Scientology is all bad

[Infinite]

Actually, he hasn't fully grasped anything about scientology auditing tech.

Infinite has no actual experience with any of it having only read about it on the web. He has no direct knowledge of that which he speaks. He has been corrected concerning his displays of ignorance of the subject of scientology on several prior occasions, even on one notable occasion causing Emma to call him out for his ridiculous assertions.


Mark A. Baker

Oh, dear . . . A=A=A *plus* the reactive . . .

Scientology 101: when confronted with undeniable facts and/or irrefutable logic, apply ad homs

. . . handy hint: your PhD in Everything from the University of Wikipedia could be put to use by contributing positively to the thread rather than seeking to derail. Under the general topic "Scientology is all bad" many aspects have come to light. Perhaps you could provide a Bakerology viewpoint on any good points you see, or the fact that Engrams don't exist, or Scientology=Hypnotism, or the prescient aspects of the Anderson Report. I'll try hard to see things from your point of view but - no guarantee - I don't think I can get my head that far up my arse.

 

[PirateAndBum]

O.K. ~~~

Let's take everything you just said and look at it in the light of "there is no such thing as a reactive mind".

Ron made that up, and it is not real.

Where would things stand then?

I agree there is no such "thing". Analytic/Reactive/Somatic mind is a model Hubbard put forth in DMSMH. As time went on this model become convoluted. New concepts of spirit, GE, had to be crowbar'd in, when he should have just done a jettison and redone the model.

Later it seems he had some concept of a "core" reactive component. I can only infer that he considered this to be implant based as his clearing course had an implant as the ultimate handling. This to my understanding is just another of his errors (fail). Handling one incident certainly cannot be the solution to reactivity.

As far as I am concerned "Clear" is a marketing tool. Whatever the state may or may not be one thing is absolutely for certain: Any "Clear" I've ever known does act reactively. (and OT VIII's too)

Hubbard's own research into goals clearly showed that the person's own goals were at/near the root of the matter. He tried to develop a method to handle these and failed miserably. This was the point where he went right off the rails, from then on it was rube-goldberg messing about. BTW, I've seen someone post somewhere saying they were interested in doing those old processes - DON"T! You can read the stories of people on this board who were actually there and it is quite clear they did nothing but move you in the direction of coffinization. I'm not kidding!

Can messing with the mind be dangerous? Yes, it most definitely can. It can kill you if you really dig into core mental material and don't handle it properly.

 

[PirateAndBum]

<snip> or the fact that Engrams don't exist

Moments of pain & unconsciousness that a person has experienced certainly do exist and can be looked at again by a person. That is an engram. They do exist. I've run them on people.

I ran a tonsillectomy operation that a person had had. He revivified while running it, it was really an eye-opener for me to watch as he re-experienced it.

 

[Infinite]

While I have mixed feelings about the Anderson Report, there's no denying that Anderson was spot on - almost prescient - regarding Hubbard's use of the "Brainwashing Manual" on Scientologists . . . <snip> . . .

Yep. L Ron Hubbard's tendency toward authoritarianism was noted by Dr J A Winter as early as 1950 and, as you mention, was brought to wog attention again with the Anderson Report in 1965. In 2010, the inevitable consequences were noted in the Levin Affadavit which considers the totalitarian reality now faced by those born into Scientology

. . . The sort of torture that is commonly associated with the term brainwashing does not appear to have been usual in the Headleys’ history in Scientology. What I believe did occur, however, was a more subtle, more potent form of control that transformed their reality and thinking in a manner that left them unable to make rational decisions. They were subject to social and psychological pressures that subverted control of their thinking, behavior, emotions, and decisions. Although this type of control can and did lead to pathological behavior and thinking, it is usually for the most part an extension of normal psychology – the common tactics of persuasion and influence that occur in non-pathological, everyday life settings.

The differences between everyday persuasion and extreme control concern intensity and intent: In instances of totalistic control, such as the case of the Headleys, the psychological techniques are taken to extremes. The techniques are, also, often “manipulative” -- a term that, in a psychological context, refers to persuading or influencing people in such a way that the manipulator tries to get what he or she wants, or makes a person believe something in a calculating, indirect and somewhat dishonest way. The end product of the control to be described is pathological. However, the normalcy of the techniques, when applied with skill and subtlety, make it difficult for the victim to recognize just how pathological the coercive forces are until they are removed from the situation . . . "

. . . and even then it can take years.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Moments of pain & unconsciousness that a person has experienced certainly do exist and can be looked at again by a person. That is an engram. They do exist. I've run them on people.

I ran a tonsillectomy operation that a person had had. He revivified while running it, it was really an eye-opener for me to watch as he re-experienced it.

Many of us have 'run' such things ... it was a 'feeling', nothing more and nothing less.

I once ran out being born and believed it right up until I found out from my Ma that I had it completely wrong location wise and on the description of the room etc (I didn't check anything else because by then ... I no longer cared) and I expect my well meaning auditor would like to believe it was beneficial (to me) but it wasn't.

You saw what you saw PandB ... but it may have been nothing more than someones 'feeling' about the event possibly with a bit of amateur dramatics and imagination thrown in for good measure.

 

[Infinite]

Moments of pain & unconsciousness that a person has experienced certainly do exist and can be looked at again by a person. That is an engram. They do exist. I've run them on people.

I ran a tonsillectomy operation that a person had had. He revivified while running it, it was really an eye-opener for me to watch as he re-experienced it.

Yes, moments of pain and unconsciousness exist and, yes, they can be examined, but they are not engrams.

An Engram is a mental image picture which has "charge" and " . . . must, by definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. These engrams are a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness . . . "

This definition, or one very like it, was used at New York University in 1950 when L Ron Hubbard's people cooperated in an experiment to determine the existence or otherwise of Engrams. You know the result. And still today there is not a shred of evidence that Engrams exist, and a bunch of evidence to suggest that they are simply a concept presented as "fact" so people can be more easily perusaded that imagined events are factual.

Please, don't be put off by my recounting of the situation as it is in wog world. If you have a way of proving Engrams exist then, by all means, share it with the world. I'm sure you would win the Nobel Prize.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Yes, moments of pain and unconsciousness exist and, yes, they can be examined, but they are not engrams.

An Engram is a mental image picture which has "charge" and " . . . must, by definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. These engrams are a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness . . . "

This definition, or one very like it, was used at New York University in 1950 when L Ron Hubbard's people cooperated in an experiment to determine the existence or otherwise of Engrams. You know the result. And still today there is not a shred of evidence that Engrams exist, and a bunch of evidence to suggest that they are simply a concept presented as "fact" so people can be more easily perusaded that imagined events are factual.

Please, don't be put off by my recounting of the situation as it is in wog world. If you have a way of proving Engrams exist then, by all means, share it with the world. I'm sure you would win the Nobel Prize.

Engrams exist for a Scientologist because Scientologists believe that. . .

"If it is real to you then it is real."

That is Scientology scripture.

Scripture is holy.

An ordinary man is not capable of writing sacred scripture because is is.....um, sacred. That kind of stuff is written by God.

So! Do you see now that if a Scientologist thinks an engram is real, then it is real?

They are still working on the part where severely mentally ill persons, psychotics and delusional serial killers murder others on behalf of God's scripture also because "...it is real to them." They're doing a debug on that minor glitch and will get back to us with the why pretty soon I am sure.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker

Actually, he hasn't fully grasped anything about scientology auditing tech.

Infinite has no actual experience with any of it having only read about it on the web. He has no direct knowledge of that which he speaks. He has been corrected concerning his displays of ignorance of the subject of scientology on several prior occasions, even on one notable occasion causing Emma to call him out for his ridiculous assertions.

This is vintage WordClown tech from Bakerology.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know about your theories.

* People with infinitely less auditing and training than yourself (like Infinite) "..haven't fully grasped anything about scientology auditing tech."

* People with infinitely more auditing and training than yourself (like me) also "..haven't fully grasped anything about scientology auditing tech."​

Remember when you indignantly demanded to know (of me): "...HAVE YOU EVER EVEN READ ANY OF THE BASIC BOOKS??!" That must have been embarrassing when I answered you.

We get it, Mark.

Only you know.

Or people that agree with you know.

Do try to get out more.

 

[Dilpickle]

O.K. ~~~

Let's take everything you just said and look at it in the light of "there is no such thing as a reactive mind".

Ron made that up, and it is not real.

Where would things stand then?

Here's an example. Most of the Normal People that are very nice when you visit them or run into them at the market, or have them for teachers or therapists, etc, have Buttons. Buttons are reactive.

Let's say you know your friend has a "button" on french fries for some reason. He doesn't like to talk about them, or eat them or hear about them. You know to stay clear of french fries when around him so as not to re-stimulate him. If you keep saying FRENCH FRIES FRENCH FRIES FRENCH FRIES to this person, sooner or later they will become extremely upset in some kind of irrational manner.. if pushed, they might even whack you one..

This is part of the Reactive Mind.

Assuming this guy got a really GOOD session on French Fries.. he would no longer react to the word or the food. He might even like eating them. That's what I mean.

Peace Activists carrying peace signs in a demonstration have actually gotten so upset that they started hitting the War Enthusiasts over the heads with their signs. That actually happened way back in the past.. 30 years ago or so.. I remember reading about it. Dilpickle

 

[Dilpickle]

States of consciousness are of particular interest to me, and something that I've researched in depth.

The two states that we're all aware of are the sleeping and waking states. No surprises there, but there are many others. Coma is interesting, as it is a state which looks like sleep, but is quite different from it.

Similarly, hypnotic reverie looks like the waking state, but is quite different from it...

Hey My friend/partner got a book on how to hypnotize people in a drug store when he was 12. He tried it, and found that about one out of five people was a very good hypnotic subject. Some much more so than others. On the ones that were very good at it, he tried many experiments which proved to him beyond a doubt that people are able to do MUCH more than they think they can.

For instance, when he hypnotized one guy, the guy obviously did not believe he could blow a wart off his finger.. but my friend suggested to him that the unwanted wart he had would be "gone" when he came out of trance. When the guy woke up, he had been so "out" that he did not remember what my friend told him, or maybe my friend told him Not to remember. In any case.. about 15 seconds after he woke up, the wart literally BLEW off his finger.. shooting up into the air with a blast of blood following it.. the guy Screamed and almost fainted, it shocked him so badly.

I believe what hypnosis can do is convince some part of yourself that you CAN do various things, even if the rational-awake side of you does NOT believe it. Someone else is telling you you can do it, and you have set aside your discerning part and are willing to do or believe whatever the other person tells you to. Dilpickle

 

[Student of Trinity]

That's a succinct explanation of Hubbard's theory, at least as I understand it. The problem is that the theory is nonsense. People aren't actually like that. Nobody will hit you just for saying, 'french fries'. People do sometimes get upset about certain topics, but they do so for much deeper reasons than Hubbard's facile engram notion. All that the engram theory does is let you trivialize and ignore other people's problems — and your own.

 

[BardoThodol]

I keep reading these threads and feel this nagging question lurking just out of site(sic). Certainly, Scientology did not produce Clears and OTs as defined--even with a continuum of altered definitions. Despite Hubbard's claims that it would. granted.

I know the guy was a natural born conman. He just had a native talent for the con. Mischief must have been part of his DNA.

Yet, what about a group of individuals trapped in a mine? Wouldn't a sociopath still have the urge to get out?

Eastern religions teach that we are caught in this trap, the Maya, the illusion, Samsara, the endless wheel of birth and death. The great thinkers in these teach that we are basically asleep and need to awaken to become free.

Could a conman become acquainted with this and actually want to become free?

Sure, a sociopath trapped in a mine would want to control the other miners, probably try to accumulate their resources to enhance his own chances of getting out. But, he would also have to look for a means of escape.

Some sociopaths are acutely sensitive to the needs of others, using those needs to manipulate. That same cleverness allows for solutions to problems which stymy others.

That Hubbard was ONLY trying to con others with a great hoax just seems a bit simplistic. My bet is that he actually was looking to pull an Excalibur-type answer from The Great Mystery.

 

[Smilla]

I keep reading these threads and feel this nagging question lurking just out of site(sic). Certainly, Scientology did not produce Clears and OTs as defined--even with a continuum of altered definitions. Despite Hubbard's claims that it would. granted.

I know the guy was a natural born conman. He just had a native talent for the con. Mischief must have been part of his DNA.

Yet, what about a group of individuals trapped in a mine? Wouldn't a sociopath still have the urge to get out?

Eastern religions teach that we are caught in this trap, the Maya, the illusion, Samsara, the endless wheel of birth and death. The great thinkers in these teach that we are basically asleep and need to awaken to become free.

Could a conman become acquainted with this and actually want to become free?

Sure, a sociopath trapped in a mine would want to control the other miners, probably try to accumulate their resources to enhance his own chances of getting out. But, he would also have to look for a means of escape.

Some sociopaths are acutely sensitive to the needs of others, using those needs to manipulate. That same cleverness allows for solutions to problems which stymy others.

That Hubbard was ONLY trying to con others with a great hoax just seems a bit simplistic. My bet is that he actually was looking to pull an Excalibur-type answer from The Great Mystery.

I don't doubt for a moment that he was looking for that answer, but he never found it or even got close to finding it, and I'm sure that he would have kept it to himself if he ever did.

 

[BardoThodol]

I don't doubt for a moment that he was looking for that answer, but he never found it or even got close to finding it, and I'm sure that he would have kept it to himself if he ever did.

Didn't get close? Haven't you ever seen an OT lift a car with a tractor beam and place it gently in a postulated parking spot in crowded downtown LA? Or watched an OT part the red sea of little red corvettes during rush hour so he/she can travel unimpeded at the speed of infinite light during rush hour.

Probably would have kept it to himself, if he could have gotten what he wanted.

Probably not if he realized that the trap was multi-dependent on other beings. If the only solution was to enlist the aid of others, you're forced to enlist that aid--even if later you plan to shoot everyone who helped.

 

[Dilpickle]

I keep reading these threads and feel this nagging question lurking just out of site(sic). Certainly, Scientology did not produce Clears and OTs as defined--even with a continuum of altered definitions. Despite Hubbard's claims that it would. granted.

I know the guy was a natural born conman. He just had a native talent for the con. Mischief must have been part of his DNA.

Yet, what about a group of individuals trapped in a mine? Wouldn't a sociopath still have the urge to get out?

Eastern religions teach that we are caught in this trap, the Maya, the illusion, Samsara, the endless wheel of birth and death. The great thinkers in these teach that we are basically asleep and need to awaken to become free.

Could a conman become acquainted with this and actually want to become free?

Sure, a sociopath trapped in a mine would want to control the other miners, probably try to accumulate their resources to enhance his own chances of getting out. But, he would also have to look for a means of escape.

Some sociopaths are acutely sensitive to the needs of others, using those needs to manipulate. That same cleverness allows for solutions to problems which stymy others.

That Hubbard was ONLY trying to con others with a great hoax just seems a bit simplistic. My bet is that he actually was looking to pull an Excalibur-type answer from The Great Mystery.

I believe you are pretty darn close.. Yes.. a conman who got ahold of some great secrets.. of course he would want to get himself OUT first.. however, being a conman, and not being fully responsible for his overts, according to his own theories, he would not make sufficient case gain to "leave".. He would likely end up at the bottom of the pile, and the other miners would have the edge in the long run.. Keeping Ethical is one of the big secrets.. as long as you have continual overts of any magnitude, you are on the "Karma" train..

 

[Infinite]

I believe you are pretty darn close.. Yes.. a conman who got ahold of some great secrets.. of course he would want to get himself OUT first.. however, being a conman, and not being fully responsible for his overts, according to his own theories, he would not make sufficient case gain to "leave".. He would likely end up at the bottom of the pile, and the other miners would have the edge in the long run.. Keeping Ethical is one of the big secrets.. as long as you have continual overts of any magnitude, you are on the "Karma" train..

"Keeping Ethical" in Scientology has nothing to do with Ethics. Does it strike you as odd that you should use the words of a conman as if they were true?

 

[Dilpickle]

"Keeping Ethical" in Scientology has nothing to do with Ethics. Does it strike you as odd that you should use the words of a conman as if they were true?

I only believe SOME of the Scientology words or definitions are true. I do believe an unethical person is not going to win in the long run. They might accumulate Money or Power for a while.. but eventually a bigger conman will give them a Whack, or they will feel guilty and allow themselves to be victimized. I take from Scientology that which works for me.. much does not.. I try to discern which is which.

Do I believe it is true that you ought to run OT III? No.. that I do not believe is true. It contradicts the auditor's code, in that you do not evaluate for the PC.. Dilpickle

 

[Demented LRH]

It is easy to undestand that the engrams and the reactive mind do not exist if the concept of linguistic mapping is employed. I will present this concept in generality, and then will show how it applies to Dianetics.

The concept itself is very simple. Suppose, you want to map the English language onto the Spanish language. Then the word "I" corresponds to the word "yo"; the word "house" -- to "casa"; the word "information" -- to "dato"; and so on. Each Spanish word has at least one English equivalent, and vice versa.

Let's say that an English word does not have a Spanish equivalent, which is highly unlikely. In this case the mapping cannot be defined, and the word is meaningless to the native Spanish speakers.

Now, we turn our attention to the analytical mind and the reactive mind. The analytical mind of an English-speaking individual uses ordinary English dictionary. Presumably, the reactive mind uses the same dictionary. But what about the mapping from the analytical mind onto the reactive mind?

This mapping could be the identity mapping, which means that the word "I" of the analytical mind is mapped onto the word "I" of the reactive mind; the word "house" is mapped onto the word "house", and so on. But in this case the nalytical mind is indistinguishable from the reactive mind.

Let's assume that this is not the identity mapping. The the mapping goes like this -- the word "I" is of the analytical mind is mapped onto the undefined word of the reactive mind; the word "house" is also mapped onto the undefined word, and so on. ALL words of the analytical mind are mapped onto the same element of the reactive mind, which is the undefined element. But undefined element is also the null element. A set (language) that consists of null elements is empty, which is another way of saying that the reactive mind does not exist.

 

[Infinite]

I only believe SOME of the Scientology words or definitions are true. I do believe an unethical person is not going to win in the long run. They might accumulate Money or Power for a while.. but eventually a bigger conman will give them a Whack, or they will feel guilty and allow themselves to be victimized. I take from Scientology that which works for me.. much does not.. I try to discern which is which.

Do I believe it is true that you ought to run OT III? No.. that I do not believe is true. It contradicts the auditor's code, in that you do not evaluate for the PC.. Dilpickle

Bearing in mind that the entire subject is the work of a con-man, how do you differentiate between what is true and what is not true?

 

[Gadfly]

I believe you are pretty darn close.. Yes.. a conman who got ahold of some great secrets.. of course he would want to get himself OUT first.. however, being a conman, and not being fully responsible for his overts, according to his own theories, he would not make sufficient case gain to "leave".. He would likely end up at the bottom of the pile, and the other miners would have the edge in the long run.. Keeping Ethical is one of the big secrets.. as long as you have continual overts of any magnitude, you are on the "Karma" train..

The concept of KARMA has MUCH more to do with than simply "overts". It has to do with ones "character" over long periods of time, and how "you" attract various futures to yourself. It has to do with habits of behavior, both "bad" and "good".

These Scientology concepts are so SHALLOW - "not being fully responsible for his overts' and "he would not make sufficient case gain to leave". They are also so uniquely locked in the trite Hubbard paradigm of all-that-is. To me, Scientology is such a naive and adolescent view of spirituality.

The concept of "ethics" in Scientology is so incomplete, and horribly SLANTED towards the survival and expansion of Scientology.

Scientology links ethics with survival. THAT is a MAJOR error. It is a GROSS error.

One of the first thigs I did many years ago to extricate myself from the Scientology mindfuck was CEASE thinking with the ideas of Scientology ethics.

"continual overts of any magnitude" . . . . .

You actually take these ideas seriously and think in terms of such nonsense????