Scientology is all bad

[Jquepublic]

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

We're speaking of two different types of psychological regression. I'm using the word to mean the act of going back to a previous place or state; return or reversion and you're describing a psychological retardation of emotional growth.

I've already said that I can see Dianetics as hypnosis. But thanks for the links.

 

[Gadfly]

X-rays never existed before they could be defined.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Sure they did. They existed - it is just that YOU didn't KNOW IT!

Just because a person doesn't currently have a means of detection doesn't mean that something doesn't exit.

The same applies to the "static' . . . . . . maybe . . . . .

I could write a long essay on this, but . . . . way too lazy today. :confused2:

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Sure they did. They existed - it is just that YOU didn't KNOW IT!

Just because a person doesn't currently have a means of detection doesn't mean that something doesn't exit.

The same aplies to the "static' . . . . . . maybe . . . . .

That was point. I meant to say "X-rays existed before they could be defined."

I was replying to the statement that if something can't be defined it doesn't exist.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Infinite]

GROK--SCMOK.

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

The Anabaptist Jacques

He has sort of covered himself by saying "studied" as well as experienced so its not quite a total FAIL. The only problem, of course, is how much needs to be studied and who, other than his own magnificent self, will be the judge of that.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Folks, I have to take a break now, my mind is slipping.

Later.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Bill]

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.

Mark A Baker

Those who have been fully indoctrinated into Scientology's beliefs, assumptions and dictates are in a very poor state to make any sort of objective judgement on the subject of Scientology.

Only those who are truly exterior to the entire subject can see the true value of Scientology, if any.

Bill

 

[TG1]

Folks, I have to take a break now, my mind is slipping.

Later.

The Anabaptist Jacques

TAJ, you say that like it's an unusual experience around here. LOL!

See you soon,

TG1

 

[Gadfly]

That was point. I meant to say "X-rays existed before they could be defined."

I was replying to the statement that if something can't be defined it doesn't exist.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I think for a great many people it is quite true, that "if something can't be defined it doesn't exist" (at least for them).

It seems to me, in studying people (and my own conceptual mind) that for many, they mistake and confuse the content of their minds with reality. It is the whole Korzybski thing from General Semantics where people have IDEAS about reality, with all sorts of mental labels, classifications and relationships, where the mind makes a highly detailed and complex MAP of the terrain, and THIS realm of MIND replaces and exists instead of contact with reality.

This realm of mind often acts as a set of blinders. This is discussed in various forms of eastern philosophy, though Hubbard neglected this area almost entirely. Hubbard mainly talked about fixed ideas (concepts that hinder and limit awareness and experience), and while he seemed to "get it", he also, unbeknowst to his followers, IMPLANTED AN ENTIRE NEW SET OF FIXED IDEAS after "clearing" old ideas.

That is even too over-simplified, what I just said, but the human conceptual mind often/usually acts to greatly confuse things. Of course, it IS necessary up to a certain point, this realm of intellect, meaning and significances - but it needs to be a TOOL and NOT a hindrance.

 

[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

The following is said badly, but that is in the nature of language, it is inadequate to the purpose: as consciousness it is aware, even self-aware.

The problem lies in the word 'self'. All conventional views of 'self' lack inherent existence. But that requires a very lengthy process of individual personal analysis & discovery. That may have been the motivation behind hubbard's over-simplification of the Mahayana view, or perhaps not. :confused2:

Think in terms of: cogito ergo sum.

What that statement does is to logically demonstrate the existence of that which has the capacity of thought. It does not define the nature of the thinker.

However you approach it, being on a level this deep requires the ability to leave aside common mental conceptions and analytical awareness. It is a process ultimately to be experienced, not voiced.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gadfly]

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.

Mark A Baker

Those who have been fully indoctrinated into Scientology's beliefs, assumptions and dictates are in a very poor state to make any sort of objective judgement on the subject of Scientology.

Only those who are truly exterior to the entire subject can see the true value of Scientology, if any.

Bill

I think a combination of the TWO provides the absolute BEST understanding. A person who has never experienced a mind-boggling "line charge" simply cannot at all grasp what this "feels like". The same with a major "key-out" or "exteriorization".

I cannot really talk to a person about such things who has never him or herself experienced such things. I am talking to a bundle of words and ideas - that connect to NO experience or personal observation. I tend to listen MORE to people who have "been there" rather than to people who theorize in their little "ivory towers" of ideas.

For example, it is the same with meditation techniques. People can have all sorts of ideas and thinkingness, quite unconnected to any personal experiences or direct observations. One can be undertaking a Ph.D. thesis for a post-graduate study on "mediation", but overall, it won't mean SHIT to me. :confused2:

Why? Because the person writing the study has only an "exterior view". This involves the difference between people who think and talk, and people who DO. I will pay more attention to someone who has gotten his or her hands dirty - though of course, there is also the potential and common problem that people who can DO, often have NO IDEA about what they are doing and how they do it!!!!

The realms of observation and ideas are often VERY far apart (even with careful thinkers and with people with LOTS of observation and observational abilities).

Now, I will read such things, and extract what I feel useful.

I think the person who can grasp Scientology the best is the person who did LOTS of it on the inside, and who, having gotten out, can now examine it also from the OUTSIDE. To me this is a "balanced" view. A person who having been interiorized into the beliefs and practices can NOW benefit from that knowledge with the added bonus of an EXTERIOR view.

That is why HelluvaHoax can be so FUNNY! He WAS THERE. He walked the walk, and now, OUT and exterior to it all, he can obsreve newly, make all sorts of new connections, and "see through the nonsense". People who were never involved can and will NEVER "get it" like those who were there.

It would like being trapped on a desert island, never seeing a gas engine, and finding a book about "cutting the lawn". One could read it, look at pictures, and read various hints about cutting the grass. But, until a person actually sees, and USES an actual lawn mower, in person, something MAJOR will be missing.

But also, no doubt, people who have been deeply or tightly involved with Scientology often do suffer a GREAT DOWNSIDE (that those who never were involved do not), and they can and do retain nonsensical bits or segments of the paradigm (much to their detriment) for YEARS and YEARS.

Personally, I would always prefer to experience things myself, and to make my OWN determinations and decisions - such as with Scientology (even if that took a long time).

I would add that Mark and Bill are actually talking largely about two DIFFERENT THINGS.

Mark is talking about the therapy aspect (auditing).

Bill is talking about the layers of institutionalized indoctrination into all sorts of related and unrelated idiocies having to do with things organizational and not. The indoctrination of things like KSW, SPs, merchants of chaos, expanding Scientology, protecting the religion, whole track SP psychs, ethics, justice and so forth, while certainly in abundance in Scientology, and while functioning to inhibit ANY "honest observation of the facts", is NOT really what Baker is talking about.

I have seen people benefit from auditing. I have seen MANY people "enjoy it".

I have seen many people suffer at the hands of the Scientology organization and over-indocrination.

For me, BOTH are "true".

It isn't a matter of "one or the other" - though it seems to be for many.

 

[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

You leave out the possibility of concentrated study of those exact topics, as opposed to merely studying other's opinions or popular anecdotes relating to them.

Studying greek myth is not the same as studying attic greek, although a study of attic will require a study of myth.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Student of Trinity]

Basing a religious philosophy on axioms strikes me as the only reasonable way to proceed. Much better than a faith-based approach to religious dogma & tradition. ... [A]xioms must arise as self-evident propositions.

Nothing is really self-evidently true. Axioms are simply assumptions. They may turn out to contradict each other, and in general it is actually impossible to tell whether they do or do not. Even if they are consistent with each other, they can be false as descriptions of reality.

To act consciously on uncertain assumptions is to exercise faith. Certain knowledge of truth would certainly be better than faith, if certain knowledge of truth were attainable. Since it is not, faith is more honest and wise than deluded conviction of self-evident truth.

 

[Bill]

Bill is talking about the layers of institutionalized indoctrination into all sorts of related and unrelated idiocies having to do with things organizational and not. The indoctrination of things like KSW, SPs, merchants of chaos, expanding Scientology, protecting the religion, whole track SP psychs, ethics, justice and so forth, while certainly in abundance in Scientology, and while functioning to inhibit ANY "honest observation of the facts", is NOT really what Baker is talking about.

I have seen people benefit from auditing. I have seen MANY people "enjoy it".

I have seen many people suffer at the hands of the Scientology organization and over-indocrination.

For me, BOTH are "true".

It isn't a matter of "one or the other" - though it seems to be for many.

I agree with what you say, but that really wasn't my point. Scientologists are very fond of saying, as Mark does, that you cannot evaluate Scientology unless you have "done it" -- and "done it" has to mean the full indoctrination -- otherwise you have just "dabbled".

This is the common refrain and is why Scientologists reject all criticism coming from "the outside". But wait. Once a person has bought into the whole thing, they have a completely different viewpoint about it. Any "cognition" either in session or out of session is "because of Scientology". Any improvement in their life is "because of Scientology". All failures in their life or in Scientology is their fault "because they didn't apply Scientology".

A person with this set viewpoint cannot evaluate Scientology.

Sure people have "wins" and "enjoy" Scientology, but that isn't what Scientology promises as a result. It is easy to get lost in the temporary "wins" and "enjoyment" and forget to look at the ultimate, permanent results.

My point was, only a person who objectively looks at what was promised and then what was the result, without getting lost in all the temporary "I feel great!", the mis-attributed "gains", the built-in excuses why it wasn't Scientology's fault and all the pie in the sky "potential gains", but just can see what were the permanent, ultimate benefits from Scientology -- that person can see the value of Scientology.

No Scientologist can see it and I'm not sure an ex-Scientologist can be objective enough. Maybe some can.

The ultimate value of Scientology is not in the temporary "wins", is not in the random "cognitions" attributed to it, is not the transient enjoyment and is not in its hopes. The ultimate value is how people are consistently, predictably and permanently improved.

Bill

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Nothing is really self-evidently true. ...

On an absolute basis that is absolutely true.

Nonetheless, within a given context a set of assumed axioms may be quite adequate for the purpose of a systematic development of the subject. The major works attributed to Euclid & Bertrand Russell stand witness to that fact. Nonetheless, any such treatment has the possibility of extension or modification as the result of either altering the nature of the assumed axioms. or the recognition of deeper and more profound aspects to the study in question; witness Riemann and Godel.

Within a given purpose or topic the applicable axioms are those propositions which are, taken all together; essential for a systematic investigation, taken as self-evident in themselves, and which do not result from one or more other axioms combined. They constitute the prime assumptions of that endeavor. Understanding those assumptions, and their limitations, is essential to actually understanding the field of study which they define.



Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I agree with what you say, but that really wasn't my point. Scientologists are very fond of saying, as Mark does, that you cannot evaluate Scientology unless you have "done it" -- and "done it" has to mean the full indoctrination -- otherwise you have just "dabbled". ...

That isn't what I said at all.

That is your own misinterpretation (or dub-in).


Mark A. Baker

 

[Bill]

That isn't what I said at all.

That is your own misinterpretation (or dub-in).

Mark A. Baker

No, what you said was:

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.

Mark A Baker

Are you now trying to say you don't think a person needs to do Scientology to be able to evaluate Scientology? I'm confused as to what your position is today?

Bill

 

[Smilla]

Re dub in.

 

[Dilpickle]

I am interested, amongst other things, in learning about how L Ron Hubbard tricked people into tricking other people so that I can explain it to people who might be similarly tricked. One of L Ron Hubbard's most devious techniques was to change a person's language. I like to mention phrases of his which contain tacit inferences. For example, in Scientology "a person with continual overts of magnitude" would include just about every poster on ESMB. I'm not suggesting that you believe we all have bad intentions and regularly hurt others, in fact, your use of the statement was in reference to L Ron Hubbard himself. It struck me as inconsistent that, in the same statement, you called him a conman yet you use his language. I'm going to assume it was deliberate irony.

I'm sorry you misunderstand me. I try hard to be as clear and as concise as I can but know that my "style" sometimes comes across as a tad brusque. By "deconstructing into objective reality" I mean to expose subjective beliefs which are false. Its part of my attempt at unwinding that dreadful "what's true for you" L Ron Hubbard Kool Aid. For example, you mentioned you sort out the true/false data of a conman by using that which "works". In that case, how do you know it works and, even if it does, what other options are available which might provide a better result?

Thanks.. I understand now. I am digging around in the LRH Tech because some of it works so well, and has helped me and others, and some of it does not.. I'm trying to work my Scn experience out to my satisfaction, as many others are doing here.. You call LRH a conman, and yes, he is THAT, but.. I believe alot of what he said was TRUE.. and worked.. maybe just enough to get everyone believing it ALL worked.. If the Comm Course didn't help MOST people who used it as a starting place, they would just LEAVE at that point.. Ditto, an introductory session.. I am guessing those were very helpful to most people..

 

[Dilpickle]

You gave a specific example of what is going into the box, and what comes out of it. To explain how the box works you must lay out the rules allowing a person like me to know IN ADVACE what comes out of the box if I put ANYTHING in it.

True science (physics, chemistry, genetics, etc) is all about predictions of future events.

What I am trying to say, is the analytical mind works with logic.. it makes sense.. it's solutions work.. the reactive mind works in illogical ways.. it's "solutions" rarely work. What "happens" in there is a traumatic incident happens, and in all the confusion, the reactive mind perks up, takes note of it, and makes decisions while the analytical mind is in shock and not responding..

If we were ALWAYS perfectly in present time, and nothing shocked us, we would not need this backup guy who isn't functioning with all engines running. The reactive mind just lumps the entire thing together, pain, force, etc and draws faulty conclusions.. For instance, if someone said "You're going to die" while you were semi-unconscious.. then whenever an incident even vaguely similar to the original one happened again later on, the reactive mind would give a BIG WARNING that you better run like heck, or get out a gun, or call the police.. and the person with such urges 10 or 20 years later, would wonder why they couldn't just calm down when the current incident was not that scary.

 

[Demented LRH]

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

Things do exist outside my word scenarion, I agree with that. I think that I did not make myself clear enough, which is my fault.

In general, when a scientist introduces a new definition, he/she should do it in such way that the definition is not self-contradictory. If a definition is self-contradictory, it is either abandoned or modified. Often a scientist does not see whether his definition contains contradictions or not, he needs an outside help (analysis) from other scientists.

i have shown that Korzybski's definition of the engram is self-contradictory. Count Korzybski is no longer with us, so he cannot modify his definition. But even if he were abble to make a modification, it would be of no use as far as Dianetics is concerned.

The phrase that I used, "I can prove that the engrams do not exist" is not precise. A precise phrase is this -- I can prove that Korzybski's definition of the engram is self-contradictory. From practical standpoint both pharases convey the same thought -- definition of the engram is meaningless; therefore, any procedure designed to change or erase an engram content is unworkable.