Scientology is all bad

[Demented LRH]

Yeah, I agree.

But keep in mind that just because you made an argument stringing conclusions drawn from statements of abstract things you haven't disproved anything.

The Anabaptist Jacques

The definition of these abstract things are self-contradictory, that is why I call them nonexistent.

For example, I cannot provide an empirical data showing that the vampires do not exist. But what is a vampire? By definition, the vampire is a "living dead". But "life" and "death" exclude each other, a thing cannot be alive and dead at the same time. Therefore, a logical conclusion that the vampires do not exist.

Similarly, I do not have an empirical data proving that the engrams do not exist. But definition of the engram, and the reactive mind, is self-contradictory, so they do not exist in a sense that it is impossible to define them correctly

 

[TG1]

I can't stay away from this thread.

I think that the TRs are the intro to hypnosis. TR0 is done by everyone who gets into the subject. It is a requirement. How many hours does the Scn spend focussing his attention on another? And the Other focussing on him? Depending on how long one is "in" the subject , the time spent can be minimal, as with Public PC's just beginning, or hundreds og hours for the highest trained peeps.

TR0 is hypnotic.

Then add to that the "mantra" of the pre-session, where the same words are stated at beginning of every session.

Then add to that the Auditor LEADING the PC to look at certain aspects of his life.

Sure looks like hypnosis at work.

I have been to LRH lectures where he hypnotised the entire audience, had them all nodding off in their chairs, and he would laugh about it afterwards.

There is some tape where he identifies himself as a master hypnotist.

The processes of Scn begin and end with TR0, and TR0 is hypnotic.

At the very least, you who have read LRH's stuff know that he blames and rants about the "psychs' and their use of hypnosis, and the ir treachery on the "whole track" and PDH. Well, how could it be that staring into another's eyes for some period of time would not restimulate hypnosis? C'mon now.

phenomanaon

Phenomenon [sic],

I was also an interned Dianetics and Scientology auditor and did more TRs than I ever wanted to.

Above, you asserted three times (perhaps more) that TR0 is hypnotic / hypnosis. But although your assertion is true for you, it isn't self-evident to me.

If TR0 is hypnotic, does a person who listens intently to a lecturer or a preacher or imam get hypnotized? What if they intently watch/listen to a concert, movie, fireworks display or a sky full of clouds? What if they are watching intently an online game, air traffic control screen or security camera monitors?

At what point does "focusing intently" become "hypnosis" and how does one avoid tipping over this boundary? Or is that question even a legitimate one?

Without much clearer definitions (possibly defined and measured by certain types of brain activity), I think that calling specific activities hypnotic or hypnosis are epithets, thought-stoppers or boogeyman terms.

To be quite clear, I'm not saying that some or even all Scientological activities and practices are not hypnotic. But I am saying we're swinging those terms around like we know what we're talking about.

I certainly don't.

TG1

 

[Jquepublic]

Phenomenon [sic],

I was also an interned Dianetics and Scientology auditor and did more TRs than I ever wanted to.

Above, you asserted three times (perhaps more) that TR0 is hypnotic / hypnosis. But although your assertion is true for you, it isn't self-evident to me.

If TR0 is hypnotic, does a person who listens intently to a lecturer or a preacher or imam get hypnotized? What if they intently watch/listen to a concert, movie, fireworks display or a sky full of clouds? What if they are watching intently an online game, air traffic control screen or security camera monitors?

At what point does "focusing intently" become "hypnosis" and how does one avoid tipping over this boundary? Or is that question even a legitimate one?

Without much clearer definitions (possibly defined and measured by certain types of brain activity), I think that calling specific activities hypnotic or hypnosis are epithets, thought-stoppers or boogeyman terms.

To be quite clear, I'm not saying that some or even all Scientological activities and practices are not hypnotic. But I am saying we're swinging those terms around like we know what we're talking about.

I certainly don't.

TG1

I have seen TR0 induce hypnosis - but not in everyone, and not every time. Other than that I completely agree with you. I don't see how focusing and introspection are hypnosis. I see that a case could be made for Dianetics as hypnotic, but not Scientology.

 

[Bill]

Phenomenon [sic],

I was also an interned Dianetics and Scientology auditor and did more TRs than I ever wanted to.

Above, you asserted three times (perhaps more) that TR0 is hypnotic / hypnosis. But although your assertion is true for you, it isn't self-evident to me.

If TR0 is hypnotic, does a person who listens intently to a lecturer or a preacher or imam get hypnotized? What if they intently watch/listen to a concert, movie, fireworks display or a sky full of clouds? What if they are watching intently an online game, air traffic control screen or security camera monitors?

At what point does "focusing intently" become "hypnosis" and how does one avoid tipping over this boundary? Or is that question even a legitimate one?

Without much clearer definitions (possibly defined and measured by certain types of brain activity), I think that calling specific activities hypnotic or hypnosis are epithets, thought-stoppers or boogeyman terms.

To be quite clear, I'm not saying that some or even all Scientological activities and practices are not hypnotic. But I am saying we're swinging those terms around like we know what we're talking about.

I certainly don't.

TG1

I agree. I did not find TR0 to be hypnotic in the least. To me it was more like meditation, and quite relaxing after I got through all the initial crap.

Bill

 

[TG1]

I have seen TR0 induce a hypnosis - but not in everyone, and not every time. Other than that I completely agree with you. I don't see how focusing and introspection are hypnosis. I see that a case could be made for Dianetics as hypnotic, but not Scientology.

JQP, how did that "hypnosis" you observed manifest itself?

By which I mean -- how did you know the person was hypnotized?

TG1

 

[Lermanet_com]

There is no regression in Scientology processing, only in Dianetics. Scientology processes are run in present time with the preclear recalling incidents to answer the question. There is no counting and snapping outside Book 1.

I beg to differ...

"There is no regression in scientology processing only in dianetics"

well, they are already regressed toward an infantile emotional outlook of life..and
Then why do scientologists stop maturing emotionally? It has been noted by myself and others that if a 17 year old joins scientology but then leaves at 47, they find themselves in the peculiar state of being 47 yet having a 17 year old's emotional outlook.

Normal human emotional growth is stopped cold in its tracks by a continuing trance state, - by $cientology.

"Scientology processes are run in present time with the preclear recalling incidents to answer the question."

Repetition ALONE is a trance induction technique, see my essential reading thread, especially links to Conditioned Reflex Therapy by Salter... and this thread about "Waking Suggestion" both extensively address your "No counting and snapping" quip... which factually means nothing when placed in the proper context, which is the context of hypnosis....and explained in great detail by the prior two links.

Context is everything.

Regards

Arnie

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Not necessarily true. Your statement is dependent on a conception of consciousness limited to that of the experienced universe of space & time. The static as described by hubbard, should it exist, appears to correspond with the Mahayana conception of root consciousness. Whether hubbard new about this and 'simplified' it for western audiences or not, I've no clue.

In the Buddhist conception the root conscious lies outside of space & time. It is the root from which all mental phenomena spring and is independent of such manifestations, including space & time.


Mark A. Baker

If it is outside of space and time fair enough.

But then how can it be self-evident?

The key word being evident.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... So the 'two mind' theory seems pretty irrelevant.

Not necessarily. Mind is a psychological phenomena traditionally used in philosophic & spiritual studies. Brain is a physical organ associated with the study of physical biology.

The most that has ever been shown is that there are correlations between the psychologcial conception of mental phenomena and the functioning of a living brain, NOT that they are the same.

Differing mental structures have been posited and analyzed by philosophers since time immemorial. Whether that in turn correlate with specific structures within the brain is immaterial. The error lies in attempts to reduce the psychological entity of the mind to the status of a physical entity without specific evidence that it can so be. That is something that materialist science has been unable to achieve.

There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. ​

Mark A. Baker

 

[Jquepublic]

JQP, how did that "hypnosis" you observed manifest itself?

By which I mean -- how did you know the person was hypnotized?

TG1

A better choice of words would be trance - I've experienced a trance state while doing TR0 and I've talked with others who described the same sort of state. I sometimes experience the same thing with meditation - it's a stillness and sense of no time passing, with half an hour feeling like a few minutes.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

The definition of these abstract things are self-contradictory, that is why I call them nonexistent.

For example, I cannot provide an empirical data showing that the vampires do not exist. But what is a vampire? By definition, the vampire is a "living dead". But "life" and "death" exclude each other, a thing cannot be alive and dead at the same time. Therefore, a logical conclusion that the vampires do not exist.

Similarly, I do not have an empirical data proving that the engrams do not exist. But definition of the engram, and the reactive mind, is self-contradictory, so they do not exist in a sense that it is impossible to define them correctly

You have to distinguish between a word play scenario and what actually occurs.

That your word scenario creates a contradiction is just your word scenario.

Things can exist outside of your word scenario.

X-rays never existed before they could be defined.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[TG1]

Thanks, Arnie -- re Mesmer. Fascinating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Mesmer

The baquet reminds me a little of the rumors of Miscavige's copper rods.

TG1

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Moreover, the 'reactive mind' theory doesn't actually approach the full truth very closely. The full truth is that meaning is inherently fuzzy and complex. Every word strikes a rich chord of meanings in every mind, with lots of overtones and undertones of association. No two minds have exactly the same complex set of associations for any one word. ...

Absolutely.

Moreover, the complexity becomes even greater if in fact there are immaterial bases which add to the association of meaning, as many differing philosophic & traditional schools of spirituality maintain. Past lives, karma, akashic records, morphic fields, etc., are some of the ideas which have been suggested in attempts to explain observed subjective phenomena which do not seem to accord with the limits of physical systems.


Mark A. Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Not necessarily. Mind is a psychological phenomena traditionally used in philosophic & spiritual studies. Brain is a physical organ associated with the study of physical biology.

The most that has ever been shown is that there are correlations between the psychologcial conception of mental phenomena and the functioning of a living brain, NOT that they are the same.

Differing mental structures have been posited and analyzed by philosophers since time immemorial. Whether that in turn correlate with specific structures within the brain is immaterial. The error lies in attempts to reduce the psychological entity of the mind to the status of a physical entity without specific evidence that it can so be. That is something that materialist science has been unable to achieve.

There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. ​

Mark A. Baker

There was this movie about Rasputin.

Rasputin was played by Alan Rickman.

The Tsar's doctor said to Rasputin "I have dissected a lot of bodies and brains and I have never found a soul."

Rasputin replied: "Did you find any memories?"

Our understanding of this is in its infancy.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Infinite]

..

Another favourite of mine . . .

AXIOM FOUR: SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION

As an Axiom, this is a supah FAIL. Here, L Ron Hubbard has used insufficient subordinate clauses to define the term. Its the same as saying "a car is a brake pedal of a steering wheel" - ie, meaningless. Also, how can "space" be "a viewpoint" of anything?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Direct knowledge and personal experience are not required for evaluation and study of most things in life. ...

At least one needs be present, preferably both.

There is plenty of data about the church of scientology and its operations widely available on the internet to make it easy to understand what is going on with the Co$. There are a great number of personal anecdotes available about auditing on the internet, thus it is easy for those without personal experience of auditing to form for themselves opinions about other people's auditing experiences.

But there is comparatively little material available which deals with the specifics of scientology auditing techniques. Even, more importantly few individuals actually take the time to study those materials or learn for themselves how to apply those materials for the benefit of themselves or others.

Those who have not studied or experienced the materials of auditing itself are thus in a very poor state to make any sort of informed judgement on the subject of scientology auditing, howsoever much they may have opinions concerning the anecdotes they have read.

It is as fallacious as judging scientology auditing based on the Co$'s mandatory success stories.

Thus many individuals have opinions about auditing who nonetheless are incapable of justifying those opinions based on any study, background, or experience with the materials or practice of scientology auditing techniques. Not a few of these post on ex-scientology membership boards.


Mark A Baker

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

snip

Those who have not studied or experienced the materials of auditing itself are thus in a very poor state to make any sort of informed judgement on the subject of scientology auditing, howsoever much they may have opinions concerning the anecdotes they have read.

snip

Mark A Baker

So someone who has not taken LSD are in a very poor state to make any sort of informed judgement on the subject of LSD.

Or someone who has not been a terroist is in a very poor state to make any sort of informed judgment on the subject of terrorism.

Or someone who was not an ancient Roman is in a very poor state to make any sort of informed judgement on the subject of ancient Rome.

Makes sense.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[TG1]

Interestingly, TAJ, on all three examples you chose, I would say yes, you'd be in a very poor position to grok that experience, compared to everything you would know about the subject if you'd actually been there, done that.

EDIT: I think you can know a lot ABOUT some very intense experiences. But you won't really GROK the experience without doing it.

 

[Infinite]

. . . Those who have not studied or experienced the materials of auditing itself are thus in a very poor state to make any sort of informed judgement on the subject of scientology auditing, howsoever much they may have opinions concerning the anecdotes they have read. . .

Heh! And you were doing so well, too. Never mind, we all stumble, its how we get back up that counts.

 

[Infinite]

Interestingly, TAJ, on all three examples you chose, I would say yes, you'd be in a very poor position to grok that experience, compared to everything you would know about the subject if you'd actually been there, done that.

EDIT: I think you can know a lot ABOUT some very intense experiences. But you won't really GROK the experience without doing it.

Sure, no one can have the subjective experience of something without subjecting themselves to it. Where Scientology is concerned, however, the average Wog has a greater understanding of Auditing than the average Scientologist. We can sum it up in one word: avoid.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Interestingly, TAJ, on all three examples you chose, I would say yes, you'd be in a very poor position to grok that experience, compared to everything you would know about the subject if you'd actually been there, done that.

EDIT: I think you can know a lot ABOUT some very intense experiences. But you won't really GROK the experience without doing it.

GROK--SCMOK.

Mark and I both used the phrase "informed judgment."

The Anabaptist Jacques