Usefulness of Metered Clearing - Hubbardian and otherwise

[honeywhite]

Scientology, especially in its present form, is bunkum. That doesn't mean there aren't some good ideas, and I've drawn from it occasionally despite not being an official Scnist or anything of the sort (my religious affiliation is Anglican).

One of my friends is a Jungian analytical psychologist. That set me to thinking about the e-meter, as in a sense, it was Jung that discovered it (though the device was unamplified, ginormous, and the needle deflections were tiny). Hubbard categorised the many different kinds of deflections (including the all-important harmonic oscillation or floating needle). Matheson built an e-meter that you could carry around, amplified so its needle movements could be better read.

I know a few therapists that use the meter in a host of practices: straight Jung, Dianetics, Traumatic Incident Reduction, etc etc. I also found a refinement on the e-Meter concept that, for brevity's sake, I will call the M-meter (more-fully, the Mitchell bilateral electropsychometer). As far as I can tell, this measures the proportion of left-brained to right-brained electrical activity, and is particularly useful for determining whether confabulations or lies of omission are taking place. (the first one can be summarised as "but?" and the second as "and...?") Unfortunately, it's passed out of manufacture (was made by Clarity Meters and Psychotechnics), but I got hold of the schematics and made one myself. My friend pronounced it "transformational". You still need the old school e-Meter though; they sort of work as a team.

Does anyone else agree that metered therapy is promising? Or disagree, come to think of it?

 

[ThetanExterior]

My opinion is that if you have to rely on a meter to tell you about yourself then you'll end up as nuts as Hubbard and Captain Bill Robertson, to name but two. Far better to use natural methods of enlightenment of which there are many out there.

 

[Bill]

There is a missing step in all this: Is there any scientific evaluation of any type of "meter" that has determined exactly what the meter does? So far, it appears no more valid than palm reading.

I'm not attacking meters or those who use meters, I'm just asking if there is any scientific evaluation of meters because I don't think that has been done.

 

[Koot]

Scientology, especially in its present form, is bunkum. That doesn't mean there aren't some good ideas, and I've drawn from it occasionally despite not being an official Scnist or anything of the sort (my religious affiliation is Anglican).

One of my friends is a Jungian analytical psychologist. That set me to thinking about the e-meter, as in a sense, it was Jung that discovered it (though the device was unamplified, ginormous, and the needle deflections were tiny). Hubbard categorised the many different kinds of deflections (including the all-important harmonic oscillation or floating needle). Matheson built an e-meter that you could carry around, amplified so its needle movements could be better read.

I know a few therapists that use the meter in a host of practices: straight Jung, Dianetics, Traumatic Incident Reduction, etc etc. I also found a refinement on the e-Meter concept that, for brevity's sake, I will call the M-meter (more-fully, the Mitchell bilateral electropsychometer). As far as I can tell, this measures the proportion of left-brained to right-brained electrical activity, and is particularly useful for determining whether confabulations or lies of omission are taking place. (the first one can be summarised as "but?" and the second as "and...?") Unfortunately, it's passed out of manufacture (was made by Clarity Meters and Psychotechnics), but I got hold of the schematics and made one myself. My friend pronounced it "transformational". You still need the old school e-Meter though; they sort of work as a team.

Does anyone else agree that metered therapy is promising? Or disagree, come to think of it?

Continue please and don't look for anything but "Hubbard Bad" here.

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

Continue please and don't look for anything but "Hubbard Bad" here.

Well, you are welcome to give any reasons for "Hubbard Good" here.

 

[screamer2]

To quote an imaginary ghost of spoon boy: "there is no 'hubbard.'"

 

[Veda]

Scientology, especially in its present form, is bunkum. That doesn't mean there aren't some good ideas, and I've drawn from it occasionally despite not being an official Scnist or anything of the sort (my religious affiliation is Anglican).

One of my friends is a Jungian analytical psychologist. That set me to thinking about the e-meter, as in a sense, it was Jung that discovered it (though the device was unamplified, ginormous, and the needle deflections were tiny). Hubbard categorised the many different kinds of deflections (including the all-important harmonic oscillation or floating needle). Matheson built an e-meter that you could carry around, amplified so its needle movements could be better read.

I know a few therapists that use the meter in a host of practices: straight Jung, Dianetics, Traumatic Incident Reduction, etc etc. I also found a refinement on the e-Meter concept that, for brevity's sake, I will call the M-meter (more-fully, the Mitchell bilateral electropsychometer). As far as I can tell, this measures the proportion of left-brained to right-brained electrical activity, and is particularly useful for determining whether confabulations or lies of omission are taking place. (the first one can be summarised as "but?" and the second as "and...?") Unfortunately, it's passed out of manufacture (was made by Clarity Meters and Psychotechnics), but I got hold of the schematics and made one myself. My friend pronounced it "transformational". You still need the old school e-Meter though; they sort of work as a team.

Does anyone else agree that metered therapy is promising? Or disagree, come to think of it?

IMO, the e-meter has some limited usefulness.

Most Scientologists envision the e-meter works by passing a slight electrical current through the body which bounces off mental image pictures. Kind of silly.

In short, does anyone really know how it works?

And how effectively does it work? One downside of using a meter is that it prevents the development of an enhanced sense of intuition and perception.

During 1952 Hubbard briefly denounced it, in a footnote in Scientology 8-8008, as an unnecessary gadget. This was when he had lost the rights to the Mathison meter.

Paul ("Dulloldfart) Adams has done some interesting videos on meters.

 

[RogerB]

Actually, several points on this . . .

Honest folks do not invalidate their own perception . . . they look at what they see and say "that is what I see." To do anything else is nuts . . . now it is true that, even though one should honor what one is perceiving, one should inspect the relevance, accuracy and applicability of what one is perceiving.

Those that yap on about "no scientific" evaluation of the meter, etc., etc. Ignore the work of folks like Jung and those who developed the "lie detector" and the modern EEG devices used in medicine . . .

What has been very adequately demonstrated is that there IS a reaction on meters such as the emeter and/or "lie detector" and EEG and similar.

But the "meter" is only half of the equation on the matter. What has not been adequately studied and researched is: what is going on or occurring in the physical body and in what is referred to as "the mind" along with, what the hell is "the mind" anyway! These things have not been adequately researched and understood yet. Though, much is currently being done in the direction of attempting to unravel and understand "consciousness" as assumed to be the true and actual me and thee (us).

About 10 years ago I went through what could have been a "mini-stroke" (it was something else) . . . wanting to find out WTF, I went through all the usual tests, one of which was an EEG, or electroencephalogram . . . this is the test that reads your brain's electrical activity and output.

Hence we have in the above, proof that various instruments do "read" the changes in such things as electrical output and action and variations in resistance to electrical current as passed through the body.

It happens that the human body does, in many respects, run on electricity!!!

Examples:

Voltage-gated ion channels are a class of transmembrane proteins that form ion channels that are activated by changes in the electrical membrane potential near the channel. The membrane potential alters the conformation of the channel proteins, regulating their opening and closing.​

And,

A fascia (/ˈfæʃə/, /ˈfæʃiə/; plural fasciae /ˈfæʃɪ.i/; adjective fascial; from Latin: "band") is a band or sheet of connective tissue, primarily collagen, beneath the skin that attaches, stabilizes, encloses, and separates muscles and other internal organs.[1] Fascia is classified by layer, as superficial fascia, deep fascia, and visceral or parietal fascia, or by its function and anatomical location.​

​

Fascia happens to be Piezoelectric . . .​

Piezoelectric Effect is the ability of certain materials to generate an electric charge in response to applied mechanical stress. The word Piezoelectric is derived from the Greek piezein, which means to squeeze or press, and piezo, which is Greek for “push”.​

​

That is, the collagen fascia of your body generates electricity when stressed, as in muscular contraction!!​

As some colleagues I have been researching with put it: "Our bodies run on electricity."

And what has been adequately demonstrated by use of EEGs is that our THOUGHTS generate an electrical impulse.

Hence to put it all together we can see there is some validity in using meters such as the emeter or such to to attempt to observe actions/reactions of the "mind" . . . whatever the "mind" is . . . and there is the rub . . . what is still argued about in conventional science circles is: what the hell is the "mind," where in or about us does it reside, along with what is and where does "consciousness" or the "spirit" of our existence reside in each person.

The fact that "science" has not resolved the questions of who and what we are, etc., does not invalidate the observable phenomena of "reads" on instruments used to measure and register the action/reactions of the "mind"/spiritual presence in/with a living human body (in fact it is observed in ALL living forms, plants and animals) . . .

Though, apart from what "science" has determined about our existence, there is a mountain of info and proofs available outside of the "physical sciences" that there is spiritual existence that influences existence.

/

 

[Bill]

Those that yap on about "no scientific" evaluation of the meter, etc., etc. Ignore the work of folks like Jung and those who developed the "lie detector" and the modern EEG devices used in medicine . . .

What has been very adequately demonstrated is that there IS a reaction on meters such as the emeter and/or "lie detector" and EEG and similar.

"Yap"? Really? I think you are being too sensitive.

What's wrong with wanting to have the meter investigated in a scientific manner? You admit no one knows how it works and what it does. So why do you object so strongly to it being investigated?

I really don't get it.

 

[RogerB]

"Yap"? Really? I think you are being too sensitive.

What's wrong with wanting to have the meter investigated in a scientific manner? You admit no one knows how it works and what it does. So why do you object so strongly to it being investigated?

I really don't get it.

Ummm, who the fugg is objecting to the meter being investigated!!?? I actually think it should be . . . which, by the way is why I wrote so fulsomely on what is known versus what is not known or not fully understood on these matters and thus what should be investigated!!

You are right, you don't get it!

 

[Bill]

Ummm, who the fugg is objecting to the meter being investigated!!?? I actually think it should be . . . which, by the way is why I wrote so fulsomely on what is known versus what is not known or not fully understood on these matters and thus what should be investigated!!

You are right, you don't get it!

You don't count "Those that yap on about 'no scientific' evaluation of the meter, etc., etc. " as an attack on my suggestion that it should be investigated? You admit nobody knows. You are "fulsomely" aware there has been actual no scientific evaluation only old anecdotal "evidence" -- yet you make snide remarks when I say there should be a comprehensive study???

I specifically did not attack meters or those who use (and believe in) meters.

You seem unnecessarily defensive. But that's not my problem.

 

[RogerB]

You don't count "Those that yap on about 'no scientific' evaluation of the meter, etc., etc. " as an attack on my suggestion that it should be investigated? You admit nobody knows. You are "fulsomely" aware there has been actual no scientific evaluation only old anecdotal "evidence" -- yet you make snide remarks when I say there should be a comprehensive study???

I specifically did not attack meters or those who use (and believe in) meters.

You seem unnecessarily defensive. But that's not my problem.

you really are demonstrated your own truth, Bill . . . "you don't get it."

The other side of the coin that is rather obvious here to those who try to convey useful info . . . and that is that you throw "debunking" lies and and twists of actuality in the hope that some of the shit sticks . . .

It's a rather tired piece of nonsense that wastes folks time . . .

Bye

 

[Bill]

you really are demonstrated your own truth, Bill . . . "you don't get it."

The other side of the coin that is rather obvious here to those who try to convey useful info . . . and that is that you throw "debunking" lies and and twists of actuality in the hope that some of the shit sticks . . .

It's a rather tired piece of nonsense that wastes folks time . . .

Bye

Wow! OK. Well, I am thankful I don't have your problems. Take care. I hope things get better soon.

 

[a5a5a9]

Unfortunately, it's passed out of manufacture (was made by Clarity Meters and Psychotechnics), but I got hold of the schematics and made one myself. My friend pronounced it "transformational". You still need the old school e-Meter though; they sort of work as a team.

Does anyone else agree that metered therapy is promising? Or disagree, come to think of it?

honeywhite, Could you provide a copy of the schematics ?