What's new

A First Question…

Gib

Crusader
Well, I got my own beliefs and my own purpose but I'm sort of, in the same boat as some people here. So, if their experience can give me a clue that will give me a direction, then I want that information. So far I have gained information that I didn't have before. I don't like scientology, my bets are with dianetics but the only source of that was in the church. Now I know that the data I had was wrong. Now I know that the method used in dianetics originate on psychological therapy known as abreaction and that there is a more modern version called TIR.

As for the ideas or conclusions someone else might have reached about dianetics and scientology, I don't have to accept them blindly. I have to live by my own experience. I accept that all I saw was a small part of the church and that I don't really know much about the Sea Org so try to make sense of what I hear. There are things that go beyond my understanding.

So, unless this is a site for ex scientologist that want to bash in the church and any one who doesn't agree with their views, I will be here for a while. If hate is a requirement, then I will leave because I have enough problems in my life already.

Dianetics is based on the premise that once all engrams (TIR) are cleared, we have a "clear". Dianetics tells a story of hubbard clearing people who have eradicated psychosomatic illness's which according to that book comprise 70% of man's illness's or problems. And the result of clearing these engrams will result in a well and happy person, who has perfect recall, etc.

That is hubbard's use of Rhetoric to persuade. And he did a mighty good job of it, he always claimed he was a writer. Scientology follows the same blueprint.

Now, there is a difference between helping a person resolve some personal issue, vs what another says is their personal issue. The bridge to Total Freedom is telling a person what is wrong with them.

And a company advertising on TV saying your personal issue (problem) is ..................... and we can solve it..........

I do believe the company known as Dianetics/scientology do this

as well as others known as pharmaceutical companies, etc.

reference:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

"Protects you from intellectual despotism. I had a classics professor that said, “Advertising is the tool of the despot.” That idea really stuck with me. Since ancient times, powerful men have used propaganda to maintain control over their subjects. According to my professor, advertising is just a benign name for propaganda. Both rely on emotional appeals to change our ideas and feelings about a cause, position, or product."

In dianetics one is supposed to become "clear". That is a emotional appeal in that It's like "wow", an emotion, if I can recall everything that happened to me, I'd be a god, and can change the world. When one reads Dianetics, one might conclude that..

 
Last edited:

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
Dianetics is based on the premise that once all engrams (TIR) are cleared, we have a "clear".
IMHO engrams (Scientology definition) DO exist, but they are not slobbering, hairy monsters coming to get you. They are simply thoughts. If you think that a particular happening will result in your getting hurt, you will tend to avoid that happening (practically the definition of neurosis). Add to that the fact that these same thoughts can affect the body's functioning. "Refiling engrams" simply means realizing that that thought will NOT result in a crisis/a difficulty/trouble; that's when it loses it's power over you.

IMHO a Clear has no reactive mind, but can still have engrams. I think of the reactive mind as sort of a flypaper that engrams stick to. Once this is gone, the remaining engrams can be blown by inspection (I've been doing a LOT of that these days).


And the result of clearing these engrams will result in a well and happy person, who has perfect recall, etc.
I'm sure a Dianetics completion will achieve these things, but only somewhat. If you want perfect sanity you still have a long way to go.

if I can recall everything that happened to me, I'd be a god, and can change the world. When one reads Dianetics, one might conclude that..
I'm sure a lot of people DID conclude that. Not true, no way. An example of LRH's overstating the benefits, if only implicitly.

Helena
 

Gib

Crusader
I left scientology because I did not feel that I belonged and, perhaps, because I feared my issues would never be resolved. Since leaving I have been reading about Hubbard, dianetics and scientology, trying to make heads or tails of the whole thing.

Since I never witnessed any “wrong” doings inside the organization, I gave very little value to what some people out there were claiming and didn’t bother to hide the fact that I didn’t. To this day I’m not a detractor of scientology, or, rather, the church. They are not one and the same thing.

Reading some of the comments on this site and the information about idenics, I realized that I might be wrong. We always witness a small part of what we see. We don’t see what is hidden in the shadows and, even if we did, all we are capable of witnessing is a small portion of what is really going on.

This is not only true about us as individuals, it’s also true about us as a collective. We only have bits and pieces of the reality that surrounds us. What’s more, we can’t be sure that what the guy next to us says he saw is really true. There is just no way to ascertain that. The point of view of each of us is faulty because we apply our particular filters to what we see and give our particular twist, or interpretation, to it. It’s not that we want to lie, it’s that we are human and are not perfect, no matter what we want to believe.

There are those among us out there who have particular skills weaving tales. You see those people in politics weaving confusing interpretations of what is going on with our government. Some of them want us to believe that it’s all good, others, that it’s all evil and all shades in between. Each hands over as evidence particular interpretations of events that they weave together to give credibility to their tale. In the end, we don’t really know who is telling the truth, nor who we should believe, so, we must chose a reality and hope that it’s the right one.

The same thing happens with history. The winner, the person who has the power, gets to weave that tale. His version of what happened becomes accepted history. It’s what we are taught in school but there are those that dig into history and find certain details that permits them to weave their own tale. A tale that will be a better fit to their ends. Whether those ends are political, or just plain greed, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that they weave a tale and get other people to believe it.

In the end all they generate is confusion. We lose sight of what is true and we might never be able to find it. Because of that we are forced to walk our path in confusion. Never knowing if our steps are taking us in the right direction, or if we are going to fall of a cliff.

Because of this I have decided to abandon my efforts to find out the truth about a situation I seem to have lived in the 50’s where some one died in a dianetics center, perhaps in Elizabeth, NJ, while trying to get to Hubbard. For all I know that was the creation of an overactive imagination. In any case, what ever happened back there is not important. What is important is what I do with my life now.

So, in an effort to clear my mind of doubts, misinformation, programming, or any chains I may have accepted or acquired in my relationship with scientology, or similar philosophies, I would ask a couple of questions that some of you might be able to answer. In this writing I will try to ask an initial question. I will ask more as my understanding expands.

The question seems simple to me but, that’s from my point of view. Something that might be faulty.

I would like to know about the hook, the line and the sinker, that got us into scientology. I’m not talking about what keep people in, I’m talking about the basic stuff. What brought us into scientology.

In my case the hook and the bait were the book and the promises in it. Particularly the idea that I could recover lost abilities, learn the process to accomplish this and apply it to my family and friends.

I did not care much for the superman idea. I was not interested in turning into homosuperior, or any such thing. I though Hubbard was exaggerating things but, even so, I walked in, tried the process and saw enough possibilities to decide to continue my experience.

In time I realized that I was being pushed away from dianetics into something else that I did not like. I complied for a while but it became apparent that what I wanted could not possibly be found in the church. In the end, I walked out and have not returned, nor do I have plans to do so even though, from my point of view, there is no one else that has the tools they have.

So, what brought you in?

One could ask the same of any religion.

Although scientology is not a religion, but simply Hubbardology.

Maybe other religions are the same? :confused2:
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
I left scientology because I did not feel that I belonged and, perhaps, because I feared my issues would never be resolved.
My last time on lines, in 1997, was at Flag. They wanted to put me on New OT 6, but I figured someone at my level should be in better shape and not just pushed up onto the next level ("keep on hoping"). So they put me on FPRD which was useless and I didn't even consider to be auditing. I left and never went back. (Even as I was on my way to the airport I was worried that I was making a BG mistake, but I got over it.)

So, what brought you in?
One could ask the same of any religion.

Although scientology is not a religion, but simply Hubbardology.

Maybe other religions are the same? :confused2:
I'm not into Hubbardology any more. I'm into Robertsonism. :biggrin:

Helena
 
I was 16 when I got in, in 1955. I read 'The Evolution of a Science' in Astounding science fiction magazine, and got hooked by its promises. Then I found 'Science of Survival' at the library and read that. A bit confused by the change to Theta/Mest theory and past lives. Next step was an ad in the paper that led me to Keith Gerry. He had a practice in Johannesburg, and wanted to try out the Six Levels of Processing which had just come out, before inflicting them on his paying preclears. So he offered me a free course of processing.


A year later I did an HPA course, and a year after that a B.Scn course, with a few refresher courses in between. I had no intention to become an auditor, as I just wanted to learn about what makes the universe and people tick, and to improve my memory and theta abilities.


About a year after that, I learned about all the faults of Psycho-analysis, and realised that Scientology had all the same faults. I went in to the HASI offices and asked to see some evidence for Scientology's theories. I was promptly declared n SP, and all my Scientology friends were told to have nothing further to do with me and to sieze any opportunity to do me dirt.

I then started educating myself in Philosophy, Physics, Psychology, Evolution, etc.


Mike
 

LongTimeGone

Silver Meritorious Patron
I was 16 when I got in, in 1955. I read 'The Evolution of a Science' in Astounding science fiction magazine, and got hooked by its promises. Then I found 'Science of Survival' at the library and read that. A bit confused by the change to Theta/Mest theory and past lives. Next step was an ad in the paper that led me to Keith Gerry. He had a practice in Johannesburg, and wanted to try out the Six Levels of Processing which had just come out, before inflicting them on his paying preclears. So he offered me a free course of processing.


A year later I did an HPA course, and a year after that a B.Scn course, with a few refresher courses in between. I had no intention to become an auditor, as I just wanted to learn about what makes the universe and people tick, and to improve my memory and theta abilities.


About a year after that, I learned about all the faults of Psycho-analysis, and realised that Scientology had all the same faults. I went in to the HASI offices and asked to see some evidence for Scientology's theories. I was promptly declared n SP, and all my Scientology friends were told to have nothing further to do with me and to sieze any opportunity to do me dirt.

I then started educating myself in Philosophy, Physics, Psychology, Evolution, etc.


Mike

Hi Mike,

Well that certainly was an interesting and different way to get involved. I was fascinated by DMSMH and that's how I got trapped.

Fancy you having the gall to ask for evidence; some people have no faith. :eyeroll:

LTG
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I just discovered I have a book on TIR by Gerald D. French and Chrys J. Harris. It is as disingenuous as Hubbard about the subject's origins. There is no mention in the index of Dianetics or Hubbard, instead referring to Gerbode and Steve Bisbey. Bisbey had been an auditor at Saint Hill Foundation for many years in the 70s (he even gave me a Dianetics session or two around 1975), then became a notorious squirrel auditing in East Grinstead in the 80s.

The book mentions the "first-ever TIR Workshop, taught by French in 1989 at the Institute for Research in Metapsychology in Menlo Park, CA." Metapsychology is the name Gerbode gave to his rewritten Scientology subject.

There is no mention of Clear in the index.

Paul
 
Last edited:

jibaro

Patron
Dianetics is based on the premise that once all engrams (TIR) are cleared, we have a "clear". Dianetics tells a story of hubbard clearing people who have eradicated psychosomatic illness's which according to that book comprise 70% of man's illness's or problems. And the result of clearing these engrams will result in a well and happy person, who has perfect recall, etc.

That is hubbard's use of Rhetoric to persuade. And he did a mighty good job of it, he always claimed he was a writer. Scientology follows the same blueprint.

Now, there is a difference between helping a person resolve some personal issue, vs what another says is their personal issue. The bridge to Total Freedom is telling a person what is wrong with them.

And a company advertising on TV saying your personal issue (problem) is ..................... and we can solve it..........

I do believe the company known as Dianetics/scientology do this

as well as others known as pharmaceutical companies, etc.

reference:

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

In dianetics one is supposed to become "clear". That is a emotional appeal in that It's like "wow", an emotion, if I can recall everything that happened to me, I'd be a god, and can change the world. When one reads Dianetics, one might conclude that..


I do agree with you and, up to now, I see things pretty much as you do.

I will go one step further, there were always two paths to power, one was by force and the other by gaining the loyalty of people around you. So, someone realized that religion was a mighty tool to control people, so, religions were created. They have but one purpose, to control people. That is one of the reasons I'm not with the church. Some one may one day force me to be a slave but I will never become one voluntarily.
 

jibaro

Patron
I was 16 when I got in, in 1955. I read 'The Evolution of a Science' in Astounding science fiction magazine, and got hooked by its promises. Then I found 'Science of Survival' at the library and read that. A bit confused by the change to Theta/Mest theory and past lives. Next step was an ad in the paper that led me to Keith Gerry. He had a practice in Johannesburg, and wanted to try out the Six Levels of Processing which had just come out, before inflicting them on his paying preclears. So he offered me a free course of processing.


A year later I did an HPA course, and a year after that a B.Scn course, with a few refresher courses in between. I had no intention to become an auditor, as I just wanted to learn about what makes the universe and people tick, and to improve my memory and theta abilities.


About a year after that, I learned about all the faults of Psycho-analysis, and realised that Scientology had all the same faults. I went in to the HASI offices and asked to see some evidence for Scientology's theories. I was promptly declared n SP, and all my Scientology friends were told to have nothing further to do with me and to sieze any opportunity to do me dirt.

I then started educating myself in Philosophy, Physics, Psychology, Evolution, etc.


Mike

So was I, those promises grabbed my heart. Alas, you were wiser than me and realized early enough that there were other, more believable, paths. I wasted many years believing that the only people who had the "tech" was scientology. Even so, is never too late, and not everything I learned was false or unworkable.

But be careful. Science has it's faults too and, though you can find solid evidence for things in the "hard" sciences, the mind is a different potato. There's much more to us than science accepts. Perhaps now, with quantum physics, science will discover the energy that gives life to a body.
 

jibaro

Patron
I just discovered I have a book on TIR by Gerald D. French and Chrys J. Harris. It is as disingenuous as Hubbard about the subject's origins. There is no mention in the index of Dianetics or Hubbard, instead referring to Gerbode and Steve Bisbey. Bisbey had been an auditor at Saint Hill Foundation for many years in the 70s (he even gave me a Dianetics session or two around 1975), then became a notorious squirrel auditing in East Grinstead in the 80s.

The book mentions the "first-ever TIR Workshop, taught by French in 1989 at the Institute for Research in Metapsychology in Menlo Park, CA." Metapsychology is the name Gerbode gave to his rewritten Scientology subject.

There is no mention of Clear in the index.

Paul

Typical, I guess, take the spot light and ignore everyone else. Greed is man's worse enemy. I bet he did not mention the work of Freud either but information in the Internet mentions both Freud and his teacher. Funny though, Freud conveniently forgot his teacher when he reported the effectiveness of his abreactive therapy.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Typical, I guess, take the spot light and ignore everyone else. Greed is man's worse enemy. I bet he did not mention the work of Freud either but information in the Internet mentions both Freud and his teacher. Funny though, Freud conveniently forgot his teacher when he reported the effectiveness of his abreactive therapy.

There are a couple of brief mentions of Freud, one disparaging. The book says TIR came from Metapsychology. In the foreword to his "Beyond Psychology: An Introduction to Metapsychology" book, Gerbode does not shy away from mentioning his 13 years in Scientology, although I do think he fails to lay out the extent to which his work is a rewrite of Hubbard's stuff.

I imagine that there is no mention of Hubbard or Dianetics in the TIR book because it is being presented as a legitimate professional therapy, and any such association would impair its academic legitimacy.

Paul
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
There are a couple of brief mentions of Freud, one disparaging. The book says TIR came from Metapsychology. In the foreword to his "Beyond Psychology: An Introduction to Metapsychology" book, Gerbode does not shy away from mentioning his 13 years in Scientology, although I do think he fails to lay out the extent to which his work is a rewrite of Hubbard's stuff.

I imagine that there is no mention of Hubbard or Dianetics in the TIR book because it is being presented as a legitimate professional therapy, and any such association would impair its academic legitimacy.

Paul

I had an (occasional) chat with Steve Bisbey at the time Metapsychology was being developed, and he told me Sarge was influenced a lot by Carl Rogers as well as Scn. Rogerian therapy might mean more to you than it does to me.
 

Gib

Crusader
I had an (occasional) chat with Steve Bisbey at the time Metapsychology was being developed, and he told me Sarge was influenced a lot by Carl Rogers as well as Scn. Rogerian therapy might mean more to you than it does to me.

Here is Marty's latest blog post and interview which mentions Rogerian theraphy:

https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/investigation-discovery/

http://crimefeed.com/2015/04/ex-scientologist-marty-rathbun-reveals-church-leaders-dont-want-know/

"CF: Speaking of auditing, what is it like to sit in a session?

MR: I suppose like a Rogerian person-centered therapy session would be. Except ultimately the process is corrupted by introduction of conditions into that formula that wind up putting the client/adherent into a more tractable, controlled state of mind."
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I had an (occasional) chat with Steve Bisbey at the time Metapsychology was being developed, and he told me Sarge was influenced a lot by Carl Rogers as well as Scn. Rogerian therapy might mean more to you than it does to me.

Yeah. I describe Carl Rogers' work in this PaulsRobot3 page:
http://paulsrobot3.com/1st/theory.htm

And one of the three procedures (along with Reach & Withdraw on a topic and the 6-direction process) at my simpler mobile-friendly Robot site (http://paulsrobot.com) is Rogerian Therapy (more or less!).

Paul
 

jibaro

Patron
Just though to mention that I started a new thread with my second question, namely "what kept us in?.

Hey, is there any way to get a psychology diploma without expending a fortune (a fortune for me anyway)?
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Hey, is there any way to get a psychology diploma without expending a fortune (a fortune for me anyway)?

This one is free:
http://alison.com/courses/Diploma-in-Psychology

ALISON's free online Diploma in Psychology is an engaging course, and is packed with features to help students understand and evaluate classic and contemporary psychology. It is ideal for those who want to gain comprehensive understanding of the main elements of psychology, and will be of great benefit to students in their career progression.

Topics covered include classical conditioning, learning theory, the biological basis of behaviour, visual perceptions, memory, and cognition.

The Research Methodology section allows students to cast a critical eye on the research process, to explore the nature of psychology as an evolving science, and understand some of the ethical issues faced by psychologists.

Dunno how useful it is.

Paul
 
Top