Were we stupid to join Scientology?

[Clay Pigeon]

I'm not quite sure why you keep promoting dianetics. Your postings are about PSTD which maybe the principles of dianetics addresses. But dianetics certaintly doesn't produce a "clear".

Maybe you ought to write a book, based on the principles of LR Hubbard and later the COS under DM control, LRH being mankinds greastest friend and DM being one who saved scientology, and both got it all wrong, and how to achieve freedom from PSTD.

Afterall, a engram is really just a stressful event.

"PTSD is a disorder that develops in some people who have experienced a shocking, scary, or dangerous event."

Key word being here "some" people and not like Hubbard said all people,

what a con.

I continue to speak well of dianetics because I have used it well with frequent very good result and not uncommonly with exceptional and even extraordinary result.

I don't write of"clear" and in fact I question whether there is a "Reactive Mind" per se which can be permanently undone; the primary definition of "Clear". I do consider dianetics to provide very significant insight into "the unconscious", a vast land of extending far beyond all Hubbard Freud Jung Laing and Alfred E. Neuman have ever said of it. I would also say, from personal experience, there is spiritual highground worthy of such a term as clear but note though I have some lengthy sojourns there I do not find it, at least on this side of the pale, to have the permanence explicit in Hubbard's hyperbole

Dianetics is an optional study Gibsie. If it means little to you so be it. Hatha yoga means little to me but I certainly respect the visible benefits gained by it's best students and I would ask of you pray tell me why should you have such scant respect for someone as I who clearly essayed such things as the wondrous weeks I gave hospice to Billy Martin in his dying days...

?Que pas amigo?

Why dost thou not deign to respect such great and warm passion?

 

[Clay Pigeon]

My recollection, and in honor of Count Alfred Korzybski who oddly enough discovered the phenomenon just the decade prior to the plagiarist getting his hands on it and spinning a web of lying case histories so as to manufacture the basis and credibility necessary to sell it.
There need be sufficient overwhelm and threat to continued survival that the rational mind checks out and the subconscious takes over.
From there the event is cross-wired by the sub-conscious to "earlier similar" memories which all would have to be earlier to the event at hand of course or a "chain" could not be created.
I never experienced any actual relief from running out the stuff but this is how, in theory, it's supposed to work.
And what took me less than half a page to describe, he managed to spin a massive impossible to fully digest "manual" on it - DMSMH
Of course being we're not describing anything experienced by all there would be no reason to be anally exact in how we define "it".
This is how he became "The Wordler", as he mastered the art of spinning mental prisons from a spider's web of words.

Damn!

I still haven't read Korzybski...

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Ya, and my old memory seems to be telling me that and "engram" also contains "a real or imaginary threat to survival" . . . or is that dub-in by me as a result of going through the trauma of 28 years of Scientology???

Oi thinks Oi spies a tall ship flying The Jolly Roger Oi do...

Methinks ye would be loathe to admit it but inwardly ye knoweth had ye not gone through 28 years of scientraumagy ye'd have had 28 years of trauma elsewhere and with fewer odd and rare delights

 

[DagwoodGum]

On the other hand if it's a multiple choice where I can only check either yay or nay I check yay.

 

[Gib]

I continue to speak well of dianetics because I have used it well with frequent very good result and not uncommonly with exceptional and even extraordinary result.

I don't write of"clear" and in fact I question whether there is a "Reactive Mind" per se which can be permanently undone; the primary definition of "Clear". I do consider dianetics to provide very significant insight into "the unconscious", a vast land of extending far beyond all Hubbard Freud Jung Laing and Alfred E. Neuman have ever said of it. I would also say, from personal experience, there is spiritual highground worthy of such a term as clear but note though I have some lengthy sojourns there I do not find it, at least on this side of the pale, to have the permanence explicit in Hubbard's hyperbole

Dianetics is an optional study Gibsie. If it means little to you so be it. Hatha yoga means little to me but I certainly respect the visible benefits gained by it's best students and I would ask of you pray tell me why should you have such scant respect for someone as I who clearly essayed such things as the wondrous weeks I gave hospice to Billy Martin in his dying days...

?Que pas amigo?

Why dost thou not deign to respect such great and warm passion?

That's fine Commander,

your poetry doesn't appeal to me. Nor your rhetoric.

I hate to say this, and I wish you well, and I appreciate your stories of Billy Martin, and of your wins,

but I'm a younger buck than you and so are so many others who were involved, and chances are my poetry and rhetoric and others will last longer than yours, just say'in.

Like I said, you ought to write a book, based on the works of L Ron Hubbard, Commander Birdsong wins, I don't know, what title would you use?

But then again, your book would place Hubbard in the limelight and not you. Is that what you want to happen?

 

[Gib]

I continue to speak well of dianetics because I have used it well with frequent very good result and not uncommonly with exceptional and even extraordinary result.

I don't write of"clear" and in fact I question whether there is a "Reactive Mind" per se which can be permanently undone; the primary definition of "Clear". I do consider dianetics to provide very significant insight into "the unconscious", a vast land of extending far beyond all Hubbard Freud Jung Laing and Alfred E. Neuman have ever said of it. I would also say, from personal experience, there is spiritual highground worthy of such a term as clear but note though I have some lengthy sojourns there I do not find it, at least on this side of the pale, to have the permanence explicit in Hubbard's hyperbole

Dianetics is an optional study Gibsie. If it means little to you so be it. Hatha yoga means little to me but I certainly respect the visible benefits gained by it's best students and I would ask of you pray tell me why should you have such scant respect for someone as I who clearly essayed such things as the wondrous weeks I gave hospice to Billy Martin in his dying days...

?Que pas amigo?

Why dost thou not deign to respect such great and warm passion?

as you said:

I continue to speak well of dianetics because I have used it well with frequent very good result and not uncommonly with exceptional and even extraordinary result.

OK, got proof?

Or is your statement rhetoric?

 

[Gib]

And why should we believe you Clay Pigeon?

What are your rhetorical appeals to persuasion?

1. What is your logos, or logic?

2. What is your pathos or emotions"

3. What is your ethos or ethical character appeal?

So far, I have no reason to believe anything you say.

 

[ThetanExterior]

These days it seems to be generally recognised that emotions can get trapped in body tissues and there are massage techniques to release them. This is probably the explanation for OT III. Google something like "massage to release negative energy" to see what's available.

As for exteriorisation - I would say scientology doesn't guarantee an out-of-body experience but it does guarantee an out-of-money experience.

 

[RogerB]

Actually, Clay Pigeon is presenting what he/she has observed in rational and logical terms; not in prejudicial and dismissive terms as those who would simply attempt debunk do.

There is, today, a whole body of science and research being carried out that validates Clay P's view and findings.

The links below are to two such organizations/researchers. One is an outfit called: Collective Evolution and the other is a Professor of Neuroscience, University of Arizona, Dr. Mario Beauregard Ph.D.

For those interested, you can go to the links, listen to the taped interview, and also do some reading on what it being found.

They are, in actuality, way behind what the guys I am connected with are finding . . . this because Dr. Beauregard had begun from the position and view of the mechanistic world view that he then set out to disprove . . . my team began from the position of human performance and what was observably workable in getting results in improvement.

I posted earlier on the point that one of my gang won the International Remote Viewing Society annual competition a year or two ago . . . this being a matter of pure spiritual ability to perform.

These are the links:

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/e/6/c/e6c...17253572&hwt=a023addbd0cd5937b65ad00a2977b697
Website: ExpandingRealityMovie .com
His site https://drmariobeauregard.com/
Dr. Mario Beauregard Ph.D. Neuroscience, University of Arizona

 

[DagwoodGum]

Spending more time thinking it over I would have to say that it was more a matter of being un-grounded that lead to wandering blindly into its clutches. Any reasonable amount of grounding in any decent specter of "normalcy" should have, at least in theory, prevented one's unchecked migration over into anything that was entirely based upon the exaggerated claims of a lunatic as one would have picked up on it. Just one of those 2020 hindsight theories admittedly.

 

[phenomanon]

Spending more time thinking it over I would have to say that it was more a matter of being un-grounded that lead to wandering blindly into its clutches. Any reasonable amount of grounding in any decent specter of "normalcy" should have, at least in theory, prevented one's unchecked migration over into anything that was entirely based upon the exaggerated claims of a lunatic as one would have picked up on it. Just one of those 2020 hindsight theories admittedly.

There was only Dianetics when I 'got in'. All of us in Phoenix in the beginning years of 1950 had read the May issue of the book, DMSMH. were interested in the theory of the engram and the reactive mind. Dianetics was better than anything else I had going on in my life, so that should give you a clue as to why it wasn't stupid for me to join Scn. The first few coffeeshop sessions I had blew me away Those were in 1952. In Phoenix.

 

[phenomanon]

There was only Dianetics when I 'got in'. All of us in Phoenix in the beginning years of 1950 had read the May issue of the book, DMSMH. were interested in the theory of the engram and the reactive mind. Dianetics was better than anything else I had going on in my life, so that should give you a clue as to why it wasn't stupid for me to join Scn. The first few coffeeshop sessions I had blew me away Those were in 1952. In Phoenix.

To clarify: The word "scn", was being bandied about in 1952. The hardcore, original Dn'ists were arguing about the merits of the new stuff Ron was issuing.
It wasn't Dn anymore. ( We were doing a version of Route One). Late 1952. Then Hisself announced scn as a religion in what? 1954.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

That's fine Commander,

your poetry doesn't appeal to me. Nor your rhetoric.

I hate to say this, and I wish you well, and I appreciate your stories of Billy Martin, and of your wins,

but I'm a younger buck than you and so are so many others who were involved, and chances are my poetry and rhetoric and others will last longer than yours, just say'in.

Like I said, you ought to write a book, based on the works of L Ron Hubbard, Commander Birdsong wins, I don't know, what title would you use?

But then again, your book would place Hubbard in the limelight and not you. Is that what you want to happen?

How About "Super Bowling down Diagon Alley"?

Conference Game weekend I was out carousing until past five AM Sunday. I was awake at game time but chose to slip back in the arms of Morpheus and and did not blossom from my bed roll 'til nearly two. When I finally got to Amal's Deli with it's large flatscreen behind the counter it was more than a minute into the fourth quarter, Brady was on his ass with the ball deep in his own end and the Jags were up 20-10.

Hmmm...

Plenty of time on the clock. In Tom we trust. Pieces well arrayed on - the checker match is over - the checkered chessboard; here a knight makes a hook to the left; here we hit the bishop flying the diagonal; check and BANG, check and Mate...

But back before his first title against a two TD fave I augured Tom Terrific for five rings. He's got five rings...

Six is on the table...

And there's a reason why we play the games.





I hate playing the Showboatin' Showoff Gibsie

But if yer gonna push me...

 

[Clay Pigeon]

as you said:

I continue to speak well of dianetics because I have used it well with frequent very good result and not uncommonly with exceptional and even extraordinary result.

OK, got proof?

Or is your statement rhetoric?

I speak of moments with others which were in vitro not in Model Session. It is true I might have been much wiser if I had kept a daily journal.

Not an awful lot of rhetoric, poetry is my garnish for the meat; I want those at the table to eat, not come under a spell

And the upper range is beyond any possibilty of proof. To be and to impinge from "tones 37-40" as they are known leaves no telltale clues to cause and effect. I've been right there with my Patriots since 1962, but... uhh... i'm just a fan

 

[Clay Pigeon]

And why should we believe you Clay Pigeon?

What are your rhetorical appeals to persuasion?

1. What is your logos, or logic?

2. What is your pathos or emotions"

3. What is your ethos or ethical character appeal?

So far, I have no reason to believe anything you say.

1. If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't move, move it. If you can't move it hit it up with dayglo paint.

2. 73% of my pathos is that left-handed Black Irish ex-nun who bore our sons; the rest is a mixed bag. My inner world is twisted grotesque mass of shrapnel and scar tissue punctuated gracefully in small pockets where mud has accrued by patches of wildflowers. My emotions range vertically from adolescent to sublime and laterally from Dahlonega to Timbuktu

3. I am a "God fearing man"; may I be held to account in Divine Presence to that Which Is Greater Than Ourselves.
The Instruction Manual directs us to tell the simple truth. Not all truth is simple. And I have, at times Obfuscated when cornered by a cop a judge or a frumious bandersnatch. But I find scarce need to deceive my more virulent critics as they so busily deceive themselves


It has been said the true tragedy of the chronic liar is not that no one believes him but that he cannot believe when others speak truthfully.

Perhaps you never will have reason to believe what is written

 

[Clay Pigeon]

To clarify: The word "scn", was being bandied about in 1952. The hardcore, original Dn'ists were arguing about the merits of the new stuff Ron was issuing.
It wasn't Dn anymore. ( We were doing a version of Route One). Late 1952. Then Hisself announced scn as a religion in what? 1954.

More! MORE!!!

Anything and everything ya got from 50's PLEASE!

Did you know Wing Angel?

 

[Gib]

More! MORE!!!

Anything and everything ya got from 50's PLEASE!

Did you know Wing Angel?

If you want to know more about the 50's, why you ought to want to more about the 1949 period involving Heinlein/Campbell/Hubbard in the letters
I mentioned on my Dean Wilbur tread. It costs a few bucks.

In there those letters are some fascinating info on the development of dianetics, or rhetoric of Hubbard, a blow by blow account between the 3. In the end, Heinlein tells Campbell he was right to wait and see if a clear and attributes could be had, for Campbell kept trying to sell Heinlein on dianetics and engrams. Campbell is most likely Hubbard's first trained auditor seeking the promise land of clear. Heinlein is the first critic or questioning soul of a human being.

In other words, Heinlein was right to question Hubbard and Campbell all along before the release of dianetics and basically said it's bullocks but because he was friends and had a business relationship with the two, he didn't say Hubbard was full of shit. Campbell did say Hubbard had it all wrong to Heinlein.

Don't take my word for it, Mr Birdsong or Clay Pigeon, (somebody who wants them to shoot at you), read the Campbell/Heinlein letters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_pigeon_shooting

 

[Gib]

Gib,

You said "Afterall, a engram is really just a stressful event".
Not just that. According to Hubbard's use of the term "engram" it must also include unconsciousness.

opps, you are correct. I must have been unconscious when I wrote that post, or not in PT, or maybe an engramic statement came out, ROFLMAO

 

[DagwoodGum]

There was only Dianetics when I 'got in'. All of us in Phoenix in the beginning years of 1950 had read the May issue of the book, DMSMH. were interested in the theory of the engram and the reactive mind. Dianetics was better than anything else I had going on in my life, so that should give you a clue as to why it wasn't stupid for me to join Scn. The first few coffeeshop sessions I had blew me away Those were in 1952. In Phoenix.

If I could rewrite the OP I would ask "do you consider joining Scn/DN with the limited information you had at hand a "stupid decision" in hindsight? What would you have to say to that earlier self now that you know more that could possibly change your decision making process if you had the chance?" I wouldn't ask "whether you were stupid" as we all know that a brilliant mind can misdirect and choose in error if one's information is in error but perhaps it was worded that way to generate controversy and not be so easy to answer. A dumb choice does not mean a dumb person, of course not.

 

[pineapple]

If you want to know more about the 50's, why you ought to want to more about the 1949 period involving Heinlein/Campbell/Hubbard in the letters
I mentioned on my Dean Wilbur tread. It costs a few bucks.

In there those letters are some fascinating info on the development of dianetics, or rhetoric of Hubbard, a blow by blow account between the 3. In the end, Heinlein tells Campbell he was right to wait and see if a clear and attributes could be had, for Campbell kept trying to sell Heinlein on dianetics and engrams. Campbell is most likely Hubbard's first trained auditor seeking the promise land of clear. Heinlein is the first critic or questioning soul of a human being.

In other words, Heinlein was right to question Hubbard and Campbell all along before the release of dianetics and basically said it's bullocks but because he was friends and had a business relationship with the two, he didn't say Hubbard was full of shit. Campbell did say Hubbard had it all wrong to Heinlein.

Don't take my word for it, Mr Birdsong or Clay Pigeon, (somebody who wants them to shoot at you), read the Campbell/Heinlein letters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_pigeon_shooting

There's also some good stuff about this period in Vol 2 of Heinlein's authorized biography, "Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with his Century: 1948-1988," by William H. Patterson, Jr. You can probably pick this up at the public library.
https://www.amazon.com/Heinlein-Dialogue-Century-1948-1988-Learned/dp/0765319632

Among other things, Heinlein in a quoted letter (to Campbell, I think) mentions attending a Dianetics event in 1953 at which A. E. Van Vogt and Ron Howes were present. Van Vogt was doing Dn but had cooled off on Hubbard. Heinlein says Van Vogt believed Howes to be the only real clear.

Ah, just googled Ron Howes and here's the part of the book I mentioned.

https://books.google.com/books?id=M...IWDAJ#v=onepage&q=dianetics ron howes&f=false