There is no such thing as a 'variant' of scientology (!TM) anymore
than there are variants of physics.

      Both are hard won bodies of knowledge concerning anatomies and
approaches to the problems of cause.

      Physics deals with cause in the physical world, and scientology
deals with cause in the spiritual world.

      Both physics and scientology depend upon the scientific method for
the accrual of workable knowledge.

      The scientific method consists of

      Observation -> Theory -> Prediction -> Verification.

      Observation is intelligence, the ability to pose (and finally
resolve) problems.

      Theory is conceived anatomy which gives rise to approach.

     Prediction is that the approach will work, namely produce desirable

     Verification is the observaton that the approach worked as
predicted or not.

     Peer review means others can do it too, once you prove they exist.

     The scientific method is a circular and ongoing process spiraling
upwards to greater and greater heights of command and control over the
nature of existence and the problems of life.

     There are differences of opinion in both fields of study, neither
is perfect, and both are ever changing, growing, either slowly or in
quantum leaps.

     And both fields are related, as the spiritual world created the
physical world, even if most people in the physical world are in fair
chosen denial and have everything backwards, and even if the physical
world is an antithesis of the spiritual world,

     "Source sources what source is not." - Adore.

     There is no such thing as the one and only correct theory of
physics, and there is no such thing as the one and only correct theory
of scientology or the salvation of the soul from ruin.

     There is only ostensibly more or less workable paths to the
problems of anatomy and approach, derived from more or less clarity of
apprehension of the factors involved.

      No one man did it all, each stood on the shoulders of giants before
them, although some were much bigger than their predecessors.

      Who was bigger, Aristotle, Galileo, Newton or Einstein?

      Be careful, Galileo as simple as he was, formulated tremendous
truths about motion that opened the doors for Newton and Einstein to do
their work and change EVERYTHING.

      That's why physicists iconify their heros rather than berate them
out of existence, for their heros produced a gradient staircase from
total ignorance to operational brilliance.

      Hubbard in the end was an idiot savant and a toxic narcissist, who
could not give credit where credit was due no matter how small or how
great the influence.

      Big deal.

      Newton and Edison were the same way.

      Newton hated Leibniz with a passion for coming up with calculus
before Newton did, and Edison went to his grave hating Tesla for being
right about the advantages of AC over DC electricity.

      They all are geniuses crammed into a human GPM structure.

      It starts off with

      The goal to start a new body of knowledge

      and ends with

      The goal to own it all.

      The fastest way to miss out on the real power of any subject is to
fixate on its prior heros to the point of being unwilling to correct,
enhance, improve, out invent, or step ahead of them, and trying to
squash out of exitence anyone else who does.

      Beware then the "Squashers of Variance and Deviance."


Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY  Is that too much to ask?
Mon Oct 23 21:42:38 EDT 2017