Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
I think people usually derive great benefits from auditing. I've seen it. But I've seen no stable OTs. Ever.
Who Will Step Up?
- Thread starter Escalus
- Start date
Escalus
Patron Meritorious
I do want to be clear here. My criticism has absolutely nothing to do with any auditing I received or the mis-application thereof. After more than 30 years out of Scientology and having created a successful life that includes a long and satisfying marriage, a grand-daughter, seeing my writing published - not to mention the nice blue MINI Cooper in my garage - I have long ago come to terms with that era in my life; talk about it freely and can't ever really remember being angry about anything about the experience for a very long time. So I just can't buy the idea that I'm angry about something that was done to me or feel guilty about something I did, and this is why I am being critical of the idea and claims of Scientology.
This idea that "something else" is the reason I am a critic is exactly the kind of thinking that a person who is still a Scientologist (no matter if they are posing as an ex or not) gets stuck in as a matter of bland habit. The mindset is positioned over the foundation that was beaten into us that the only reason something goes wrong is that the "tech" is incorrectly applied. Somehow the "tech" remains beautiful and perfect and infallible and if it isn't working it's somebody's fault, because it certainly can't be the "tech." And this is the first hurdle a critic must overcome; he is talking to people who have no idea that anything else could possibly be happening here.
I think its instructive to note the reactions of people just on this very thread, and I'd like to make an example of it in order to illustrate.
nw2394's first reaction was to post a little cartoon that had a sign beside it saying "don't feed." We all recognize this as meaning "don't feed the troll", which meant that because I was taking an argumentative stance on the issue I was automatically relegated to troll status. It was - and remained (if you look at all other communication made here) the posture no matter what - even with examples here on the thread (my exchanges with alex) of the possibility that I could be talked to in another tone. This is a clear demonstration of the mindset; there's something wrong with the critic and that's all we need to know.
Mark A. Baker's entire mock up is something like the buddha, straining very hard to be above the fray. A cursory scan of most of his other posts reveals an almost unrelenting air of superiority to the point of not even being able to adapt to humor (another trait Scientology breeds in a person). His first reaction was asking me why I don't apply litigation for being "hard done by" (his words) the Church of Scientology. Alone that could be kind of funny, but the added icon -
- clearly means one thing; in other words my argument and any point I would make is nothing more than fodder for his out basket. Once again, the demonstrable behavior of dismissal of the critic without ever addressing his argument - a hallmark of the stuck, linear logic of the Scientologist.
Where, one might ask, was the topic addressed by either of these bulwarks of sanity? I can't find it. In fact, despite the greeting of their first responses, Baker ascribes my behavior as ad hominem. Yet at no time were any of my points directly addressed before that decision had been made.
Later, after their great contributions were finally withheld from my viewing pleasure because I - I don't know - obviously wasn't worth the effort or something, I was enjoined by other comments that could be summed up to be a lighter version (meaning the same points made without the haughty scorn) of the same argument - I am a critic because something happened to me, whether by inflow or outflow.
I'm going to continue to wait to see someone step up and address my concern here. Obviously the marshalls of Scientology still among us are incapable of filling that need, for whatever reason we may imagine.
So I'll repeat the opening post, and hopefully someone will engage it intelligently. nw#'s and Baker - you are dismissed, you got nothing. Go away and stop spamming the subject.
For anyone else...
This idea that "something else" is the reason I am a critic is exactly the kind of thinking that a person who is still a Scientologist (no matter if they are posing as an ex or not) gets stuck in as a matter of bland habit. The mindset is positioned over the foundation that was beaten into us that the only reason something goes wrong is that the "tech" is incorrectly applied. Somehow the "tech" remains beautiful and perfect and infallible and if it isn't working it's somebody's fault, because it certainly can't be the "tech." And this is the first hurdle a critic must overcome; he is talking to people who have no idea that anything else could possibly be happening here.
I think its instructive to note the reactions of people just on this very thread, and I'd like to make an example of it in order to illustrate.
nw2394's first reaction was to post a little cartoon that had a sign beside it saying "don't feed." We all recognize this as meaning "don't feed the troll", which meant that because I was taking an argumentative stance on the issue I was automatically relegated to troll status. It was - and remained (if you look at all other communication made here) the posture no matter what - even with examples here on the thread (my exchanges with alex) of the possibility that I could be talked to in another tone. This is a clear demonstration of the mindset; there's something wrong with the critic and that's all we need to know.
Mark A. Baker's entire mock up is something like the buddha, straining very hard to be above the fray. A cursory scan of most of his other posts reveals an almost unrelenting air of superiority to the point of not even being able to adapt to humor (another trait Scientology breeds in a person). His first reaction was asking me why I don't apply litigation for being "hard done by" (his words) the Church of Scientology. Alone that could be kind of funny, but the added icon -
- clearly means one thing; in other words my argument and any point I would make is nothing more than fodder for his out basket. Once again, the demonstrable behavior of dismissal of the critic without ever addressing his argument - a hallmark of the stuck, linear logic of the Scientologist.Where, one might ask, was the topic addressed by either of these bulwarks of sanity? I can't find it. In fact, despite the greeting of their first responses, Baker ascribes my behavior as ad hominem. Yet at no time were any of my points directly addressed before that decision had been made.
Later, after their great contributions were finally withheld from my viewing pleasure because I - I don't know - obviously wasn't worth the effort or something, I was enjoined by other comments that could be summed up to be a lighter version (meaning the same points made without the haughty scorn) of the same argument - I am a critic because something happened to me, whether by inflow or outflow.
I'm going to continue to wait to see someone step up and address my concern here. Obviously the marshalls of Scientology still among us are incapable of filling that need, for whatever reason we may imagine.
So I'll repeat the opening post, and hopefully someone will engage it intelligently. nw#'s and Baker - you are dismissed, you got nothing. Go away and stop spamming the subject.
For anyone else...
Escalus
Patron Meritorious
Pascal
Silver Meritorious Patron
Since you're playing the Scientology blame game, you forgot one. How about blaming the "tech"?
By the way you pay hookers before not after. No pay no play. I saw it on 20/20 last night. Sex for Hire: Real Stories of Prostitution in America
I get wins using tech, always did too, so I can only blame people misusing it. Or maybe some people aren't thetans
As for whores, I dunno really. The ones I boned never charged me.
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
I do want to be clear here. My criticism has absolutely nothing to do with any auditing I received or the mis-application thereof. After more than 30 years out of Scientology and having created a successful life that includes a long and satisfying marriage, a grand-daughter, seeing my writing published - not to mention the nice blue MINI Cooper in my garage - I have long ago come to terms with that era in my life; talk about it freely and can't ever really remember being angry about anything about the experience for a very long time. So I just can't buy the idea that I'm angry about something that was done to me or feel guilty about something I did, and this is why I am being critical of the idea and claims of Scientology.
This idea that "something else" is the reason I am a critic is exactly the kind of thinking that a person who is still a Scientologist (no matter if they are posing as an ex or not) gets stuck in as a matter of bland habit. The mindset is positioned over the foundation that was beaten into us that the only reason something goes wrong is that the "tech" is incorrectly applied. Somehow the "tech" remains beautiful and perfect and infallible and if it isn't working it's somebody's fault, because it certainly can't be the "tech." And this is the first hurdle a critic must overcome; he is talking to people who have no idea that anything else could possibly be happening here.
I think its instructive to note the reactions of people just on this very thread, and I'd like to make an example of it in order to illustrate.
nw2394's first reaction was to post a little cartoon that had a sign beside it saying "don't feed." We all recognize this as meaning "don't feed the troll", which meant that because I was taking an argumentative stance on the issue I was automatically relegated to troll status. It was - and remained (if you look at all other communication made here) the posture no matter what - even with examples here on the thread (my exchanges with alex) of the possibility that I could be talked to in another tone. This is a clear demonstration of the mindset; there's something wrong with the critic and that's all we need to know.
Mark A. Baker's entire mock up is something like the buddha, straining very hard to be above the fray. A cursory scan of most of his other posts reveals an almost unrelenting air of superiority to the point of not even being able to adapt to humor (another trait Scientology breeds in a person). His first reaction was asking me why I don't apply litigation for being "hard done by" (his words) the Church of Scientology. Alone that could be kind of funny, but the added icon -
Where, one might ask, was the topic addressed by either of these bulwarks of sanity? I can't find it. In fact, despite the greeting of their first responses, Baker ascribes my behavior as ad hominem. Yet at no time were any of my points directly addressed before that decision had been made.
Later, after their great contributions were finally withheld from my viewing pleasure because I - I don't know - obviously wasn't worth the effort or something, I was enjoined by other comments that could be summed up to be a lighter version (meaning the same points made without the haughty scorn) of the same argument - I am a critic because something happened to me, whether by inflow or outflow.
I'm going to continue to wait to see someone step up and address my concern here. Obviously the marshalls of Scientology still among us are incapable of filling that need, for whatever reason we may imagine.
So I'll repeat the opening post, and hopefully someone will engage it intelligently. nw#'s and Baker - you are dismissed, you got nothing. Go away and stop spamming the subject.
For anyone else...
Since we both know that we will have at least a long wait to see someone step up and perform "party tricks" as us scientologists call them, here is a question for you.
If someone did demonstrate "OT Powers" to you, some feat of levitation or remote physical influence, (we all know what we are talking about), and they were a scientologist and claimed to have developed these skills using scientology, would you then take it up again?
I would guess not. And can understand why.
Thus I would have to say that your asking of the question is more a rhetorical attack on scientology than anything else. Which of course is your right and is being done in the proper place.
But those of us who you believe to hold these silly beliefs, (my words) are no more proven wrong than you are right.
Check?
alex
Pascal
Silver Meritorious Patron
OT tricks
I remember YEARS ago when I first started SCN. I showed an Advance! mag to a friend and told him about OT. He got quite frantic and told me he would call the media and do a bunch of noise should I develop eleet OT skillz.
I understood that for some this is a touchy subject. I never cared about OT feats and maybe that is why I have seen many.
Such is your cross, thank God it's not mine.
I remember YEARS ago when I first started SCN. I showed an Advance! mag to a friend and told him about OT. He got quite frantic and told me he would call the media and do a bunch of noise should I develop eleet OT skillz.
I understood that for some this is a touchy subject. I never cared about OT feats and maybe that is why I have seen many.
Such is your cross, thank God it's not mine.
Scientology's claim is that it's a 'Technology', and, that 'technology' is or would be behind the 'party tricks'. So, it wouldn't only be one person performing them.
If I did see someone or better, someones performing your 'party tricks'; i.e., not the silly OT Wins, like getting out of bed or being 'happy' that are the more common run of published placebo nowdays, then, well, then I'd have to reexamine the Scientology 'theory' and 'practices' for some validity I seem to have missed. Because, the test of a tech is its product, and so far, I have seen nothing to justify Scientology's so called 'tech'. The organization is evil, the people within it may be ordinarily good, bad or indifferent, but many are also damaged, abused and cognitively confused; a state that seems to be necessary for continued 'membership'.
Bear in mind, even if I *did* recognize some apparent connection between Scientology 'training' and 'paranormal' powers, it would only mean that the 'theory' had some evidence of its validity and was worth further examination.
It would take an awful lot of value though to outweigh the 50 years of criminal abuse, degradation and inhumanity that up till now is the only visible result of the 'philosophy' and 'practice'.
Zinj
If I did see someone or better, someones performing your 'party tricks'; i.e., not the silly OT Wins, like getting out of bed or being 'happy' that are the more common run of published placebo nowdays, then, well, then I'd have to reexamine the Scientology 'theory' and 'practices' for some validity I seem to have missed. Because, the test of a tech is its product, and so far, I have seen nothing to justify Scientology's so called 'tech'. The organization is evil, the people within it may be ordinarily good, bad or indifferent, but many are also damaged, abused and cognitively confused; a state that seems to be necessary for continued 'membership'.
Bear in mind, even if I *did* recognize some apparent connection between Scientology 'training' and 'paranormal' powers, it would only mean that the 'theory' had some evidence of its validity and was worth further examination.
It would take an awful lot of value though to outweigh the 50 years of criminal abuse, degradation and inhumanity that up till now is the only visible result of the 'philosophy' and 'practice'.
Zinj
Escalus
Patron Meritorious
Yes. We verify - I'm back on the Bridge.
This, of course, is not how the scientific method works. If someone says they've found a Juytjhgikj it is their responsibility to show it, otherwise it's just a claim. If someone said there are no Juytjhgikjs the proof exists in that no one has ever produced evidence of it.
If someone says they've found a way to be AT CAUSE over matter, energy, space, and time it is their responsibility to show it, otherwise it's just a claim. If someone said there is no way way to be AT CAUSE over matter, energy, space, and time the proof exists in that no one has ever produced evidence of it yet.
Until black holes were shown to exist the claim that they existed remained in the realm of "theory", and the people who posited the theory were more than happy to accept that label until it was proven because that's how it works.
The great failing of Hubbard's postulates are that he and his succeeding stewards have not allowed that testing to occur. In point of fact, they would rather whine about how the scientific method is of no value and stacked against them.
Oh look alex - I have a Sopiu8 in my hand. It's there because I say so. Now go ahead, prove I don't!
So... no... no check.
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
Ah, so it isnt a moral issue and the abuse of men women and CHILDREN are of lessor concern than your own personal gain? (you know Im now goofing with you, but....)
Saying hubbard has not allowed testing to occur when several variants of scientology technology operate independently of the church and any one who wants to can actually test it for them selves or finance the testing of it by anyone they choose, mocks scientific method.
You will next insist that the church finance the testing of their claims rather than those who wish to dispute them.
Well then I insist you pay for the research into what you claim is a "Sopiu8" in your hand, until it is proven to my satisfaction, (and possibly until your financial ruin, if I choose to be obstinate).
Mate.
alex
Escalus
Patron Meritorious
It isn't a moral issue with me in the context of this discussion, nor is it with you because you're still inside. But let's not move the goal posts once out on the field here - I think for the purposes of this discussion if I were to introduce a new condition other than verification for the clinical claims I would come off being incredibly glib and disingenuous and I'd be being most unfair to anyone I was talking to. I am able to make the statement on the basis of my own surety that proof will never come. If - however - I can be shown to be wrong it would be really stupid of me, in the face of eternity, to cross my arms and turn my back like a petulant child and refuse to see it out of a sense of winning or losing.
There are people out there with tests that wouldn't cost much at all. In fact I know of one where you can make an easy million.
It strikes me as a little odd that the reason no testing is agreed to is based on the assumption that there would then be no end of testing, even unto bankruptcy. But - I'll tell thee what - if I had the key to the universe and someone needed proof I would show it to them. I believe a lot of religions work like this on a whole lot less verifiable evidence. I also have a pretty good grasp on the notion that it isn't all that expensive and this whole "testing to abstraction" fear is really kind of a red herring.
There are people out there with tests that wouldn't cost much at all. In fact I know of one where you can make an easy million.
It strikes me as a little odd that the reason no testing is agreed to is based on the assumption that there would then be no end of testing, even unto bankruptcy. But - I'll tell thee what - if I had the key to the universe and someone needed proof I would show it to them. I believe a lot of religions work like this on a whole lot less verifiable evidence. I also have a pretty good grasp on the notion that it isn't all that expensive and this whole "testing to abstraction" fear is really kind of a red herring.
alex
Gold Meritorious Patron
If your talking randi, you might for a moment turn a critical eye on him...
His conditions are good protection for his money.
imho
alex (sitting on the bleachers waiting for an ot to levitate something, knowing it just a trick.)
Escalus
Patron Meritorious
This has been covered here in this thread already... I think? My notion is that an operating thetan wouldn't need to worry about anybody's conditions. Unless of course they weren't really all that powerful.
During a 20 year span involving thousands of hours as a practicing C/S and auditor (at both upper and CL V orgs), I did not even once personally observe the type of "OT Powers" you list in your post. Not one time.
About as close as you could get to it was when a PC felt as if he or she was occupying a whole lot of space - not just their body. I too have experienced that in auditing. Exterior or possibly incredibly increased awareness of the present environment? The phenomenon I am describing is open to interpretation.
This state of "feeling really big" would fade after some time had passed - and was definitely not stable in the vast majority of cases.
ExScnDude
Similar threads
