GOING CLEAR

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.com

Going ClearGoing Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief

By: Lawrence Wright 

Narrated by: Morton Sellers

Without vilifying any one religion, Scientology, like all organized religions, is a belief system manufactured by man.  Lawrence Wright, a Pulitzer

LAWRENCE WRIGHT (Also Wrote "The Looming Tower")

LAWRENCE WRIGHT (Also Wrote “The Looming Tower”)

Prize-winning American journalist, writes an informative, titillating. and believable book about Scientology.  After listening to “Going Clear”, the human failings of Scientology are stripped bare with a force as explosive as the abuse of parish children by Catholic’ priests.  The many testimonials of Scientologists that say Scientology “improved their lives” infers some value in its teachings; however, like all organized religions, it is subject to human failings.  No organized religion in recorded history has been without human failure.

Lawrence Wright exposes and dissects Scientology’s human flaws; i.e. the human flaws compelled by desire for money, power, and prestige.  “Going Clear’s” publication may be a nail in Scientology’s coffin or a spur to reform.  If Wright’s book is not appreciated (recognized as a serious examination of Scientology’s human failings), Scientology will continue to decline in membership and disappear like the Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, and Jones’ People’s Temple; all failed religious’ cults.

The first amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of religion and, since the time of Thomas Jefferson, Americans have associated that guarantee as co-equal with a belief in separation of church and state.  The evocation of Scientology as a religion, and its current place in the world are examples of why church and state require separation.

L RON HUBBARD (1911-1986)

L RON HUBBARD (1911-1986)

L. Ron Hubbard was a prolific pulp fiction writer that gained some fame by becoming a science fiction author.  He wrote a book titled “Dianetics” which, like the Bible to the Christian Church, became the foundation of Scientology.  Hubbard’s myths make him Scientology’s equivalent of a prophet.  However, Hubbard’s life is only mid-20th century history–so the truth and veracity of his myths are easily revealed, challenged, and demystified by Wright’s investigative reporting.

To a non-Scientologist, history shows Hubbard to be psychologically unbalanced but some of his teachings show a quality of human understanding that surpasses common knowledge.  This “superior perception of reality” seduces followers into believing in something greater than them-selves; it gives direction and structure to drifting and unfocused minds.  Hubbard’s “superior perception of reality” is grounded by a prescient understanding of human nature.  Hubbard’s insight to human need reinforces feelings of, or potential for, well-being in his listeners. Hubbard successfully creates followers, and starts Scientology in 1952.

DAVID MISCAVIGE

DAVID MISCAVIGE

When Hubbard died, David Miscavige became the new leader of Scientology. Miscavige succeeded in getting the American Government to acknowledge that Scientology is a religion.

Wright shows how Hubbard’s vision grows into a religion because of Hubbard’s insight to human nature and his charismatic character.  Scientology also grows because of the economic advantage created by David Miscavige and his followers when they convince the American government that Scientology is a religion, exempt from federal income taxes.  Wright suggests that Scientology has a net worth in excess of one billion dollars.

Scientology’s great wealth is from real estate holdings and donations from followers.  Donations come in the form of cash and services; i.e. a rigidly centralized hierarchy, presently headed by David Miscavige, recruits and exploits members of the church by offering psychic salvation and peace for troubled minds through ritualistic practices of the religion.  Recruits come from different walks of life but Scientology’s greatest financial donations come from the entertainment industry–its actors and producers.

The world of Scientology duplicates and magnifies the social inequalities of western culture; i.e. Write explains that the organization and its followers are made up of haves and have-nots with those that can stand at the top of the hierarchy, with all of its privileges, and those at the bottom that work for the organization at $50/week or less.  The bottom stays with the organization because the religion offers security, possible promotion, and psychic peace.  The top stays because of power and prestige; i.e. they believe that adhering to the religion makes, and continues to make, them successful.

Wright names the names of the most famous Scientologists with Tom Cruise and John Travolta at the top of the list.

WIKIPEDIA LIST OF CURRENT & PAST MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=list%20of%20scientologists&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_Scientologists&ei=WXAAUYzADoqfrAHc14HACQ&usg=AFQjCNEFr08Z76RbCcrJKY4UbOgTg9L4VA&bvm=bv.41248874,d.aWM

But, he also explains why lesser lights, like Kirstie Alley, Anne Archer, Greta Van Susteren, continue to follow the religion.  What makes the story more interesting is why some of the early members are leaving; i.e. Paul Haggis, Bruce Hines, and possibly, Tommy Davis, a wealthy follower and former spokesman for Scientology.

TOMMY DAVIS DISAPPEARANCE: http://www.youtube.com/embed/67Jx9KG0VeU” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>iframe>

Wright amplifies interest by revealing secrets of the religion, some of its leader’s alleged violence, and mysteries of disappearing members.

WE STAND TALL PROMOTION OF SCIENTOLOGY: <iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/XyNh1j3dsp8” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen> (SHOWS SHELLY MISCAVIGE @ 3 MIN. 54 SEC. WHO HAS DISAPPEARED-TWO OTHER OFFICERS HAVE LEFT SINCE THIS RECORDING.)

SCIENTOLOGY’S CRAZY FOLLOWERS:  http://www.youtube.com/embed/pPol_m8wm8Y” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

TOM CRUISE’S BELIEF IN SCIENTOLOGY: http://www.youtube.com/embed/UFBZ_uAbxS0” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Where will Scientology be 100 years from now?  Will Hubbard’s myths become gospel truths or will Scientology join history’s trash heap?  Will organized religion disappear completely; if so, what will replace it—surely not Atheism.

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject

Your Message

AMERICAN HOMOGENIZATION

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.com

Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010

By Charles Murray 

 Narrated by Traber Burns

 

Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking

By Susan Cain 

Narrated by Kathe Mazur

Both “Coming Apart” and “Quiet” are disquisitions on America that have an apparent appeal to a consuming audience.  “Coming Apart” points to a belief that America has become an aristocracy of education and money. “Quiet” makes the sociological case that human beings are either extroverted or introverted and that extroverts rule American government and business because they talk the most, and argue the best.  Both books infer american cultural homogenization.  Beyond these mildly interesting observations, Charles Murray and Susan Cain offer a series of inane proofs from “social science” surveys (some say junk science) and anecdotes.  It is not that there is not some truth in their observation but the evidence is less than scientific.

CHARLES MURRAY

Charles Murray (1965 Harvard graduate) argues managers from  the upper-economic-class (educated at Harvard, Yale, Princeton; etc.) manage the most important government and business organizations in America based on like-minded university’ academics that are out of touch with laboring-class’ America; i.e. “Coming Apart” argues that Ivy League schools indoctrinate wealthy upper-class’ white men with a distorted view of how the majority of America works and lives. Murray argues that Ivy League universities teach a select group of people who become a separate and distinct management’ class that think and act in a predictably similar, if not, same way; Murray argues that America is coming apart because graduates of the Ivy League, the present leaders of big business and big government, become isolated from the reality of life for most Americans; i.e. the primary leaders of government and business move into neighborhoods of like-minded, similarly-educated’ Americans; enroll their children in private schools, and steer them to storied universities that are self-perpetuating pathways to money, privilege, and social isolation.  There are recent events in American politics that suggest Murray has a valid point.

America has millionaire candidates for public office that argue education is critical to success; e.g. one well-known “patrician” politician says do whatever you need to do to get a good education; i.e. do things like “borrow from your parents to complete your education”–an example of an obvious disconnect when mothers and fathers are working for $10/hour or less–barely making enough money for food, clothing, and shelter; let alone, healthcare and education.  The upper-economic-class of America does not understand the majority of Americans but they manage or influence most of America’s government and big business operations.  Murray argues that a widening separation of social and economic classes is pulling America apart, creating a reality gap between the movers and shakers of government/business organizations and the general public.

Murray observes that Ivy League universities dominate and perpetuate a management class in the United States that is out of touch with the majority of American’ society.  The exclusive culture of Ivy League’ universities is separating managers of government and business from the truth of living in middle America; this disconnect dooms lower economic class Americans to a life of hardship; it stultifies opportunity for the majority of Americans because the upper-class is so isolated that they forget how ladders of success are made and presume those ladders still exist.  However, the ladders are disappearing because government and business leaders have become insulated from the hurley burly of American life by their disproportionate salaries, wealth, and education which has isolated executives from the truth of a widening socio-economic gap between management and labor.

SUSAN CAIN

Susan Cain supplements and magnifies the negative consequence of Murray’s argument by claiming that much of America is being led by extroverts that fail to appreciate contemplative insight of introverts.  Cain suggests that extroverts preternaturally look to action rather than contemplation when solving problems.  She provides anecdotal stories of Ivy-League school’s like Harvard Business School that emphasize debate skill, business presentation, persuasion, and public speaking as keys to success.  Cain suggests that these action oriented disciplines are used by extroverts to sell ice boxes to Eskimos without any research into what Eskimos are more likely to need.  An extrovert can sell but may fail to think about the inherent value of what is being sold.  Cain is not denigrating the extrovert but she suggests that success is a combination of skills that require abilities of both introverts and extroverts.  She argues that a purely extroverted view of the world creates a “keep up with the Joneses” mentality; i.e. a mentality based on appearances rather than substance

DAVID RIESMAN (1909-2002)

David Riesman made a similar argument in the 1950s book, “The Lonely Crowd”, suggesting that Americans are becoming more “other” rather than “inner” directed; i.e. being concerned more about what other people think than what one thinks themselves.

Fareed Zakaria makes a compelling argument in “The Future of Freedom” about politicians that vote based on polls rather than on their own considered opinion.  Polls become the substance upon which arguments are made; conscience becomes less important than one’s interpretation of the poll; being elected becomes more important than voting one’s conscience.

If Murray is right about the homogenization of American management and Cain is right about being misled by too much extraversion and not enough introversion, maybe America is “Coming Apart”.  On the other hand, maybe Murray and Cain are just selling books.

HOW THE MIND WORKS

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.com

How the Mind Works (Published 1997)

By Steven Pinker 

 Narrated by Mel Foster

STEVEN PINKER (EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST, LINQUIST, & COGNITIVE SCIENTIST)

STEVEN PINKER (EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST, LINQUIST, & COGNITIVE SCIENTIST)

 “How the Mind Works” delves into the process of thought; i.e. how it is tied to an evolutionary process and how it is common to all humans but emotively different in males and females.

Steven Pinker has been reviewed in this blog before. He wrote “The Blank Slate” and “The Better Angels of our Nature” which are equally enlightening, seriously provocative, and arguably right and wrong.

The human mind works like a computer but has capacity for thought that is greater than the mechanical or probabilistic process initiated by computer theoreticians like Alan Turing and John von Neumann. Pinker believes man’s evolutionary process is nearly complete. He infers computers have achieved or will achieve a thought process that surpasses the capacity of individual human beings but a computer’s way of thinking is principally probabilistic; in contrast, human minds “ways of thinking” are multi-functionally evolved. Pinker sees the mind as a computational construct made up of thought modules that process information in both probabilistic and intuitive ways, based on human evolution.

Pinker cites Darwin’s theory of adaptive human evolution; i.e. Pinker believes that a “human computational thinking process” evolves based on nature’s instinct for survival. This thinking process is a part of the genetic make-up of human beings, passed on through generations of humanity. Humans have the capacity for learning and understanding language as a result of a genetic inheritance; e.g. every human being has a language module that exhibits soon after birth. A multitude of “thinking process” modules have been genetically created as humans have evolved. These modules include categories of behavior like human instinct, ethics, and cultural thought. However, the modules are not immutable; i.e. they can change based on changing cultural influences that can either be right or wrong or both right and wrong.  Pinker particularly refers to the history of ethics and how they have changed as civilization has evolved.

An irony of the comparison of computer and human thinking and the growing probabilistic dominance of computers is that the human’ mind resists probabilistic reasoning.  The inference is that computers can improve the decision-making process because they are programmed to ”think” probabilistically. Humans live in a probabilistic world but resist using their minds to think in probabilistic terms.  The present state of computer thinking has no instinct equivalents like that forged in humans by adaptive behavior through generations of evolution. Pinker refers to Daniel Kahneman’s book, “Thinking Fast and Slow”.  An example of instinct is a fireman’s sense of floor collapse in a fire that is not based on a mind’s probabilistic calculation but on a “how the mind works” module, genetically heritable from an evolved and adaptive instinct for survival.

Pinker goes on to suggest that evolution has created different mind modules for men and women.  Pinker notes that an instinct for survival is common to sexes but sexual attraction, the process of choice for mates, and the evolution of psycho-social experience have different mind-work’ consequences for females than for males.  Pinker also notes that when women bear children, there are inherent mind module differences (ways of thinking) between men and women which are evidenced by the way fathers and mothers relate to their offspring.

Pinker cites the instinctual difference between men and women in the way they court each other, the way they view children, and the way each reacts to sexual relations with different partners.   Pinker relies on sociological studies and paradigmatic arguments based on his and other “experts” opinions about evolutionary psychology.  The differences in behavior (the way male and female minds work) are detailed in Pinker’s book and offer some interesting and speculative conclusions.

In completing Pinker’s book, it seems that some mind modules are inherited and others are learned.  What seems puzzling is why Pinker suggests that the evolution of man and the way the mind works is near an end rather than a beginning or mid-point. Humankind has gotten this far through adaptive evolution, why will adaptation not continue to evolve?  With a changing environment, it seems logical to believe that the human species will either adapt or parish, and knowing which will happen, is probabilistically unknowable.  Are we headed for dystopia and extinction, utopia and eternal life, or happiness and a fulfilled life?