www.cetano.com

Many people will not know this but there is a massive grass roots scientology movement growing outside the church of scientology. One might ask why this is. Is there some dissatisfaction with the Church perhaps?

The Grass roots movement is called the Freezone. The Freezone consists of people who have either been ousted from the church or left of their own accord as well as many people who have never even set foot inside a scientology church.

It is call the Freezone because it is just that. Since the death of Ron Hubbard, Founder of Scientology, the church has undergone a radical change by the incumbent management. Deep philosophical changes in the religion different to what Hubbard set out have been made. Text has been a altered and some even omitted. Many of the scientologists in the Freezone have found it more beneficial to subscribe to the original philosophy rather than the ‘new wave’ now emanating from the church.

Many freezoners practice their philosophy very successfully and achieve outstanding results with the methods and practices as originally researched and developed by Hubbard. In fact there are groups around the planet, especially in Europe and the Baltic States, which are expanding at a rapid rate.

Unfortunately, despite the high sounding ideals, the church is one of the most litigious in the world and seems, on the face of it, more concerned with copyright protection and acquiring property than in ’spreading the word’. This seems to be having a devastating effect on the ‘official church’ in terms of numbers and lack of expansion.

That job now appears to have been taken over by the Freezone, who are going through a rapid expansion, even as the church is shrinking.

The future of Scientology is going to be very interesting. Indeed, we may very well see the growing movement outside the church surpass the church in numbers and expansion as they focus heavily on the philosophy and less on the material aspects.

Sebastian Tombs

Permission to use this article is given provided the following link is included. http://scientologistsfreezone.com.

Share This

I have been raised to believe that I can be whatever I want to be.

Growing up, I was always told that I could do whatever I wanted to do, and become whatever I wanted to become in life. This is because I was given the tools from a very young age to try to view the world around me with open eyes and an open heart. When I was in 7th grade, I saw a movie called The Power of One. For many reasons, the movie really acted as a fuel to a fire that I had; A strong desire to make the world a better place, and a belief that I could do it.

I have been disappointed in many ways over the past many years by people’s apathy, including my own. However, that has been equally matched, and very often surpassed, by the overwhelming feeling of knowing that I know hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who are really doing things to make the world better.

I believe I can change the world, now that I’m getting older and better! What I have learned is that I’m not going to be able to change things alone. We’re all, globally, going to need to come to an understanding that the human heart is the same around the world, and when we learn to stop focusing so much on this idea that it’s somehow ‘them versus us’, as individuals, as groups, as religions, as races, and as countries, we will learn how truly similar we are. This will allow us to celebrate our differences, and work towards a more common, peaceful, and practical future.

Do I think this will be easy? No. Do I think it’s possible? Absolutely! We’re already seeing it. Unfortunately, it’s often coming at the expense of other cultures giving up their ideas to American pop culture, but you can read more about that elsewhere on this Strive4impact.com.

Call me an idealist, call me a hopeful, call me a dreamer. I thank you for all these compliments. Idealists, dreamers, and hopefuls are those who have made the innovations which have changed the world. Imagine if someone had never idealized that the world could be round; imagine if Thomas Edison had never dreamed of such a thing as a light bulb; imagine if Orville and Wilbur Wright never hoped that they could learn to build a machine that would fly. We would not be anywhere without hopefuls, idealists, and dreamers. There are those who would argue that warriors and economists change the world, but a warrior has no weapons, if someone hasn’t first thought of them, and people have nothing to buy, sell or trade without dreamers who create. Therefore, economies do not exist without the innovations of dreamers.

Tell me it’s impossible to change the world, and you provide me more motivation. Tell me it will never happen, and I’ll tell you a story about a man working in the U.S. Office of Patents who in 1897 said, “everything worthwhile that can be invented has already been invented.” (No cars, no phone system, no Internet, no email, no microwave, no television, little understanding of electricity, no radio.) Basically, everything we consider to be important to our mainstream lives in America, he apparently considered to be not worthwhile a little over only 100 years ago.

I get discouraged along the way, and that’s part of why the Strive4impact philosophy is something that I carry with me. I’m tired of getting discouraged by people telling me that change isn’t possible, so I hope to hear from you who are doing good things, who are making positive change in this world a reality.

The other main reason for the strive4impact philosophy is an attempt to combat peoples’ apathy, and to inspire and inform those who are looking for some way to make a positive difference, but don’t know where to start.

Jonathan Kraft is a global traveler, identity theft expert, author, and became financially independent at the ripe old age of 25! You can find out more about his journey at www.strive4impact.com

Share This

Since Bradley sustains the primacy of the immediate experience in the detriment of any kind of judgment upon perceiving the reality, we can already infer that he would oppose that reality can be perceived as a whole, since many objects that form the subjects of judgments would not be included. But what is to be doubted is his categorical claim that reality is not shaped through the reference to judgments.

Let us then proceed with analyzing Bradley’s stream of thought and get some more insight in the axiomatic system that he builds to define reality in his works.

Bradley’s focus is on judgment. He affirms that judgment in the strict sense is prepositional. Thus, it bears truth-values, being capable of determining whether a proposition is true or false. This will prove of extreme importance in refuting Bradley later. Further, judgment involves ideas. Interestingly, these ideas are symbols that refer through the suspending of their own mental existence and characteristics identifying themselves only with one element which they are symbols of. Therefore, these ideas are in close connection with the immediate experience, since the true value of the idea is to be taken from the immediate experience, leaving aside the general objects that they might be symbols of.

This is again of a great importance for later in the essay, because of the nuances in which judgment is to be interpreted together with its role in outlining reality. Judgments must then be true or false, but the truth or falsehood cannot lie in itself.

We can see from now the question that will arise and which will give rise to interpretations. Judgments are built on ideas, and ideas take their meaning from immediate experiences. Now, is judgment a greater part of immediate experience (since it involves it and uses it further) or is immediate experience the only way to reality since it is “pure” (even though gives a more limited reality)?

The first definition of the real given by Bradley as “that which is individual”, would entitle us to affirm that judgment would give rise to reality.

Bradley now comes and enforces his definitions, inclining the balance towards the immediate experience. Indeed, he says that the possibility of truth that is to be filtered in order to form a judgment is an effect of reality. Still, to what extent he is right is discussable. Further, he affirms that truth exists in the world of ideas, raising confusion and ambivalence even more. Now we see his former definition of the judgment expanded and the involvement of ideas is just true for simple judgments, where an idea refers to what is given.

Apart from this judgment there are analytical judgments of sense, as in assertion about that which one presently perceives or feels- at least some aspect of it. Next, we have the synthetic judgment of sense in affirmations concerning time and space. Finally we have judgments about realities, which are never sensible events in time and space- claims referring to abstractions like the soul, claims that cannot be tested in an experimental-like way, nor deduced in such a way.

We are then provided with a definition as immediate experience:’ the real is that which I come in immediate contact, and the content of any part of time, any section of the continuous flow change, is present to me even if I directly encounter it’. Shortly, it is something that is being given, something that covers the whole specter of attention, of reason, of living at a certain point. It provides reality precisely because it is something that does not necessitate judgment.

If we agree with Bradley in that in which he affirms that reality can be achieved to a great extent through immediate experience, it is not true that some sort of reality- at times the same reality in a given particular case- can be achieved through judgment. And judgment in such cases must not necessarily be considered a more complicated way of achieving the same reality, because -why not admit it- judgment is an important process characteristic to people and it can be at times easier to outline a reality after judging something than voicing the immediate experience. This is one of the flaws of immediate experience. It does portray a reality at any time, but one must take its time in voicing it. Why then, not admit that reality can be outlined through judgment as well?

Bradley argues that universal judgments always have a conditional character. In order to refer to the real, this conditional character must be tested to see how it behaves in a particular immediate experience. Thus judgment only reveals a latent quality of the disposition of the real, not the real itself. But Bradley has previously affirmed that judgments rely on truth criteria. So then, we can assert for certain if a situation is real or not. There cannot be an infinity number of realities at the same time. A judgment not only provides the answer for the particular reality, but also shows the infinite number of possibilities which might exist adjacently or in similar situations, but do not. And the fact that they do not exist in this particular situation is tested by the truth criteria

What is then Bradley’s problem? Of course, had he agreed that judgments do play an important role in outlining reality, he would have had to take special care of judgments resulting in claims such as “soul is a substance”. He preferred to exclude categorically the role of judgments in shaping a reality, and praise the value of immediate experience. It is somehow understandable, that no matter how one would argue only one of these two can be found responsible for the creation of reality. As stated in the beginning, the value should be put either on the importance of immediate experience as giving birth to a reality that is absolute and independent, even if only temporary; or on the judgment which makes use of this immediate experience and takes it further in providing the solution in a particular case but reserving solutions for other situations. But if one would go with the latter, he would make the claim that affirmations involving God and spirit are realities, which obviously is fallacious. In order to make claims about a system, one should know it completely; it should know all its axioms.

But when it comes to God and spiritual life, one cannot claim to fully understand God since simply by its definition God contains humans on their whole and even their preoccupation with spirituality. It is simply proved by G

Share This