Yes but we can infer from Korzybski not being crazy that if you went and explained L. Ron’s theory of societal ills being caused by invisible aliens called thetans, that Korzybski would disagree—are you really trying to argue that that’s not the case?
The core issue in this debate is whether the core of Korzybski’s ideas is true. advancedatheist argument only works if other people disagree with his core ideas. Especially people who come after Korzybski.
The fact that other people disagree with the concept of thetans can tell you that Ron Hubbert isn’t worthy of attention but it doesn’t tell you something about Korzybski.
invisible aliens called thetans, that Korzybski would disagree
From Korzybskian perspective it doesn’t really matter whether they are called “thetans” or “invisible aliens”. Both seem like irrelevant identity statements.
Having them be named thetans doesn’t give the map a wrong feature but an irrelevant feature.
I’m not sure about Ron Hubbert but he might very well have thought: “Identity doesn’t matter so there no real problem with calling it thetans. If I call them thetans I will sound more profound and revolutionary, so I will call them thetans.”
Alternatively you could think of Ron Hubbert as a person who thinks they got a revelation. If that’s the case he doesn’t fit into the line of enlightenment thinkers.
Here’s what the conversation felt liked from my perspective:
Christian: Please show how L. Ron Hubbard and Korzybski have different views about what causes the ills in society
Matt: L. Ron believes that aliens cause the ills, Korzybski does not. I
Christian: Korzybski would say it doesn’t matter if you call them aliens.
That seems like a very odd response to me. Believing there are aliens that live among us is not just a word, it makes material predictions at the fabric of what’s wrong and how to fix it. It’s a foundational difference in what’s at the core of the problem.
Christian: Please show how L. Ron Hubbard and Korzybski have different views about what causes the ills in society
No, I asked for whether there disagreement between the two. Hubbard said basically that he mixed General Semantics with Cybernetics. Then he added a few of his own ideas.
I’m not aware that he argued that either General Semantics or Cybernetics is wrong. Rather that they are incomplete.
Believing there are aliens that live among us is not just a word, it makes material predictions at the fabric of what’s wrong and how to fix it.
Scientology has certain exercises that supposedly fix the issue. Whether or not those exercises are helpful has little to do with the question of whether it’s aliens.
I think you fail at steelmanning Ron Hubbard and simply go for cheap shots. That’s okay when you simply want to find reasons to not go to scientology but it’s not helpful for understanding the underlying ideas.
Yes but we can infer from Korzybski not being crazy that if you went and explained L. Ron’s theory of societal ills being caused by invisible aliens called thetans, that Korzybski would disagree—are you really trying to argue that that’s not the case?
The core issue in this debate is whether the core of Korzybski’s ideas is true. advancedatheist argument only works if other people disagree with his core ideas. Especially people who come after Korzybski.
The fact that other people disagree with the concept of thetans can tell you that Ron Hubbert isn’t worthy of attention but it doesn’t tell you something about Korzybski.
From Korzybskian perspective it doesn’t really matter whether they are called “thetans” or “invisible aliens”. Both seem like irrelevant identity statements. Having them be named thetans doesn’t give the map a wrong feature but an irrelevant feature.
I’m not sure about Ron Hubbert but he might very well have thought: “Identity doesn’t matter so there no real problem with calling it thetans. If I call them thetans I will sound more profound and revolutionary, so I will call them thetans.”
Alternatively you could think of Ron Hubbert as a person who thinks they got a revelation. If that’s the case he doesn’t fit into the line of enlightenment thinkers.
Here’s what the conversation felt liked from my perspective:
Christian: Please show how L. Ron Hubbard and Korzybski have different views about what causes the ills in society
Matt: L. Ron believes that aliens cause the ills, Korzybski does not. I
Christian: Korzybski would say it doesn’t matter if you call them aliens.
That seems like a very odd response to me. Believing there are aliens that live among us is not just a word, it makes material predictions at the fabric of what’s wrong and how to fix it. It’s a foundational difference in what’s at the core of the problem.
No, I asked for whether there disagreement between the two. Hubbard said basically that he mixed General Semantics with Cybernetics. Then he added a few of his own ideas. I’m not aware that he argued that either General Semantics or Cybernetics is wrong. Rather that they are incomplete.
Scientology has certain exercises that supposedly fix the issue. Whether or not those exercises are helpful has little to do with the question of whether it’s aliens.
Lukeprog reported that he got a lot of value from those exercises: http://lesswrong.com/lw/58m/build_small_skills_in_the_right_order/
I think you fail at steelmanning Ron Hubbard and simply go for cheap shots. That’s okay when you simply want to find reasons to not go to scientology but it’s not helpful for understanding the underlying ideas.