Auditing minus Scientology exist?

[Spazz]

I'd say if somebody has been abused and harmed by scientology (scientology, not scientologists) yet still thinks well of Hubbard's work and still uses the tech, then there must be something wrong with their reasoning faculties. Providing they are not breaking the rules this board should be open to anybody who wants to contribute.

I do what I can to warn people of the dangers of getting involved with scientology, and I do what I can to hinder those who seek to promote it.

That is a very interesting differentiation Stratman.

But it needs some clarification.

As I have said, I am a trained auditor, CLIV. The materials on the courses have always seemed to be 90-95 percent wholesome and gentle. Of course, HCOPL "Keeping Scientology Working" was on every course and I cringed every time I read Ron saying "I don't see where democracy has ever given man anything but high taxes". Not only has it provided sovereign sanction for civil rights such as freedom of speech and worship (backed up by guaranteed access to firepower), The Falklands War was a strange anomaly as it marked the first and still only example of a war between nations with governments built on strong democratic forms. And then points 6-10 quickly lead to many abuses. But the tech was good and it has continued to be useful since I left nor do I know of any of the dianetic or CLIV tech ever doing any harm to anyone.

But Scientology is both Red on White and Green on White and much harm has come from scientologists applying scientology policy. Does that harm come from scientologists or scientology? Personally I think it comes from neither but from jackasses who have no idea what auditing is all about and shouldn't be involved with the subject and these are a small minority while most students of Hubbard's work are decent sorts; men and women of good will.

And these are the ones who get harmed by the jackasses.

 

[strativarius]

That is a very interesting differentiation Stratman.

But it needs some clarification.

As I have said, I am a trained auditor, CLIV. The materials on the courses have always seemed to be 90-95 percent wholesome and gentle. Of course, HCOPL "Keeping Scientology Working" was on every course and I cringed every time I read Ron saying "I don't see where democracy has ever given man anything but high taxes". Not only has it provided sovereign sanction for civil rights such as freedom of speech and worship (backed up by guaranteed access to firepower), The Falklands War was a strange anomaly as it marked the first and still only example of a war between nations with governments built on strong democratic forms. And then points 6-10 quickly lead to many abuses. But the tech was good and it has continued to be useful since I left nor do I know of any of the dianetic or CLIV tech ever doing any harm to anyone.

But Scientology is both Red on White and Green on White and much harm has come from scientologists applying scientology policy. Does that harm come from scientologists or scientology? Personally I think it comes from neither but from jackasses who have no idea what auditing is all about and shouldn't be involved with the subject and these are a small minority while most students of Hubbard's work are decent sorts; men and women of good will.

And these are the ones who get harmed by the jackasses.

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in a long drawn out discussion on the merits or otherwise of scientology processing. Apart from the incidental relief someone may get from a bit of 'unburdening' while talking about their problems or other issues to an auditor, the rest of it is bollocks!

The bottom line is: Show me a clear!

 

[Veda]

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in a long drawn out discussion on the merits or otherwise of scientology processing. Apart from the incidental relief someone may get from a bit of 'unburdening' while talking about their problems or other issues to an auditor, the rest of it is bollocks!

The bottom line is: Show me a clear!

Spazz is the banned Commander Birdsong, most recently known as the banned Dr. Smellfungus.

The point of this thread was to provide a thread where someone, interested or enchanted, by the 0.5% of Scientology that has some potential value, can communicate.

[video=youtube;fBA6pUdA2NA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBA6pUdA2NA[/video]


[video=youtube;KhVhhBTrmhY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhVhhBTrmhY[/video]
Abreaction process used to bring relief and then enslave.
​

 

[uniquemand]

Your judgment of Birdsong upsets me. He met me ONCE when I was leaving the Church, in a coffeeshop, and he talked me out of suicidal thoughts. Two decades later, he remembered me clearly, and was kind to me again. Whatever you may think of him, his mind works just fine, and he is a person of empathy and goodwill.

 

[Anonycat]

Your judgment of Birdsong upsets me. He met me ONCE when I was leaving the Church, in a coffeeshop, and he talked me out of suicidal thoughts. Two decades later, he remembered me clearly, and was kind to me again. Whatever you may think of him, his mind works just fine, and he is a person of empathy and goodwill.

If his mind worked fine, he wouldn't have been banned here numerous times, and using numerous lies and socks. And I feel the same about the claimed .5% of the cult working fine. They are both bullshit. I'm sure he'd like to tell you yet again about how he saved a sports game with telepathy, and about the good benefits of the cult. It's the magic of the cult!

 

[Veda]

[video=youtube;Zhoos1oY404]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhoos1oY404[/video]

-snip-

the claimed .5% of the cult working fine.

-snip-

0.5% of the subject.

That means a tiny fraction of a fraction of the vast sea of verbiage.

The objective in recognizing this is to extricate people from Scientology.

 

[WildKat]

I snagged this from the comments from Tony's blog, a commenter "Mick Roberts" said something that might be relevant here.....

Clipped quote:
.... independent Scientologists who are against the practices of the official “church”, yet still believe fully in L. Ron Hubbard…..the problem is that the practices of CoS are directly attributable to the policies as written by LRH himself. The “church” is only following those policies, so it’s disingenuous to separate the two when complaining about the “direction of the church”. You simply cannot blame the “church” for its policies and also defend LRH as this infallible individual. They are both inextricably linked to one another.

Separating the “good” from the “bad” in Scientology (such as just extrapolating only the auditing, communication courses, etc.) means separating BOTH the Church of Scientology AND L. Ron Hubbard, in many ways, from the “technology”. It’s fine to believe in the goodness of certain practices and teachings such as these which appear relatively benign (although that could be argued).

However, it is illogical to believe that the Church of Scientology is operating outside of the directives of L. Ron Hubbard. They simply are not. They are implementing his policies about Fair Game, disconnection, Suppressive Person declarations, etc. to the letter as LRH wrote them himself. You either must defend both the “church” and Hubbard for these policies that give Scientology a “bad rap”, or you must criticize both. There is no “middle ground” on any logical level that I can discern.
(End quote)

There are other comments about the "good" of Scn actually being ripped from other benign practices with Hubbard taking credit. When the only thing he deserves to take credit for are the abusive practices.

So why not just talk about these good bits OUTSIDE of Scn? Why even relate it to Scn?

In other words, why pick thru the dung heap of Scn to analyze the bits of corn? Why not just take a can of corn and talk about its nutritional benefits?

To give an example.....there is a psychology procedure called abreaction, a therapy that involves dealing with and relieving painful incidents. Maybe talk about that, instead of Hubbard's auditing tech, which is full of damaging crap?

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

I snagged this from the comments from Tony's blog, a commenter "Mick Roberts" said something that might be relevant here.....

Clipped quote:
.... independent Scientologists who are against the practices of the official “church”, yet still believe fully in L. Ron Hubbard…..the problem is that the practices of CoS are directly attributable to the policies as written by LRH himself. The “church” is only following those policies, so it’s disingenuous to separate the two when complaining about the “direction of the church”. You simply cannot blame the “church” for its policies and also defend LRH as this infallible individual. They are both inextricably linked to one another.

Separating the “good” from the “bad” in Scientology (such as just extrapolating only the auditing, communication courses, etc.) means separating BOTH the Church of Scientology AND L. Ron Hubbard, in many ways, from the “technology”. It’s fine to believe in the goodness of certain practices and teachings such as these which appear relatively benign (although that could be argued).

However, it is illogical to believe that the Church of Scientology is operating outside of the directives of L. Ron Hubbard. They simply are not. They are implementing his policies about Fair Game, disconnection, Suppressive Person declarations, etc. to the letter as LRH wrote them himself. You either must defend both the “church” and Hubbard for these policies that give Scientology a “bad rap”, or you must criticize both. There is no “middle ground” on any logical level that I can discern.
(End quote)

There are other comments about the "good" of Scn actually being ripped from other benign practices with Hubbard taking credit. When the only thing he deserves to take credit for are the abusive practices.

So why not just talk about these good bits OUTSIDE of Scn? Why even relate it to Scn?

In other words, why pick thru the dung heap of Scn to analyze the bits of corn? Why not just take a can of corn and talk about its nutritional benefits?

To give an example.....there is a psychology procedure called abreaction, a therapy that involves dealing with and relieving painful incidents. Maybe talk about that, instead of Hubbard's auditing tech, which is full of damaging crap?

Excellent qoute and excellent take Wildcat the only thing I would add is that pts/sp is part of the "tech"
of Hubbard and Scientology take it out or reform it and you no longer have Scientology and that is my basic beef
with so called Indie Scientology and people who want the name but not the truly shittier parts.

Why call it scientology ? why even make reference ? especially if you've determined it's benificial aspects are less
than 1% and even it were 50% its still a coin toss and to call that science or technology is truly laughable

You would'nt buy a car that started half the timewhy buy a philosophy like Whobards with an even worse
record than 50% ? I bought I bit until the BS got over the top of my waders

Live and learn eyes wide open or as Bhudha said "be mindful"

 

[Dulloldfart]

So why not just talk about these good bits OUTSIDE of Scn? Why even relate it to Scn?

In other words, why pick thru the dung heap of Scn to analyze the bits of corn? Why not just take a can of corn and talk about its nutritional benefits?

To give an example.....there is a psychology procedure called abreaction, a therapy that involves dealing with and relieving painful incidents. Maybe talk about that, instead of Hubbard's auditing tech, which is full of damaging crap?

There are the general concepts common to different modalities; there are also differing world-views and techniques.

I hope this quoted info is accurate. It is easy to read and understand.

Excerpted from https://www.verywell.com/understanding-abreaction-1065382 [emphasis is mine]

How Abreaction Relates to Dissociation and Trauma

An abreaction is an emotional, unconscious reaction that you have in response to a stimulus that brings back a painful situation you have experienced before. ...

Abreaction can also be used to describe the process a therapist uses to desensitize or help a patient to stop having these automatic reactions. ...

Abreaction, along with its counterpart catharsis, which refers to emotional release, were first discussed at length by Sigmund Freud and Josef Breuer in their early studies on psychoanalysis.​

OK, so we have abreaction meaning (1) the triggering (key-in in Scienospeak) of some hot topic; and also (2) the process (i.e., the general doing of it, not the Scn meaning of a specific technique) of inducing the release AND whatever else the therapist injects into the session/person. And catharsis as the emotional release part.

Three examples:

Freud . . . . yeah, well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis has the sentence Therefore, the early treatment techniques, including hypnotism and abreaction, were designed to make the unconscious conscious in order to relieve the pressure and the apparently resulting symptoms. Which sounds good until you read the paragraph it comes in, talking about his ideas of infant sexuality getting repressed and causing etc, realizing the practitioner was expressing his ideas to the patient as well as thinking them .... In a worldview of materialism.

R3R Dianetics involves -- supposedly -- triggering some hot topic and relieving ("erasing") it through recreating it in one's mind sequentially, like a movie, and talking about it. The practitioner insists on running the rote procedure, but otherwise tries not to inject his own opinions/comments into the person's view of it. In a worldview of quadrillions-of-years-old thetans and bodies and between-lives-implants etc.

My own Rub & Yawn technique -- used as an accompaniment to many different procedures -- involves discharge, catharsis. In a worldview of bodies and spiritual realms, very different to either of the above.

Until you get into the specific nitty-gritty at the technique level, it's not too useful to discuss abreaction and catharsis. Particularly as the underlying what's-really-going-on of building up "charge" in traumatic incidents, triggering it, and relieving it are not well understood by ANYONE as far as I can tell.

-----

EDIT: The first link talks about the need to adjust the person's "wrong" thinking as part of the cure. It's better than I made it sound! CBT, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, is marvellous for this, as far as I can tell. Freud's adjusting was horrible; and Hubbard didn't try, at least not as part of the auditing procedure. Several years ago I spent well over 50 hours making up a PaulsRobot CBT module, but eventually decided I couldn't do it without grossly violating the author's copyright of the CBT book I was using for the basis. I don't know if it would have worked or not, but I never let it out of the gate. In a way it's a shame, as CBT seems a bit light on the abreaction/catharsis angle, and PaulsRobot is mostly missing the rethinking angle.

Paul