What's new

DM's "New" Quad Grades

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
I hope no one on this board is so insane as to be paying any freeloader bills to those thieves.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Well I can say 90% of my training up to Class VIII, FEBC, was directly under LRH.

Roughly 85% of my processing was directly C/Sed by LRH.

Even as an FCCI at flag in the early days my case was C/Sed by LRH.

I can tell you that nothing I've seen since then even remotely compares to that standard.

Even including all of that there were huge gaps in the Tech and Management.

Simply put the Tech and Policy was slanted to keep LRH in control and to dominate. :grouch:

Alan

Hey man please tell more.

There are few who wish to comment on early days. Well I'm not on XSO
forum, so may be missing stuff.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Excuse me, Veda. He's not playing any "mind games".

A Scientology process produces or does not produce movement on the tone scale, meter phenomena and/or Tone arm Action (TA) regardless of whether Ron Hubbard, Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner or anyone else authored it.

I have given Locational Processing (command "Look at that <object>" with finger pointing to the object named) to infants in daycare that were crying hysterically due to mother not being there (not wet nappies or no bottle) and uniformly brought every one of them upon which I used this bit of Scientology tech out of it up to baby smiling and making happy noises.

These infants could not possibly know who authored the Locational Process or any of Hubbard's theory as to why it is supposed to work, and yet it did work when I applied it.

Of course, you may always call me a liar or something; but that's how it was.

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous

Go back and read the earlier statements.

His comments were directed at a (ex) Sea Org member.

You bet it's 'mind games' when a Sea Org member is accused of identifying the founder and 'Source' of Scientology with Scientology. What is the Sea Org member supposed to do?

As for auditing, I've done quite a bit, inside and outside organized Scientology, including on those unfamiliar with the subject, and I agree that basic (non-auditor-code-violating) auditing - the best in the subject - can produce positive results on those completely unfamiliar with the subject.

The first thing I did after resigning from Scientology - as a public person and Class V auditor - was find a PC to audit, from scratch, through Objectives, S/W, Dianetics, Lower Grades, a little more Dianetics, and even a little "NOTs" - when something came up that presented an "entity." It was an opportunity to "hat" this person as a "solo auditor," and - with me there guiding/C/Sing - have him two way comm and audit this entity to resolution. (An ability of some possible value, for rare occasional use, but not an activity to engage in for years.)

It was valuable experience for this person, who -at my suggestion - took a pass at pursuing (what I call) the "Implantology" levels.

It was a very successful series of actions. This person, years later, is now doing very well.

And there were other similar successes with the best in the subject outside Scientology, and besides assisting others, it also allowed me to review the subject of auditing before commencing my study of the "dark side" of Scientology, a "dark side" placed there primarily by its founder.

Back to the original issue: Suggest reading the earlier posts. Berating a former Sea Org member, essentially, for having been a Sea Org member, is not the way to go. Suggesting that Scientology has nothing to do with Hubbard is dishonest, and in this case - yes - a "mind game."

And Scientology divorced from Hubbard, and from the dark side that he placed there, would no longer be Scientology, but another subject.
 
"Ron" is interwoven into "Scientology," per design.

That's a viewpoint. It's pretty clear that it was Hubbard's. It's not one I ever chose to share. Not even when a staff member at a church mission.

The subject of scientology I've always found to be very useful for increasing self-awareness. That to me is valuable. Membership in a church or group isn't especially valuable in themselves.

I've never considered the Co$ particularly significant. Similarly, "Ron's" position as "Founder" seemed to me a sideshow and distraction.

It is simple to understand why a person who lacks interest or gets no benefit would choose not be involved with the subject of scientology.

When a person who has had many years of experience with the tech of scientology claims not to recognize benefits from having used the tech, I'm curious why they chose to spend all those years involved with the subject. :)


Mark A. Baker
 
Berating a former Sea Org member, essentially, for having been a Sea Org member, is not the way to go. .

I've have not berated anyone. That is your own "dub in".


Suggesting that Scientology has nothing to do with Hubbard is dishonest, and in this case - yes - a "mind game."

And Scientology divorced from Hubbard, and from the dark side that he placed there, would no longer be Scientology, but another subject.

The subject of scientology is NOT about Hubbard. The Co$ & the S. O. may well be. I left the Co$ because of their failure to live up to their agreements. I never joined the latter because I thought the S.O. itself was a bad idea.

Any "mind games" present aren't mine.


Mark A. Baker
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
I have given Locational Processing (command "Look at that <object>" with finger pointing to the object named) to infants in daycare that were crying hysterically due to mother not being there (not wet nappies or no bottle) and uniformly brought every one of them upon which I used this bit of Scientology tech out of it up to baby smiling and making happy noises.

These infants could not possibly know who authored the Locational Process or any of Hubbard's theory as to why it is supposed to work, and yet it did work when I applied it.

Of course, you may always call me a liar or something; but that's how it was.

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous

I mean no disrespect Sneaks, but every mother knows and does this instinctively. The best of all is bringing out a set of keys or something interesting for bubs to play with.
 

Div6

Crusader
LOL. Mark, meet Veda. S\He has a heat seeking ev purp towards anyone who extols the virtues of running the R6 materials, whether real or imagined.

To this day I don't know why, as s\he will never answer direct questions as to experiences re: time, place, form and\or event.

But assertive s\he is. We just learn to accept the viewpoint, and accept that tolerating diverse viewpoints are a part of the fabric of freedom, and not a "bad" thing at all.

in my humble opinion.

your mileage may vary.
 

Colleen K. Peltomaa

Silver Meritorious Patron
Excuse me, Veda. He's not playing any "mind games".

A Scientology process produces or does not produce movement on the tone scale, meter phenomena and/or Tone arm Action (TA) regardless of whether Ron Hubbard, Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner or anyone else authored it.

I have given Locational Processing (command "Look at that <object>" with finger pointing to the object named) to infants in daycare that were crying hysterically due to mother not being there (not wet nappies or no bottle) and uniformly brought every one of them upon which I used this bit of Scientology tech out of it up to baby smiling and making happy noises.

These infants could not possibly know who authored the Locational Process or any of Hubbard's theory as to why it is supposed to work, and yet it did work when I applied it.

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous

That's because you are very theta. That would never have worked for me, I'm afraid.
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
No mind games to me.

I would just say honestly, that I knew no other life. Read my whole story to understand that.

I did not know any other way. Any other difference. Born and raised in it, I was a true follower, with no mind of my own to think for myself, until I broke free.

The Truman Show is only 1/2 of the idea of the true story. If you get my drift.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

The subject of scientology is NOT about Hubbard. The Co$ & the S. O. may well be. I left the Co$ because of their failure to live up to their agreements. I never joined the latter because I thought the S.O. itself was a bad idea.

Any "mind games" present aren't mine.


Mark A. Baker

"The subject of Scientology is not about Hubbard."

That's Hubbard's line: "Scientology is not his opinion, Scientology is fact."

So what else is new?

I suppose, in this tedious exercise, it would be necessary to ask, "What do you consider to be Scientology?"

Is Scientology Scientology?

Or is Hubbard's written and spoken work, in its totality - once carefully examined - so offensive, and Hubbard's actions and treatment of others - once carefully examined - so reprehensible, and the subject of Scientology - once thoroughly and carefully examined - so full of recurring deviousness and venom, that it becomes necessary to disown Hubbard, and perhaps even the subject of Scientology itself - leaving only a hypothetical "Scientology" that has no relationship to historic or objective reality.

You're in love with the word Scientology, but its doctrinal content, and its founder, present a problem to you. You solve that problem, and preserve the word, for which you have such fondness, by insisting that Scientology is not Scientology as crafted by L. Ron Hubbard, or as it existed in its history, or exists now - as a subject.

It's your idea of what you wish to call "Scientology."

And it preserves for you the word, "Scientology," and even allows yourself to call yourself a "Scientologist," which must give you a buzz.

So have fun.

'Sly and tall edgy lurks':

http://www.freewebs.com/slyandtalledgy/Scientology Sly and Tall Edgy - Brian Ambry.pdf
 

Div6

Crusader
And here Veda inserts his/her own "evaluation".

Just as he\she accuses Hubbard of doing.

Wow.

There is a stuck viewpoint here somewhere.

Axiom 1: Life is basically a static.

And if you don't understand that, you will not understand any thing that follows.
 
Last edited:
No mind games to me.

I would just say honestly, that I knew no other life. Read my whole story to understand that.

I did not know any other way. Any other difference. Born and raised in it, I was a true follower, with no mind of my own to think for myself, until I broke free.

The Truman Show is only 1/2 of the idea of the true story. If you get my drift.

I can understand that. Please don't think of this as "patronizing" but under the circumstances I am especially impressed by your having made the "break".

Adults getting involved with the Co$ have some sense of the "outside". For you, leaving must have been as if entering a wholly alien environment.


Mark A. Baker
 
You're in love with the word Scientology, but its doctrinal content, and its founder, present a problem to you. You solve that problem, and preserve the word, for which you have such fondness, by insisting that Scientology is not Scientology as crafted by L. Ron Hubbard, or as it existed in its history, or exists now - as a subject.


http://www.freewebs.com/slyandtalledgy/Scientology Sly and Tall Edgy - Brian Ambry.pdf

You make a lot of assumptions. :)

As regards your imagining my "fondness" for the word "scientology", nothing could be further from the truth.

It's not my word & it isn't one I would have chosen. I use it only because it is the generally accepted terminology for the specific technology of auditing which I have learned as a result of association with scientologists.

A point of fact, I piss-off "purists" frequently by my lack of reverence for their individual "sacred relics". I'm rather noted for it in some freezone circles. :)

I am however smart enough to recognize a useful set of "spiritual insight tools" when I see them. :wink2:

The only interest I have ever had in "scientology" is in the specific technology of auditing which I have found is very useful in assisting individuals to achieve gains in self-awareness.

More accurately, I consider that "scientology tech" is quite likely the most useful piece of spiritual technology extant for helping individuals achieve personal epiphanies. It can be seen to work both quickly and repeatedly. It is fairly easy to learn. It also has a low threshhold for successful application, at least at early stages.

All in all, not a bad recommendation. :thumbsup:

I make no claims about the perfection of the tech. Nor do I claim it is the ONLY tech. It is however useful as it is.

As to "doctrinal foundations" or the "founder" presenting a problem to me, quite simply "nope". That is more of your "dub in". [You really do seem to do that alot.] :wink2:

I consider them completely irrelevant. There is no problem for the simple reason that they are NOT the technology of auditing. Simply put, the actions or beliefs of Hubbard, the Co$, or Miscavige have no meaningful impact on the effectiveness of auditing technology.

I can run somebody wholetrack without having to be concerned with LRH, DM, Co$, or any of the other bete noirs of clambakers.

The actions or beliefs of those Co$ stalwarts reflect their choices. It is not my role as a practicing scientologist to defend them. That's just not my problem. :no:

You clearly are bothered by "scientology". Whether it is the "tech", or the church, or Hubbard, I don't know. Whether it is something else entirely, I don't know. One thing I do know, this is also not my problem. :)


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

As to "doctrinal foundations" [doctrinal content] or the "founder" presenting a problem to me, quite simply "nope".

I consider them completely irrelevant.

-snip-

No kidding. That's one way of dealing with the problem of doctrinal content, and Scientology's history, and its founder - ignore them, or at least say you do.

Unfortunately, these are not irrelevant, and if you realized that, then you might continue to call yourself an auditor, but you'd have a problem with calling yourself a Scientologist, that is, without feeling a bit silly.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
No kidding. That's one way of dealing with the problem of doctrinal content, and Scientology's history, and its founder - ignore them, or at least say you do.

Unfortunately, these are not irrelevant, and if you realized that, then you might continue to call yourself an auditor, but you'd have a problem with calling yourself a Scientologist, that is, without feeling a bit silly.

And you Veda must have a problem calling yourself a music lover. Look
at the lives of Beethoven and Wagner, and the naughty boys and girls of rock.
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
I can understand that. Please don't think of this as "patronizing" but under the circumstances I am especially impressed by your having made the "break".

Adults getting involved with the Co$ have some sense of the "outside". For you, leaving must have been as if entering a wholly alien environment.


Mark A. Baker

Correct. I had a little cash. I had no credit history. I didnt even know what that was. I knew nothing about the internet. I hadnt watched TV since 1982. I didnt know how to drive, until I left at 32. I had no idea how to apply for a job. I didnt know where to look for one either. When tax time came, I was utterly clueless and ended up messing it all up and got fined up the kazoo. The list goes on.

But its all good now. Yay.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Correct. I had a little cash. I had no credit history. I didnt even know what that was. I knew nothing about the internet. I hadnt watched TV since 1982. I didnt know how to drive, until I left at 32. I had no idea how to apply for a job. I didnt know where to look for one either. When tax time came, I was utterly clueless and ended up messing it all up and got fined up the kazoo. The list goes on.

But its all good now. Yay.

Bea, it's not just that your SO-life story is so harrowing/rivetting, but that you're a great example of how someone can leave after so many years, seemingly "institutionalised" (you know what I mean) and still "make it go right" (sorry)! :clap:

You are the ex-SO success story! :happydance:
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
Bea, it's not just that your SO-life story is so harrowing/rivetting, but that you're a great example of how someone can leave after so many years, seemingly "institutionalised" (you know what I mean) and still "make it go right" (sorry)! :clap:

You are the ex-SO success story! :happydance:

:D :thumbsup: :D :thumbsup: :D :thumbsup: :D :thumbsup: :D :thumbsup: :D :thumbsup:
 
Top