Withdrawal Of The Horizon

 



I came across an idea several months ago in an exchange with Jon Atack that I was reminded of recently that is worth introducing as a part of recovery from Scientology and critical thinking and life really.

I was letting Jon know how in trying to discover what Ron Hubbard actually did in Scientology and how it affected people and even to a degree what people are really like and how they actually think a frustrating result occurred.

I kept thinking I had found a lot of major information that underlied his con and showed how it worked and kept finding the answers are not absolutes. And they lead to more ideas, relationships and even entire subjects and fields to explore to even try to form an educated opinion.

And unlike in Scientology in this pursuit one idea from a source can be right, part right, part wrong, all wrong, unclear or uncertain and have no bearing on my other ideas or claims by the same source ! It demands an entirely different way of thinking. A much more careful way, that is open to criticism and reexamination of ideas and understanding different degrees of certainty and verification can exist.

Lots of the ideas, like those from hypnosis are best considered hypotheses without strictly scientific proof, but strong relevance as Ron Hubbard studied hypnosis and to whatever degree he could get it to work it was quite often what he was trying to use covertly and make work. And much of the information on the subject fits Dianetics, Scientology and Hubbard's own quotes quite well.

Similarly many concepts from psychology also describe what Hubbard did, particularly cognitive dissonance theory and information on influence, propaganda and loaded language. Additionally information on rhetoric and logical fallacies also exposes the con.

But as these are examined they have to be taken with a touch of skepticism and a healthy dose of critical thinking in their own right. After all many of these ideas don't strictly speaking describe literal physical structures found with scientific research. They are what I call metaphors of the mind. Useful when accurate for describing ideas but not always completely true or right. Best guesses but often very useful ones.

 As I examined more and more ideas and took to finding similar ideas and parallel lines of thinking in different subjects I realized the different subjects start with different assumptions. Unproven assumptions to be entirely frank. Then based on what they look at and how they have their own language with distinct words and phrases to describe ideas. This inevitably guides thought and even emotion.

By examining different subjects approaches to the same types of ideas and experiences more perspectives and possible ideas are opened up for consideration, comparison, alteration, combination, acceptance and rejection.

As it becomes clearer that there is always more that can be known and today's acceptable or good understanding or idea can be replaced by tomorrow's better or far more accurate one a kind of cautious doubt and intellectual humility can grow. Any idea I have can be wrong and disproven down the road. Even if I am not smart enough to see it.

I recently saw an interview with Noam Chomsky, perhaps America's most famed intellectual, wherein he said on any subject he studies as he thinks he has it almost figured out he realizes he has far too many unanswered questions and actually the horizon he thought he was close to is now much further away than he ever realized.

I think finding that and finding clues on where to look, particularly if it leads to other subjects that bear fruit in investigation, is an excellent sign that one is conducting worthwhile study.

I must admit I have been frustrated from time to time when good,  intelligent people act like a tiny bit of the information on a very important subject is all there is to know worth finding and that for example reading a brief Wikipedia article should be all the investigation ever conducted. And that anything more is, say, overthinking.

 Learning doesn't end at a definition or Wikipedia article. Certainly not if it is in depth.

I hope lots of people who read my extensive and detailed information on Scientology at this blog use it as a collection of claims to be examined carefully and critically each one on its own merits. And as a starting point to research subjects and not an end.

I hope we find helpful ideas for understanding and recovering from Scientology to be sure, but that the horizon never ends and better and better learning and humbler thinking begins.