Does anyone have any views on Scientology concepts that they used to believe in, but have subsequently observed to be incorrect? Or maybe Scientology concepts that they still believe to be true, having observed them to pan out in life? I don't want this thread to degenerate into a "Scientology is all bullshit" or "there are no Clears" type thread, so please save that for a different thread. Also, the intention of this thread is not to say "see, Scientology IS workable!" Rather, I'm just curious about what people jettison, and what they keep, in their models of the world, after they leave Scientology. And how long it takes for what part of Scientology think to drop away. Maybe a few examples will convey what I had in mind, from my own list of things. The tone scale: I was quite struck by this idea when I got into Scientology. And I STILL think that there are different emotions, and some of them are definitely 'higher' than others, some definitely 'lower'. Which, I suppose, does amount to a tone scale. But I drew the line at trying to give a numerical value to someone's tone level. Rather, I just had a sort of intuitive idea of what kind of level they were at. Also, even when in Scientology, I questioned how Hubbard could have known the upper and lower tone scales (needing bodies, hiding, etc, and action, games, postulates, serenity of beingness). I suppose now that he was just guessing. I have observed that there is a certain type of person that is covertly hostile a lot, another type that is angry a lot, and these all seem to me to be lower emotions. But do they follow the order that Hubbard said in his tone scale? I don't know. The idea of earlier-similar: I thought it was a clever idea when I first encountered it, that earlier incidents would 'lock up' later incidents of the same kind, and that going down the chain E/S would free up the later incidents. I now suspect that that is bullshit. Maybe it's true. Maybe not. But it doesn't seem so OBVIOUSLY true to me now as it did. Doesn't seem like a route to freer thinking, at any rate. TOTAL CAUSE: Before I got into Scientology, my idea of enlightenment was probably something similar to that of hindus or buddhists. That it was a blissful and aware state, but wasn't necessarily an ACTIVE state. At least, not active in the sense of TOTAL CAUSE. I now think that the idea of TOTAL CAUSE as a state of ultimate enlightenment is a carefully worded tautology. I don't think someone who is totally enlightened can necessarily manipulate the physical universe like a magician, or totally dominate others. They would only be total cause in their own universe, to use a Scientology phraseology. And probably be totally separate from the physical universe, with no effect on it. In which case, it's nothing like the way Scientologists conceptualise enlightenment. I'm not necessarily saying that this state exists, but just talking hypothetically. When I thought of enlightenment as a kid, I never conceptualised it as being along the lines of capacity to dominate/control/cause things in the physical universe. MUs causing dope-off/blankness/commission of overts: The MU phenomenon is one piece of Scientology that I have held onto, because I did observe some of the phenomena in myself and others. But I haven't seen a totally convincing explanation for why MUs would cause dope-off. When I was in, I supposed that the MU would key in an implant, or something like that, and hence phenomena related to tiredness. Hubbard himself didn't (as far as I'm aware) give a coherent explanation of WHY those phenomena would occur. Withholds cause natter: I used to totally believe this. But I have seen a number of 'nattery' people who are, or appear to be, physically ill. So now, when I see someone being very curmudgeonly, I suspect that they are physically ill. The times in my own life when I have been the most nattery/critical of others have been times when I have been ill. Anyway, I just wondered what people have held onto, and what they jettisoned and why. Again, please, no "I jettisoned the whole thing because it is all bullshit". We get that on every thread, so no need to repeat here. I'm thinking here about SPECIFIC aspects of the 'tech' that you concluded, after observation or thought, just didn't seem to work. I hope I haven't asked this before - I'm getting a deja vu as I type this!