What's new

Loyalists of The Tech

Div6

Crusader
I like where this thread is going and the various points of view IMO are all interresting.

Where I see this argument boiling down to is that it's not that the "Tech" or aspects of it are "good" or "bad", but if it's workable or not, and that it depends on the "intention" of the individual using it and the competence level of its application. Amirite?

Please let me throw this in though. IMO, Hubbard and anyone else who helped him develop the "Tech" didn't come up with anything new, and this has been pointed out by many others as well. In fact, most of it was culled from other places and repackaged with the Scientology lable. Take a look at Scientology and take something "workable" or "useful" that was completely original.

My question becomes this then... Knowing the above, why take anything from Scientology or Hubbard and try to use it period? Why not look for the true sources of that "Tech" and properly assign source? In that way, the tech you're using doesn't even have to be attached to the false and even more negative aspects and lable that is "Scientology."

For example, I've had friends and two ex-girlfriends at this point who were psychology majors in college, a couple of them are currently practicing and when I explained Dianetics and the "engram" it was pointed out that this had already been discovered waaaay before Hubbard, but that it was obvious that "engram" was just a renaming of something already discovered. I'm not talking about workability, I'm talking about source. It was Hubbard who proclaimed and "assumed" being Source of this data. He simply just renamed it.

Anything you find in Scientology was NOT new, so really, it's kind of lazy to use from the package put together by Hubbard without making an effort to find out where it really came from. Hell, the original source might work even better without having the Hubbardian twist! I see that nobody is trying to get rid of the subject of psychology these days. Possibly it's because a lot of it actually works and helps people.

This is a good point. Lets look at another field of creative endeavour for a 'datum of comparable magnitude'. Music, for example. Sound vibration is as old as this universe. Along the way, we have developed not only ears with which to filter out certain vibrations, but also aural acuity to other vibration frequencies. Dogs can hear higher pitches than we can, but for some reason they have yet to develop instruments with which to play.
Along the way we have had many creative types implement different types of instruments, utilizing vibrating strings, air columns, water, cannons, etc.
Others have developed 'tuning systems', to try to bring the ascending spiral of overtones into "harmony". Others have used these tunings and instruments to create songs, symphonies, operas, rock and roll.......

And to do this, it is not necessary for them to know who discovered the note of A vibrating at 440 cycles per second. Or who developed the "well-tempered" tuning system of 12 keys.

My point is that in the end, we ALL potentially created it, and the search for origin in the Physical Universe is a red herring along most any line of research.

Hubbard did at first acknowledge the 2000 years of thinking men, etc. Later, he became vindictively spiteful towards those who "contributed" (Horner, Berners, Walters, etc). I view that as his problem, as he was committing enough overts to collapse his space in to solid granite, and on a constant missed withhold from society...

Creative Intelligences seek out new viewpoints, new tools, new realities...in any field. And like in the music scene there is heavy "borrowing" from others.
It's not just a Hubbard thing....obsessive duplication seems like part of the "engine of survival".

There is a Chopin Prelude (in E minor) that most pianists learn early on, as it is not technically difficult, and is fun to play. I was listening to the radio the other day and heard a pianon concerto, where the opening notes of the melody were exactly the same (but in a different rhythm) as the Chopin Prelude.....I later found out that it was written by a contemporary of Chopin, that Chopin was intimately familiar with this composer's work, and the piano concerto pre-dated the prelude. Should I think any less of Chopin?
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Yah, I've heard the "nothing in Scn is new" argument before. It's not true, though.

Nobody else has the chart of human evaluation, the ARC triangle, the tone scale. Nobody else has TRs. Nobody else has auditing. Auditing has SOME similarities to SOME other types of counseling but is in most ways also quite different. Nobody else out there has clay table auditing. Nobody else out there has Ethics formulae, ethics conditions, etc.

In fact, I hear/see people bitching all the time about how Scn is different from other ologies. Then, the minute anyone demonstrates that they may actually be deriving some success, comfort, assistance, personal growth etc through Scn, all of a sudden it's "Oh, you could get that anywhere else."

I've studied other things, I took psychology in college. And Scn is quite different.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Gadfly, The question being addressed here is one of those complex questions which nearly every person asks himself or herself when leaving Scientology. The question seems to perpetuate heated arguments between people in various camps and these arguments seem to go on endlesly, with no resolution or general consensus answers ever seeming to appear on the horizon. I believe that you did a very good job of condensing a lot of ideas down into a reasonably sized post and that you have succeded in answering this complex question!

Thank-you.

The ability to differentiate well seems to be relatively scarce within humanity. Because of this, it is very likely that your post will not change many minds or cause those with other viewpoints to modify them. Nevertheless, there is an intellectual satisfaction in putting together an answer as you have done and people, such as me, who read this and agree with you do get something out of your post and a few others may have a realization and agree with something you say and modify their viewpoints. Therefore, I think that the time which you spent writing your post is time very well spent.

Yes, I agree, few people truly understand what Hubbard and Korzybski meant by the terms identification and differentiation. That is true for everbody, spanning the landscape from total "wog" to total devoted C of S Church member. It always amazed me how few Scientologists ever took the time to study and understand the Data Series (though granted it is FLAWED in certain regards, as also is the original subject of General Semantics). And almost NO Scientologist ever bothers to honestly and carefully apply the data to and at the subject of Scientology, the Church, LRH and current management.

Few people have actually taken any time at all analyzing his or her own "concept-making" mental machinery. Just as there is no such thing as a "tree", as an idea, separate from an actual specific isolated individual REAL tree, so also, there is no "Scientologist", as an idea, separate from an actual specific isolated individual REAL Scientologist. Hubbard defines the term in various places, but the acceptance of THAT meaning to any person is his or her choice. All MEANING is entirely in the mind of some person, no "meaning" exists "out there" anywhere, and the same is true for this talk about "Scientologist". In truth, there are as many different meanings for the word Scientologist as there are people who identify his or herself with the label.

Scientology = The Church of Scientology ONLY to some people (in their minds)

Scientology = The data of LRH ONLY to some people (in their minds)

It is a stupid discussion to argue abut such nonsense. But then, humans have a high proclivity to argue inanities, and to argue them endlessly.


One other point and one question. My wife went to law school in the early 1990's and is now a lawyer. Law school does teach one the ability to differentiate; they call it developing one's critical thinking skills. There is definitely some valid "tech" taught on how a person can improve this ability. In any brilliant legal argument or summation, I have noticed that an ability to differentiate specifics out of generalities is always present.

My question is this, can you conjure up the a solution to the Israeli versus Palestinian situation similar to what you did for the Hubbard and Scientology controversy?

White European "invaders" TOOK the land from the American Indians. Some people think we should give it back. Others have the opinion that "this was a long time ago, and things have long since evolved, so forget about it". Right? Wrong? My observation is that people are chronically assholes. Human beings use FORCE over and over and over to get what they want in alignment with some set of beliefs, ideals or goals. It never stops. The real solution?

Unconditional Love. See every other human being as YOURSELF, in all cases, at all times, no matter what, and NEVER allow yourself to find an excuse to harm another human being for ANY reason (other than pure physical self-defense). In SCN, per LRH, in the Code of Honour, it states something like, "never fear to harm another in a just cause". THAT is the opposite of what I just described. This notions of harming another in a "just cause" involves insane logic that tolerates and encourages HARM - with it very well justified and excused. Unconditional Love cannoit exist within such a framework - and by observing the ACTIONS of various aspects of SCN, it obviously does NOT. The history of the human race, from one perspective, is an endless and relentless march of JUSTIFIED VIOLENCE towards others. It saddens me. Where does this come from? Primarily from "ego" and the notion of individuality as a SURVIVING "form".

All aberration, violence, and harm to others stems from the need, desire or urge to SURVIVE as something. The DYNAMICS, as defined by LRH, ARE THE PROBLEM. The URGES to exist as something in some area of life, ARE the fundamental problem. Scientologists never see or understand this. They view survival and the urge to survive as a "good" thing. It is the ROOT cause of the problem. Take away those URGES to survive (the Dynamics), and ALL harm, violence, hate and conflict disintegrate. A true Bridge to Spiritual Freedom should and would ERASE the Dynamics, NOT prop them up and enable them to "flourish and propser". Hubbard said he solved the problem in DMSMH by citing the basic truth - SURVIVE. Survival, and the attendant "urges" along the Dynamics, ARE the basic cause of all problems and difficulties anywhere at anytime. NOBODY sees THAT aspect of Hubbard's writings!

A TRUE path to freedom MUST erase attachment and desire to the Dynamics. Instead, Hubbard, being the master deceiving and manipulator that he was, pretended to give you a path to freedom, while actually hooking you tighter onto and into the various URGES along the Dynamics. Survive - Survive- Survive. That is ALL the Church and OSA are ever trying to do. It is the REVERSE of legitimate advancement towards "freedom". LRH tells you all about the 180 degree, reverse-vector nature of this universe, and then goes right ahead and applies it to YOU. Bad LRH.

Israel and Palestine? One need only cease viewing the "other" people as anything other than versions of yourself (or family). There is the reactive pattern of love - lose that object of love - and then HATE. It has happened on both sides for many years. Few people are willing to give up his or her "hate". The same with people for and against Scientology.

There is no real solution, or "win", within the realm of surviving as some form or any thing. Of course, THAT is the game being played by 99.99999% of the human population. Identification, as a spiritual being, WITH various forms, ideas, groups, goals and ideals IS the source of the problem. Honestly, within the parameters of the "rules" here on Earth, in this universe, there is NO solution. The GAME itself is grossly flawed. And, if there is anything to Hubbard's data on postulates and the resultant creation of any universe, then this game exists FOR YOU because YOU postulate and agree that it does. I don't think there is any way to "better" and truly "change things" here. The ONLY solution, along a more eastern philosophical approach, is to FREE YOURSELF from the game, by undoing your endless set of agreements and postulates that cause you to remain in this trap, believing yourself to be a body, believing yourself to be associated with all sorts of ideas, other people, groups and goals.

Also, all arguments and conflicts stem from holding onto some aspect of the "past". People keep the "past" alive through very complex "internal spiritual activity". In truth, the past does not exist, except again, in the minds of people. The ONLY thing that actually exists is RIGHT NOW (present time). But, most people hold onto, and actually CREATE a living PAST, by their own mental actions in the area. This is true for negative effects and positive effects on any person due to past "memories".

IF there were no thinking, conscious minds, with the ability to place attention on "the past" (as an idea of sorts), then, there would be nothing other than a constant NOW. The unique, yet arbitrary viewpoint of an isolated entity of consciousness creates the illusion of separateness, and along with this entity's ability to "keep the past alive by placing attention on it, either consciously or unconsciously", all problems follow. Again, there seems to be no solution inside the box. The only solution, as Buddha would probably agree, is to GET OUT OF THE BOX of limiting ideas, concepts, identifications and attachments.

When it comes to "here", you are either IN (entirely IN), or you are OUT (entirely OUT). There is NO halfway point, and a HUGE error of Hubbard was putting forth the idea that you could be some "degree of OT".

APPLYING Uncondtional Love is a start because it goes up against ALL notions of isolated individuality, surviving "against" all else, judgments and conflict.

But to really apply the idea, you would have to apply it to the Church, LRH and DM too! There is no halfway with "unconditional".

As Jesus supposedly said, "God forgive them for they know not what they do". And so went and so goes the totality of human activity spanning an eternity . . . . they know not what they do, when they torture, harm, kill, brutalize, and attack what are actually their own "spiritual brothers"; and the "enlightened one" sees this, knows this and feels nothing but extreme overflowing love to all (no matter whether good or bad as judged from any viewpoint at any time).

Obviously, any truly "enlightened one" has long since lost any interest in any of it, as far as the details of the game or existing reality goes, and if such a one has any concern at all, it is ONLY the aim towards helping the many others still caught in the mess to free him or herself from the mess he or she has allowed oneself to get into (through personal actions of the mind - creating a "past", identification, attachment, etc.).

The subject and application of Scientology does more to trap than to free - for MOST people (not all).


:confused2:
 
Last edited:

lkwdblds

Crusader
I disagree that there is nothing new

I like where this thread is going and the various points of view IMO are all interresting.

Where I see this argument boiling down to is that it's not that the "Tech" or aspects of it are "good" or "bad", but if it's workable or not, and that it depends on the "intention" of the individual using it and the competence level of its application. Amirite?

Please let me throw this in though. IMO, Hubbard and anyone else who helped him develop the "Tech" didn't come up with anything new, and this has been pointed out by many others as well. In fact, most of it was culled from other places and repackaged with the Scientology lable. Take a look at Scientology and take something "workable" or "useful" that was completely original.

My question becomes this then... Knowing the above, why take anything from Scientology or Hubbard and try to use it period? Why not look for the true sources of that "Tech" and properly assign source? In that way, the tech you're using doesn't even have to be attached to the false and even more negative aspects and lable that is "Scientology."

For example, I've had friends and two ex-girlfriends at this point who were psychology majors in college, a couple of them are currently practicing and when I explained Dianetics and the "engram" it was pointed out that this had already been discovered waaaay before Hubbard, but that it was obvious that "engram" was just a renaming of something already discovered. I'm not talking about workability, I'm talking about source. It was Hubbard who proclaimed and "assumed" being Source of this data. He simply just renamed it.

Anything you find in Scientology was NOT new, so really, it's kind of lazy to use from the package put together by Hubbard without making an effort to find out where it really came from. Hell, the original source might work even better without having the Hubbardian twist! I see that nobody is trying to get rid of the subject of psychology these days. Possibly it's because a lot of it actually works and helps people.

I totally disagree that ANYTHING you find in Scientology is new. It is true that many things were culled and sorted out from the past and repackaged. There is nothing wrong with a person doing this, in fact it can be an extremely valuable thing for mankind for someone to do this. In Hubbard's case, he also ordered things as to their relative importances. I personally found this very helpful. Too many text book studies lumped major basic truths and minor truths into the same breath or same paragraph.

As far as something new in Scientology, just look at the concept of two people twining up on a series of courses and learning the theory of a subject and then practical drills on the subject, learning how to apply it and then co-auditing each other up to an improved state of being. As far as I know, no other self help guru nor any branch of any study has ever done anything like this. The whole structure of having an auditor, a pc and a Case Supervisor is totally Hubbard. There is nothing like it anywhere.

I do not believe that Psychology knew anything about an Engram as Hubbard coined the phrase. There was a word called engram which indicated a memory trace on a cell of the body before Hubbard defined his meaning of the word. Psychology pretty much views humans as being matter with all consciousness arising from within the brain. When you state that Psychology knew about the engram long before Hubbard coined the term, could you please offer some references, some dates, some sources to read to back this up.

I think the Hubbard ethics conditions are new. The conditions, non existence, danger, emergency, affluence, power, power change going up and liability, doubt, enemy, treason, confusion going down. The idea that everyone is in one of these condiditions and will naturally go lower but can move up by doing certain steps is new with Hubbard. The concept that no condition can remain static in this universe but must either go up or down is new with Hubbard as far as I know.

The Org Board is full of all kinds of new material. The entire Org Board being set up on a Thetan, mind, body and product basis and then every division, department and section also containing within them the same thetan, mind body, product arrangement, i.e. a concatenation of the board as a whole.

I have never seen or heard of the ARC triangle or the KRC triangle being taken up elsewhere. My point is not that all these points of tech are correct or perfectly great, just that they are original with Hubbard.

If something within Hubbard's tech works for someone, they should use it and if it does not work, they should not use it. There is no need to always take the time to try and dig up the original source for every piece of tech on Earth.
Why re-invent the wheel over and over as one goes through life.
Lkwdblds
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
Yah, I've heard the "nothing in Scn is new" argument before. It's not true, though.

Nobody else has the chart of human evaluation, the ARC triangle, the tone scale. Nobody else has TRs. Nobody else has auditing. Auditing has SOME similarities to SOME other types of counseling but is in most ways also quite different. Nobody else out there has clay table auditing. Nobody else out there has Ethics formulae, ethics conditions, etc.

In fact, I hear/see people bitching all the time about how Scn is different from other ologies. Then, the minute anyone demonstrates that they may actually be deriving some success, comfort, assistance, personal growth etc through Scn, all of a sudden it's "Oh, you could get that anywhere else."

I've studied other things, I took psychology in college. And Scn is quite different.

Hubbard was brilliant in his ability to pull out the valuable from a very wide and diverse field of thought (occult, magick, spirituality). I studied a great deal of this assorted subject matter before, and after Scientology, and I doubt there is one in a million who could have done what Hubbard did as far as managing to separate the valuable from the not. I dare ANYBODY to dig through the many various writings on Theosophy, occultism, eastern philosophy, magick, Christian mysticism, secret societies, Yoga techniques, Buddhism, psychology, psychotherapy, general semantics, and on and on, and manage to pull out the "legitimate" from the rest. It is an overwhleming and daunting task.

LRH's PDC lectures remain for me the absolute highest and concise compilation of data on "the creation, maintenance, and destruction" or ANY universe. It transcends and includes all things Vedic. NOBODY else, that I have ever read, came anywhere even close to delineating and explaining it the way he did.

I don't "feel" one way or another about LRH. I don't admire him really, other than that I OBSERVE what he did, both in good ways, and in bad ways. He was entirely HUMAN - and being so, touched the highest levels of possible greatest, and also, sadly, swam down to the very lowest depths of horrendous and conniving behavior. He covered ALL the bases!

He also came up with things that nobody else did, just as Fluffy says. To disagree with that is simply to refuse to look, or to be so unfamiliar with both Hubbard's subject AND the many related subjects he "borrowed from" that you are unable to observe what he actually did (and didn't do).

DIFFER - FUCKING - ENTIATE!!!!!!!

He was also an egomaniac, control freak and paranoid monster.

Aleister Crowley, who I admire greatly in some regards, also possessed some very severe negative traits (which I have no liking for).

I like and admire the good, and I have no affinity for the bad.

People need to stop this stupid and misguided need to have anything be CONSISTENT. Reality is often not consistent, and people who feel this need for "things to be all good" or "all bad", need to examine and learn to just what degree your own thinking mind is failing to serve you well and accurately. Consistency is an IDEA, and ONLY an idea, and those of you who feel the need to force this idea onto reality need to wake up and notice just what it is that you are doing.

As I said earlier, just as Michael Jackson was brilliant in certain ways, he was also a wreck in other ways. Geez, even Adolph Hitler came up with the idea of the "people's car" - the now widespread Volkswagon. Absolutes don't exist anywhere. Nothing is equally good or bad in all regards.

Look at EACH SPECIFIC, if you are capable of that (and most aren't), and judge accordingly, without ANY association with or to related yet non-germane specifics.

OT TR0 and TR0 involve some of the BEST methodology for eastern-style meditation, bar NONE! There are few more concise and effective techniques for "BEING THERE WITH NOTHING ELSE" in any subject past or present. I have read MANY books on meditation, on "being there", both New Age and eastern, over many years, and what I just said is simply the truth on the matter. LRH NAILS IT with OT TR0. Just do the drill!

Dislike what is bad, and what is harmful to people. There is much. It is NOT minor. It is what it is.

But, don't dislike, and even like and admire, what is good and valuable. There is much. It is NOT minor. It is what it is.

But, for those with little or no ability to differentiate, this will remain quite impossible.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Hubbard's "Engram" is nothing more than a restatement of the idea of traumatic experience. Freud was "running" these in chains in the early 1890's, and he probably took his work from someone else.

"What left the symptom behind was not always a single experience. On the contrary, the result was usually brought about by the convergence of several traumas, and often by the repetition of a great number of similar ones. Thus it was necessary to reproduce the whole chain of pathogenic memories in chronologic order, or rather in reversed order, the latest ones first and the earliest ones last."

(I made this into a link to Dr. Robert Moore's article on TIR because that article is really good at showing the real theoretical background of ideas running up to Hubbard's ripoff).

That said, I haven't seen anything even vaguely like the Grades/Flows anywhere else, prior to Scientology Quad Grades. After that, there are a number of analogs, or improvements, but prior to that, no deal. So, I'd say that Hubbard's (or whoever was helping him) developments of the Grades qualify as a very significant, very serious contribution to the field of psychology.
 

bts2free

Patron with Honors
Yah, I've heard the "nothing in Scn is new" argument before. It's not true, though.

Nobody else has the chart of human evaluation, the ARC triangle, the tone scale. Nobody else has TRs. Nobody else has auditing. Auditing has SOME similarities to SOME other types of counseling but is in most ways also quite different. Nobody else out there has clay table auditing. Nobody else out there has Ethics formulae, ethics conditions, etc.

In fact, I hear/see people bitching all the time about how Scn is different from other ologies. Then, the minute anyone demonstrates that they may actually be deriving some success, comfort, assistance, personal growth etc through Scn, all of a sudden it's "Oh, you could get that anywhere else."

I've studied other things, I took psychology in college. And Scn is quite different.

Thanks VC. In the grand scheme of life here on Earth, one of the things I realized when I got out of Scientology was the fact that Scientology is comparable to a gnat on an elephant's ass. In all of the success people have had without the ARC triangle, Chart of Human Eval and all the other things you've mentioned (all apparently new concepts), none of these people achieved their dreams or successes by applying these things. Apparently, the most successful didn't even need them in the first place. Take the ARC triangle: I think most people know that if you talk to other people and discuss things you might have in common, you become better acquainted and your friendship becomes stronger. We didn't need a triangle to tell us this, it just happens to be that way. Did Bill Gates need to know about ARC to achieve his success? Hubbard just looked at this Law of our universe, assigned names to it and packaged it. It was already working fine before Hubbard said, "Hey look at this ARC Triangle."

Chart of Human Eval? Just because Hubbard decided to give lables to all of our moods/attitudes and assign numbers in a sequence (Tone Scale), then charting things out like 1.1 (Covert Hostility), sexual deviance and homosexuality, including physical problems or states in relation to these tone levels. Does it mean that that's reality? Or just Hubbard's assumptions? What research really went into creating that chart anyway? So yeah, I guess the Tone Scale and this chart based on the TS is a new idea, but who needs this data?

Let's talk about the TRs. I started doing TRs all the way back in 1977 starting with the Children's Communication Course, and then continuously up through 2000. Did the PRO TRs course 3 times over during that time and got a pass from the most senior Tech terminals in Scientology. I've had plenty of experience with TRs. Personally, I feel that the TRs are a tool and a "tech" used to place people in an almost constant hypnotic state so that you are more likely to take commands and operate with them. How many times have you experienced, while doing TR0 (eyes open), the room or the person in front of you change or morph into various colors or shapes - practically like a drug induced trip (without ingestion of any substance) while sitting there and just trying to "be" there? I know I've experienced this and talked to many other people who experienced the same thing and wondered what was happening. Then, after doing these repetitive TR processes (repetition factually creating hypnotic states) then having to "conceptually understand" policies like KSW and others to make you into a more suggestible and useful "terminal" in the group. No wonder Hubbard chose "Alice in Wonderland" as the book to use during other TR's - possibly a sick joke? So yeah, TRs are a new concept ot Tech, but who needs that?

I could go on with other aspects of Scientology "Tech" but seriously, this all adds up to finally finding out about Xenu at a later point, and at that point, Xenu isn't even out of the ordinary.

If auditing is supposed to help you and make you more aware, why would anyone even buy the Xenu story when reading it? So, did all that "auditing" really help in the first place?

Hubbard was very slick with hypnotism apparently, and that Tech wasn't new either.
 

bts2free

Patron with Honors
@ Gadfly, A lot of what you've said brillinatly stated!

I also have to say that there is nothing wrong with being human. It is what it is and it is what we are. As a rece, we contue to develop too - naturally. I also don't believe that it's because we came up with anything or "found" anything to forward the progress of our development as a race. I think it's natural and just the way the universe operates - we will naturally advance mentally, spiritually and as a race IMO.

Am I afraid of death? No. It happens to all of us. We will also find out what happens to us at death. I don't think there is any actual scientific evidence of what happens to us when we die, where we go, etc... It's something that all of us will find out though, and any assumptions before that time are just that - assumptions.

I think life was meant to be lived right now and you innately have the ability to make your future whatever you want it to be by your choices. That wasn't a gift, but just a natural ability of being a human being.

Auditing sticks you in the past, and your attention is constantly fixated in the past trying to handle past problems to help you out in the now. Why not just live in the here and now, enjoy your life, and love, and make the best decisions to the best of your ability?

What out of this "Tech" really matters in relation to my point of view? I honestly would like to know at this point why I would need Scientology? If you could answer that, I would say that had you been on staff or in the SO, why weren't you a Registrar?
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Hubbard's "Engram" is nothing more than a restatement of the idea of traumatic experience. Freud was "running" these in chains in the early 1890's, and he probably took his work from someone else.

"What left the symptom behind was not always a single experience. On the contrary, the result was usually brought about by the convergence of several traumas, and often by the repetition of a great number of similar ones. Thus it was necessary to reproduce the whole chain of pathogenic memories in chronologic order, or rather in reversed order, the latest ones first and the earliest ones last."

(I made this into a link to Dr. Robert Moore's article on TIR because that article is really good at showing the real theoretical background of ideas running up to Hubbard's ripoff).

That said, I haven't seen anything even vaguely like the Grades/Flows anywhere else, prior to Scientology Quad Grades. After that, there are a number of analogs, or improvements, but prior to that, no deal. So, I'd say that Hubbard's (or whoever was helping him) developments of the Grades qualify as a very significant, very serious contribution to the field of psychology.

His take on it is not identical.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
@ Gadfly, A lot of what you've said brillinatly stated!

I also have to say that there is nothing wrong with being human. It is what it is and it is what we are. As a rece, we contue to develop too - naturally. I also don't believe that it's because we came up with anything or "found" anything to forward the progress of our development as a race. I think it's natural and just the way the universe operates - we will naturally advance mentally, spiritually and as a race IMO.

Am I afraid of death? No. It happens to all of us. We will also find out what happens to us at death. I don't think there is any actual scientific evidence of what happens to us when we die, where we go, etc... It's something that all of us will find out though, and any assumptions before that time are just that - assumptions.

I think life was meant to be lived right now and you innately have the ability to make your future whatever you want it to be by your choices. That wasn't a gift, but just a natural ability of being a human being.

Auditing sticks you in the past, and your attention is constantly fixated in the past trying to handle past problems to help you out in the now. Why not just live in the here and now, enjoy your life, and love, and make the best decisions to the best of your ability?

What out of this "Tech" really matters in relation to my point of view? I honestly would like to know at this point why I would need Scientology? If you could answer that, I would say that had you been on staff or in the SO, why weren't you a Registrar?

Much of psychotherapy is devoted to coming to terms with past traumas and experiences, too.

The idea is to NOT be stuck in the past. The idea is to deal with the past to the extent that the past is holding the person back from living life NOW. Scn constantly mentions being in PT. This is a Buddhist concept, also brilliantly summarized by Ram Das. Be Here Now.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Auditing only sticks you in the past if it is incomplete. If the person's attention is still in the past, they haven't resolved what they were looking at. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, I'm saying it's an error. Auditing, properly done, releases attention from the past to be focused on the present, or in creation of a desired future.
 

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
I like where this thread is going and the various points of view IMO are all interresting.

Where I see this argument boiling down to is that it's not that the "Tech" or aspects of it are "good" or "bad", but if it's workable or not, and that it depends on the "intention" of the individual using it and the competence level of its application. Amirite?

Please let me throw this in though. IMO, Hubbard and anyone else who helped him develop the "Tech" didn't come up with anything new, and this has been pointed out by many others as well. In fact, most of it was culled from other places and repackaged with the Scientology lable. Take a look at Scientology and take something "workable" or "useful" that was completely original.

My question becomes this then... Knowing the above, why take anything from Scientology or Hubbard and try to use it period? Why not look for the true sources of that "Tech" and properly assign source? In that way, the tech you're using doesn't even have to be attached to the false and even more negative aspects and lable that is "Scientology."

For example, I've had friends and two ex-girlfriends at this point who were psychology majors in college, a couple of them are currently practicing and when I explained Dianetics and the "engram" it was pointed out that this had already been discovered waaaay before Hubbard, but that it was obvious that "engram" was just a renaming of something already discovered. I'm not talking about workability, I'm talking about source. It was Hubbard who proclaimed and "assumed" being Source of this data. He simply just renamed it.

Anything you find in Scientology was NOT new, so really, it's kind of lazy to use from the package put together by Hubbard without making an effort to find out where it really came from. Hell, the original source might work even better without having the Hubbardian twist! I see that nobody is trying to get rid of the subject of psychology these days. Possibly it's because a lot of it actually works and helps people.

I don't think you can go back to the original sources for every good thing you have in Scientology. Also I believe Hubbard did contributed with original ideas and work, and so did many of his research auditors since the very beginning, of course without credit. That make almost impossible to find all true sources.

But another way to go is to take advantage of the work others did to sort the wheat from the chaff, and even move forward in the development of the Tech; that is to pick up one of the derivatives of Scientology: Knowledgism, Metapsichology, Idenics, (others?).
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Well, I wouldn't call Metapsychology or Idenics derivatives of Scientology. I would call them new synthesis of approaches also used in Scientology, with different theoretical backgrounds and outcomes.
 

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
Well, I wouldn't call Metapsychology or Idenics derivatives of Scientology. I would call them new synthesis of approaches also used in Scientology, with different theoretical backgrounds and outcomes.

"Metapsychology is an offshoot from Scientology started by [Gerbode] who used to run a Scientology franchise in Palo Alto. The book rewrites the basic principles of Scientology using a different vocabulary. It is designed with the intent of appealing to mainstream psychologists. In the early 80's Frank (usually known as Serge) worked with David Mayo. They concentrate on the lower levels of Scientology and have removed references to upper level controversial data which as far as I know they do not currently use." - Ralph Hilton​

Similarities:
The Bridge <=> The Curriculum

Straightwire <=> Memory Enhancement Section
Grade 0 <=> Communication Section
Grade I <=> Resolution Section
Grade II <=> Reconciliation Section
Grade III <=> Resilience Section
Grade IV <=> Rightness Section
Dianetics <=> TIR
...​

The Metapsichology "Curriculum":http://www.tirtraining.org/training/metapsychology.htm#

About Idenics, yes, it is very different from Scientology but I believe (from the small experience I had) that it includes what works in Scientology, leaving out all the unnecessary (and often dangerous) additives.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
@ Gadfly, A lot of what you've said brillinatly stated!

I also have to say that there is nothing wrong with being human. It is what it is and it is what we are. As a rece, we contue to develop too - naturally. I also don't believe that it's because we came up with anything or "found" anything to forward the progress of our development as a race. I think it's natural and just the way the universe operates - we will naturally advance mentally, spiritually and as a race IMO.

The notion behind various disciplines of Yoga, occultism and "spiritual practices" is that the process can be "speeded up" if you want to do so. I have read writings by Yogis and supposed "masters" who say the same, that it IS all naturally evolving, but that there are always some who have already moved to future stages, and who are available to help those who desire to quicken the pace. I have the opinion that is true. I could be wrong. My original attraction to SCN was along those lines, but I discovered that it did NOT do that for most people, and created another, quite different "trap" along the way.

Am I afraid of death? No. It happens to all of us. We will also find out what happens to us at death. I don't think there is any actual scientific evidence of what happens to us when we die, where we go, etc... It's something that all of us will find out though, and any assumptions before that time are just that - assumptions.

I think life was meant to be lived right now and you innately have the ability to make your future whatever you want it to be by your choices. That wasn't a gift, but just a natural ability of being a human being.

Auditing sticks you in the past, and your attention is constantly fixated in the past trying to handle past problems to help you out in the now. Why not just live in the here and now, enjoy your life, and love, and make the best decisions to the best of your ability?

No it doesn't. If ANY therapy is done correctly, it REMOVES attention from the past. The process involves placing attention in a certain way on the past, to remove the stuck attention or bundled up energy. That is true for many disciplines, not just Scientology. The key is to "be in the here and now", BUT, as LRH and many others have noticed, few people can just DO IT. Therefore, methods and techniques evolved to address and handle WHY an entity cannot simply BE HERE NOW easily and consistently.

What out of this "Tech" really matters in relation to my point of view? I honestly would like to know at this point why I would need Scientology? If you could answer that, I would say that had you been on staff or in the SO, why weren't you a Registrar?

I will answer the last paragraph here. Of course, as with any conscious thinking being, what matters to you is simply what you decide and feel matters to you. There is no "absolute" about it. If you don't need SCN, then you don't need it. I did auditing, lots of it, up through OT III, and did many courses over the years, as a public and as a Sea Org member. But now, I have little need or desire to be involved with it on ANY level. For me, I just don't "need it" now. I might in the future. I might not.

Every person is different. Every person is a complex UNIVERSE unto his or herself. The body makes us all seem "similar" or the "same", but really, people are wildly different as regards tendencies, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, education, past traumatic experiences, positive experiences, interests, mental and spiritual difficulties, emotional problems, etc. Scientology is PRESENTED and PROMOTED by LRH, INT Mgmt, and devoted members as a set of methods designed to free a human being (spiritually). I have the opinion that while it certainly can "help" people with issues and personal problems in many areas, especially at the early stages, and while it can and does address "some" aspects of spiritual progress, that the subject and approach is grossly flawed.

I do NOT think that it is a valid "religion" along the lines of Buddhism or Hinduism, because it lacks the spiritual motivation necessary for a legitimate spiritual path. The goal of Buddhism is to become free from the cycle of birth and death, and this involves disconnecting COMPLETELY from all desire, attachment and involvement with ANYTHING related to this universe. THAT is NOT the goal of SCN. Scn is all tied up with "winning", "surviving better", "changing conditions", etc. Those ideas are so NOT Buddhist. The aim is fundamentally different.

What is SCN really? It is a self-help subject, parading itself as a religion. The whole "religion" aspect was tacked on as an after-thought for TAX purposes and protection reasons. Scn is Tony Robbins pretending to be Buddha!

Scn lacks the attitude necessary for any VALID spiritual path - complete non-judgment and total unconditional love. True, most examples of modern religion lack that, except for some versions of Buddhism and Hinduism.

In some regards, as with the PDC lectures, Hubbard got it right better than anyone else EVER, but it is in the APPLICATION where he went awry. He used the stuff poorly, and for lousy reasons. The entire aspect of OSA "handling enemies" with lawsuits, noisy investigations, lying, endless exaggerated PR, and fabricating and contriving "crimes" of enemies is so very much NOT in alignment with ANY valid spiritual approach to life. Maybe that's my own fixed idea and hidden standard, but I see it more as a "practical" opinion. One cannot "go free" remaining wrapped up in battles, wars, and conflicts with real and imaginary "enemies".

I don't know what Hubbard was "really" trying to do. Whatever he was trying to do, he did some of it well, and he made a dog's breakfast of some of it.

The Church of Scientology MUST be demolished, because it hurts people and lives over and over. As long as it exists in anything like its current form, it will continue to leave casualties in its wake.

It is fine with me if the "subject" continues to exist for interested people to involve themselves with. But, MUCH will have to be rewritten or edited to remove the lunacy from the valuable. While KSW may be largely "correct" in approach, it brings about attitudes of superiority and fanatical devotion. But, in the end, Scientology and the subject of Scientology will be like everything else in this universe; it will constantly change into some new version of itself. This universe involves continual, endless and infinite "becoming". Everything anywhere, from the smallest molecular particle to the largest galaxy is CHANGING (having been born and eventually dying - the start, change, stop of Hubbard). The "cycles" of Vedic literature. Scientology, as a subject and an activity, is not immune from that sequence, no matter what measures Hubbard took to prevent "alteration". It is a fool's game. EVERYTHING CHANGES. He should have known that. He should have known better, with all that he apparently did know, but he didn't.

Primarily, it is quite possible that Hubbard simply thought too much of himself and his own products, and this over-exaggerated sense of self-worth and value got the better of him. Scn doesn't stress "dissolving the ego", as does Buddhism, and that is one of its major faults as a spiritual discipline. Strangely, Scn props up and often expands and glorifies the "personal ego". Hubbard was a great example of THAT problem with Scientology. I have never read any reports of Buddha going around ordering followers to hang up pictures of himself, to "do as Buddha does", or write endlessly to micromanage almost every aspect of everything. Buddha aimed in the direction of "letting it all go" so as to truly discover SELF. Scn adds more and more shit into the mix, onto the "self", making you even more complicated as an entity and shackling you further to this universe and game (despite what it asserts to the contrary).

While Hubbard CLAIMED that the motivation of Scn was the same as Buddhism, I see that he was very wrong in that regard. The aims are quite different. I noticed early that involvement with Scn often created a "Scientology personality", a new version of a personal "ego", and I saw that as "bad" from a perspective of legit spiritual progress. While Hubbard "explained" it correctly in some and even many ways, the actual practical use of Scientology "standardly" did NOT go in the same direction as Buddhist-type "total freedom". The words sound good, but the REAL RESULTS take the Scn member somewhere else entirely. In a very real sense, nobody in Scn ends up anywhere near where he or she thought he or she was going to get to. The promises and "ideals" of Scn, like with so many religions, are quite different than the results and realities following extensive personal involvement.

In one (limited, qualified) regard, Scientology is/was a "good idea" gone horribly bad. All the "effort" and money in the world won't turn what has gone bad into something "good". RIP.
 
Last edited:

uniquemand

Unbeliever
"Metapsychology is an offshoot from Scientology started by [Gerbode] who used to run a Scientology franchise in Palo Alto. The book rewrites the basic principles of Scientology using a different vocabulary. It is designed with the intent of appealing to mainstream psychologists. In the early 80's Frank (usually known as Serge) worked with David Mayo. They concentrate on the lower levels of Scientology and have removed references to upper level controversial data which as far as I know they do not currently use." - Ralph Hilton​

Similarities:
The Bridge <=> The Curriculum

Straightwire <=> Memory Enhancement Section
Grade 0 <=> Communication Section
Grade I <=> Resolution Section
Grade II <=> Reconciliation Section
Grade III <=> Resilience Section
Grade IV <=> Rightness Section
Dianetics <=> TIR
...​

The Metapsichology "Curriculum":http://www.tirtraining.org/training/metapsychology.htm#

About Idenics, yes, it is very different from Scientology but I believe (from the small experience I had) that it includes what works in Scientology, leaving out all the unnecessary (and often dangerous) additives.

Yes, they have parallel sections up through "Grade III", after which they do "General TIR" (analogous to NED), and then they do "Grade IV" stuff, after which they do "Core Curriculum" (Hilton is wrong, there), which consists of "Unstacking" and "Individuation" sections. Unstacking is roughly similar to handling Actual GPMs starting with End Words, and Individuation handles the NOTS type phenomena. While in use, these are rarely done, as most people have no interest in pursuing metapsychology or TIR beyond "Life Stress Reduction", analogous to "Life Repair" in Scio. They aren't a cult, so they don't sell or force people to do things they aren't interested in. Some people do go beyond their Life Stress Reduction, but most just get busy in their lives.

It's not just a rewrite, as Hilton seems to suggest, it's a different theoretical basis, with different outcomes, and no "spiritual states" claimed or hyped.
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
A few comments

This is a good point. Lets look at another field of creative endeavour for a 'datum of comparable magnitude'. Music, for example. Sound vibration is as old as this universe. Along the way, we have developed not only ears with which to filter out certain vibrations, but also aural acuity to other vibration frequencies. Dogs can hear higher pitches than we can, but for some reason they have yet to develop instruments with which to play.

Sound vibration is not as old as this universe. It only is possible on planets which have a gaseous atmosphere. Apparently, this is fairly rare in this universe. The first planet which had a gaseous atmosphere which was breathable by life and developed intelligent life forms undoubtedly had to occur quite a long period from when the universe was initially formed. Maybe if you wrote that music is as old as man's history that would be good.

Along the way we have had many creative types implement different types of instruments, utilizing vibrating strings, air columns, water, cannons, etc.
Others have developed 'tuning systems', to try to bring the ascending spiral of overtones into "harmony". Others have used these tunings and instruments to create songs, symphonies, operas, rock and roll.......

And to do this, it is not necessary for them to know who discovered the note of A vibrating at 440 cycles per second. Or who developed the "well-tempered" tuning system of 12 keys.

Middle "C" is 440 cps, not A but this point is not important.

My point is that in the end, we ALL potentially created it, and the search for origin in the Physical Universe is a red herring along most any line of research.

In your music analogy you are saying many creative types implemented the many advancements of music and of course this is true, when you bridge to the Physical Universe analogy you say we ALL potentially created it. I think I get the gist of what you mean but perhaps you could clarify how the music comments lead to the analogy regarding the Physical Universe.

What confuses me is that in the music analogy, many creative types, already dwelling within the Physical Universe created improvements to music but in the Physical Universe you use ALL and not just creative types plus in the musical example, the creative types are living here but in the Physical Universe analogy, since the we are talking of its creation, we were ALL outside the physical universe before we created it. Maybe I am splitting hairs or don't fully understand your point but a clarification would be nice.


Hubbard did at first acknowledge the 2000 years of thinking men, etc. Later, he became vindictively spiteful towards those who "contributed" (Horner, Berners, Walters, etc). I view that as his problem, as he was committing enough overts to collapse his space in to solid granite, and on a constant missed withhold from society...

I agree on this point.

Creative Intelligences seek out new viewpoints, new tools, new realities...in any field. And like in the music scene there is heavy "borrowing" from others.
It's not just a Hubbard thing....obsessive duplication seems like part of the "engine of survival".

I agree.

There is a Chopin Prelude (in E minor) that most pianists learn early on, as it is not technically difficult, and is fun to play. I was listening to the radio the other day and heard a pianon concerto, where the opening notes of the melody were exactly the same (but in a different rhythm) as the Chopin Prelude.....I later found out that it was written by a contemporary of Chopin, that Chopin was intimately familiar with this composer's work, and the piano concerto pre-dated the prelude. Should I think any less of Chopin?

I don't think any one should think any less of Chopin. If people liked his work before they knew that an earlier composer wrote a similar melody, why should they now not like it if they found out an earlier similar melody was written by another which Chopin had probably heard.

It was very common in classical music and probably in jazz as well for one great composer to write "theme and variations" on the work of another great composer. In jazz and classical, one performing artist might extemporaneously create and perform variations on a theme of another great artist. Usually these types of works are tributes from one composer or performer to another.
Lkwdblds
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Re: Gadfly's post #83

Gadfly - Thanks for your post #83 on this thread. Geez, I was just kidding about giving an answer to how to solve the Israeli - Palestinian situation but I'll be damned if you did not give an answer. I read your reply and as usual can not find much if anything to disagree with. Letting go of one's dynmanics and not trying to boost each one into a high condition is something pretty new to me. Letting go fully of my identity and ego is a little out of my reach now. If I did so, immediately, without any kind of gradient, my "havingness" would drop so much I would probably die very soon.

The unconditional love aspect is something that has always been there for me. My natural inclination is to love everyone. However, loving someone like DM unconditionally would be beyond my ability to do at this time, same for guys like Hitler and Goebbles. The best poster girl for unconditional love who I ever saw (on TV) was Mother Teresa; she certainly seemed to exhibit unconditional love and she came from Christianity and not an Eastern Religious background. Once a person saw the errors of his or her ways and repented then I could love them unconditionally but without that, I would be unable to flow love to them or maybe one could say that the greatest act of love one could carry out to an unrepetent killer would be to withhold acts of love from him which would enable him to realize for himself the error of his ways and make him want to repent and make up his damages.

I still find some things of interest in the game we are currently playing on Earth and still have some attention on past pleasure moments so though I tend to agree with what you are saying, I am not anywhere near that state of being at this time. How are you doing in getting to the states of being which you feel are necessary to getting out of this game? Are you there yet?
Lkwdblds
 
Top