of use who follow LRH’s tech to the letter “closed-minded”. That’s okay. We’re not here to be popular or to cater to someone’s “better idea”. We’re here to practice the workable technology Ron developed.

So be careful when you toss around the term “closed-minded”. Don’t mistake the one kind for the other.


John Lennon’s Imagine

(Fair warning: this post may generate more static than any I’ve ever posted. Opinions tend to be quite polarized in this area. All I ask is that you objectively read what I have to say. If you still feel like [figuratively] punching me when you’re done, feel free.)

There was a time when I might have considered John Lennon’s song Imagine to be a pretty song. But I was young and dumb at the time. I recently saw a highly trained, highly audited, “with-LRH” Scientologist posit the beauty of this song and I had to shake my head.

First, let’s consider the context of this song. It came out in 1971. The Vietnam war was still on and the nation was skeptical and tired of wars being fought in far off places which didn’t seem to have anything to do with America. Americans were tired of young men dying for causes which didn’t seem to be important here in the States.

Second, the U.S. was in the midst of a drugged haze which still seems to grip the country. Drug use jumped drastically in the 1960s, and left many of its participants in permanently scarred states of mind about life, religion and politics. Drugs tend to do that to people. They prevent proper observation and leave the participant with peculiar, spectatorish and hostile attitudes towards the rest of the world. These attitudes are often well hidden, but erupt from time to time in inappropriate ways.

Third, the author of this song was not the saint or profound philosopher many have painted him to be. He wasn’t even particularly visionary. He was a musician and composer after all. And judging by his solo career, he wasn’t anywhere near the composer alone that he was when paired with Paul McCartney. He was also a major druggie, having consumed LSD and other lesser drugs numerous times in the years before. It should be remembered that LSD is a drug designed to produce psychosis. It worked so effectively that its use barred Scientologists from being allowed into the Sea Organization. Lennon was also strongly connected to, if not propitiative to his wife, Yoko Ono. Regardless of your stance on Yoko, it’s a fact that her advent into John Lennon’s life coincided with the beginning of the end of The Beatles. Lennon was also openly contemptuous not only of the press, but of the fans in general. They earned his contempt by idolizing him and his mates. In his favor, at least he did realize that the Beatles were just four musicians in a rock and roll band, not prophets or even the spokesmen for a generation of young people.

Back to the song itself. Imagine advocates for a world without personal property, religions (including yours if you have one), government, national boundaries. Perhaps not coincidentally, these are the characteristics of one-world fascism which has been pushed by the power players on this planet for decades. Ostensibly, the song seeks to imagine the world coming together in peace once the above are eradicated. But this is the short-sighted vision of the drugged. These factors are not the reasons the world is at war and people fight amongst themselves. As we know from studying LRH, wars on this planet are fought because there are third parties behind the conflicts, actively promoting them and gaining profit as a result. The heavily divisive press (“Merchants of Chaos”) are part of this cabal as well, agitating people’s emotions and seeking to stir discontent among them by making the world appear far more dangerous than it is. Nationalism and patriotism never caused any wars. They are to be found anywhere people live, and are part of the loyalty and pride people feel for the places where they grew up and live. Personal property, similarly, does not particularly cause hostility among humans, either. Unless you happen to be a criminal who views all property as his or no one’s. Finally, while politics can be a divisive subject, government alone does not cause human suffering. It is merely a tool to be used for good or ill, depending on who wields it.

The anguish of humanity is rooted in far deeper causes than the fleeting wars, media, and activities of religions. The reasons for war, criminality and insanity rest in events which took place long long ago and are generally unknown to the average human. It takes a trained Scientologist to recognize the true causes lying in the psyches of humans.

All of which is just to say that John Lennon’s vision as expressed in this song is based on an almost complete lack or mastery of actual facts. It is based on a spectator’s view of the world, filtered through the unhandled drug mass and aberrations of its author. That he wished for a world at peace with itself is perhaps noble. But his ideas on why the world didn’t conform to his vision were and are demonstrably ludicrous. And the world he advocates is not one he would want to live in. It would be a fascist non-paradise, if anything. But that’s often the way with druggies and degraded beings.

On a final note, it can be observed that the aesthetics of a piece of art can be quite apart from form of the artwork itself. Artists infuse art with an aesthetic wavelength, more or less, and rely on the perception of the audience for the aesthetic to be perceivable. The form of the art is simply a carrier wave. Many pieces of art, nonsensical on the surface, still shine with an intensity of aesthetic which does not match the form itself. The artist adds that aesthetic component in greater or lesser quantity or volume as he creates the art. Only in this sense is Imagine a beautiful song. Lennon undoubtedly was sincere in his desire for this song to be a thing of beauty. It is considered so by many, and was the most successful composition of his solo career. But the actual message of the song is neither rational nor beautiful.

Post Navigation