Scientology is all bad

[Demented LRH]

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.

This is the source of your logical error -- "the reactive mind works in illogical ways..". When you make a statement lile this one, you should be able to present a set of rules that define this illogicality, so your statement could be subjected to an experiment. But a phrase "illogical ways" is too broad to be used as a starting point of experimentation.

Regarding your thought experiment -- can you rule out all other theoretical causes of your PC being jumpy? I do not think so. Let's say I have a different hypothesis explaining your PC's nervous behaviour -- he is genetically predisposed to being panicky. Can you prove that my hypothesis is false?

 

[Panda Termint]

Yet it makes sense to her, TAJ.

Ergo, it must be true.

And if not true, then possible.

Ergo, possibly true.

Now, you have to prove it's not possibly true.

On your mark, get set ....

TG1

TG1, I just quoted this post of yours at random so that I could say "Thanks for the laughs!" You've cracked me up about 5 times already today!

This thread could be renamed, "Experts_R_Us".

 

[TG1]

Thanks, Panda.

I think "Experts R Us" would be a GREAT name for this thread.



This was indeed fun. But now that the Olympics are over, I won't be spending so much time sitting around the telly with my laptop in my lap, absentmindedly reading ESMB and being a "critic."

TG1

 

[Dilpickle]

This is my point about the Axioms. Logically, they make no sense what so ever. It is not until the unfortunate reader of them "dubs in" meaning that any semblance of coherent considerations of them can form. Couple this with that "what's true for you is true" schtick and it becomes immediately apparent that everyone has a subjective understanding of the Axioms - yes, Axioms, not Articles of Faith nor Wish Fulfilment, actual Axioms. The most delightful aspect of discussing things like the Axioms with Scientologists is that it usually doesn't take too long before it becomes apparent that there is no agreement as to what they mean. Thus, according to L Ron Hubbard:

no agreement = no reality ∴ Scientology cannot be real.​

What I said kinda/sorta makes sense to me.. What does NOT make sense to me are questions I had when I was a kid.. I have NEVER been able to get an answer to either of two questions that even remotely made ANY sense.. Question 1 - How did the Universe or space or God or Beings or ANYTHING START? If you say that God is Eternal, or Creation is Eternal, or there was a big bang or something.. none of it satisfies me. The second question is Where does the Universe END? And HOW COULD IT END? I used to try to imagine a brick wall around the very edges of the end of it, but then realized SOMETHING would be beyond the brick wall.. Impossible to understand. LIFE ITSELF is very difficult to understand.

 

[Dilpickle]

What do you mean when you say you "haven't experienced it knowingly"?

My attention is mostly on my body.. many many times I have felt Larger than my body, occasionally I have Left my body.. however, who I truly am beyond all that is not Known to Me. I have not experienced it so that I can tell you about it.

 

[Claire Swazey]

That isn't what I said at all.

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


Mark A. Baker

It's common enough. If I had a buck for every time someone on a message board claimed that non CofS Scn'ists think that DM is the only problem or that non CofS Scn'ists go after anyone who doesn't like the tech, I could retire and buy a brand new Mercedes.

Bill has made incorrect assumptions before. Happens to us all but he does it too much.

 

[Dilpickle]

This is the source of your logical error -- "the reactive mind works in illogical ways..". When you make a statement lile this one, you should be able to present a set of rules that define this illogicality, so your statement could be subjected to an experiment. But a phrase "illogical ways" is too broad to be used as a starting point of experimentation.

Regarding your thought experiment -- can you rule out all other theoretical causes of your PC being jumpy? I do not think so. Let's say I have a different hypothesis explaining your PC's nervous behaviour -- he is genetically predisposed to being panicky. Can you prove that my hypothesis is false?

I wasn't saying the only reason a person is jumpy is because an engram was restimulated.. they might be coming off heroin or be performing their first song on stage the next day and have some stage fright.. In your example, if a person is genetically predisposed to being panicky, then I have no idea how that could be handled.. or if such things exist. Never heard of it. I have not tried to fix genetic flaws with Dianetics... nor have I known anyone who claimed to have genetic flaws, and doubt they would seek counselling for such conditions.

By Illogical, what if a person felt like taking a bath every time he heard the word Domino? He would wonder what the heck was making him feel like bathing.. that kind of thing is likely the illogical workings of what I would call the reactive mind. The analytical mind would think
Hmm.. I am dirty. Better take a bath".. etc..

 

[Bill]

It's common enough. If I had a buck for every time someone on a message board claimed that non CofS Scn'ists think that DM is the only problem or that non CofS Scn'ists go after anyone who doesn't like the tech, I could retire and buy a brand new Mercedes.

Bill has made incorrect assumptions before. Happens to us all but he does it too much.

Yes! It is true!!!11!!!!!

 

[Bill]

It's common enough. If I had a buck for every time someone on a message board claimed that non CofS Scn'ists think that DM is the only problem or that non CofS Scn'ists go after anyone who doesn't like the tech, I could retire and buy a brand new Mercedes.

Bill has made incorrect assumptions before. Happens to us all but he does it too much.

Let's see, I later admitted I made a mistake and apologized. And this is your response to that. I've just learned more about you than I wanted to know.

Thanks Claire Swazey. I know you.

Bill

 

[Dilpickle]

We are all expressing our opinions of what is going on here on Planet Earth. I do not believe ANY of us is 100% accurate.. The Greatest Thinkers of all time did not claim to Know it All.. only person I know who claimed that was LRH, and obviously he was WRONG much of the time. I accept and like ALL your opinions.. each of you has taught me something, and I appreciate it.

 

[TG1]

Let's see, I later admitted I made a mistake and apologized. And this is your response to that. I've just learned more about you than I wanted to know.

Thanks Claire Swazey. I know you.

Bill

Chill pill, Bill.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

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

I was just going to post that an oncologist who has not "experienced" cancer would not be able to effectively diagnose and treat someone who is afflicted by it. I like your analogies too.

Add to that, a person who has never had ANY auditing can train up through interned Class IV and C/S and deliver the entire lower Bridge. They are an "expert" on auditing although they have not had it.

When I did the Academy and Briefing Course I had very little auditing yet but I was considered a master by Scientologists as i C/Sed and auditing many people up the levels.

I later did thru OT VII and it really didn't change my understanding of what auditing was or how it worked. I could SEE the person right in front of me being audited and there is nothing wrong with OBSERVATION as a method of learning.

I can't recount the number of times I heard Scientologists on a "higher" part of the Bridge, assuring me that "You have to get on the next level, it will explain everything!"

When Scientologists can't show the abilities/states promised, they revert to mystical ambiguities that they assure you are only known to those who have successfully earned their way into the inner sanctum.

There is no inner sanctum sanctorum in Scientology. There is nothing under any of the 3 shells.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Let's see, I later admitted I made a mistake and apologized. And this is your response to that. I've just learned more about you than I wanted to know.

Thanks Claire Swazey. I know you.

Bill

Obviously, I'd not harken back in such a manner for commentary addressed by subsequent apology. I never saw any apology. The thread on which the event occurred doesn't have one and I don't see it anywhere else. If there is one that I missed, I'd like to see the URL.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

No, what you said was:

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

If you mean anything to do with the church. No.

I regard the study of subject in the church environment to be counter-productive due to the enforced agreements, manipulation, and control inherent to that environment.


If you mean receive auditing. That's not necessary but it is advisable.

If you mean audit others. That is also not necessary but advisable.

What I consider to be the minimum necessary is to spend time in the study of the materials & techniques involved in auditing.

The original books and significant HCOBs are one option for self-study, although somewhat problematic due to the confusions, contradictions, and tangled messes present in hubbard's prose. Still, many successful auditors have trained on nothing else.

As a squirrel I actually recommend that anyone interested in knowing about the subject of scientology study the Clearbird materials. They aren't perfect but they provide a decent general background in the fundamentals & techniques of the subject. Moreover, they are arranged for ease of study.

This study really should be balanced with some sort of experience with auditing, either giving or receiving. But at least a student with a theoretical knowledge of the discipline will have a better grasp of what is being attempted in the subject, and will accordingly be able to form a minimally informed judgement on questions relating to the subject. It's not actually a lot to ask.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Infinite]

If you mean anything to do with the church. No.

I regard the study of subject in the church environment to be counter-productive due to the enforced agreements, manipulation, and control inherent to that environment.


If you mean receive auditing. That's not necessary but it is advisable.

If you mean audit others. That is also not necessary but advisable.

What I consider to be the minimum necessary is to spend time in the study of the materials & techniques involved in auditing.

The original books and significant HCOBs are one option for self-study, although somewhat problematic due to the confusions, contradictions, and tangled messes present in hubbard's prose. Still, many successful auditors have trained on nothing else.

As a squirrel I actually recommend that anyone interested in knowing about the subject of scientology study the Clearbird materials. They aren't perfect but they provide a decent general background in the fundamentals & techniques of the subject. Moreover, they are arranged for ease of study.

This study really should be balanced with some sort of experience with auditing, either giving or receiving. But at least a student with a theoretical knowledge of the discipline will have a better grasp of what is being attempted in the subject, and will accordingly be able to form a minimally informed judgement on questions relating to the subject. It's not actually a lot to ask.


Mark A. Baker

To study the subject of Scientology its best not to read L Ron Hubbard . . .

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I haven't caught up with this thread properly yet but just wanted to say that I was never really 'hypnotized' ... I thought about it as I was going off to sleep and realised that the feeling I always had when in scientology, whether in an org, in session, on the end of a phone call or even socially when near scientologists was the feeling I presume the residents must have in one of those 'maximum security homes for the bewildered' ... All is well on the surface and people are allowed to wander around freely and there is much smiling, grinning and laughing going on and warm interaction between the residents and the staff ... but put a foot wrong and men in white coats will suddenly appear and jab you with a needle and haul you off for a little 'lay down' ... and you are not going to win!



It was just control, pure and simple ... I was being controlled and was mesmerized by the threat of loss from day one as I think most of us were, and it got worse as time went on because I had more to lose.

I was right to be wary, because the cofs now has my gorgeous kids and I, don't.

 

[Bill]

Obviously, I'd not harken back in such a manner for commentary addressed by subsequent apology. I never saw any apology. The thread on which the event occurred doesn't have one and I don't see it anywhere else. If there is one that I missed, I'd like to see the URL.

No, of course you don't remember. It was on an active thread, in answer to something you said where you were attacking me. I recognized that your attack was more about what I'd said earlier than the current thread. I acknowledged I'd been mistaken earlier and I apologized.

I'll acknowledge again that I was mistaken and I again apologize for the mistake and for making you upset. You were perfectly justified in being upset with me.

Bill

 

[Bill]

If you mean anything to do with the church. No.

I regard the study of subject in the church environment to be counter-productive due to the enforced agreements, manipulation, and control inherent to that environment.


If you mean receive auditing. That's not necessary but it is advisable.

If you mean audit others. That is also not necessary but advisable.

What I consider to be the minimum necessary is to spend time in the study of the materials & techniques involved in auditing.

The original books and significant HCOBs are one option for self-study, although somewhat problematic due to the confusions, contradictions, and tangled messes present in hubbard's prose. Still, many successful auditors have trained on nothing else.

As a squirrel I actually recommend that anyone interested in knowing about the subject of scientology study the Clearbird materials. They aren't perfect but they provide a decent general background in the fundamentals & techniques of the subject. Moreover, they are arranged for ease of study.

This study really should be balanced with some sort of experience with auditing, either giving or receiving. But at least a student with a theoretical knowledge of the discipline will have a better grasp of what is being attempted in the subject, and will accordingly be able to form a minimally informed judgement on questions relating to the subject. It's not actually a lot to ask.

Mark A. Baker

Thanks, that clarifies your position. I don't disagree, but I know that the deeper one gets into "the material" the less objective one tends to be.

To me it should be a simple thing: What does Scientology promise? What does Scientology deliver?

I know what official Scientology promises, but I haven't been able to nail down what the outside Scientologists promise. They don't seem to promise anything. Maybe that's on purpose.

Bill

 

[Demented LRH]

I wasn't saying the only reason a person is jumpy is because an engram was restimulated.. they might be coming off heroin or be performing their first song on stage the next day and have some stage fright.. In your example, if a person is genetically predisposed to being panicky, then I have no idea how that could be handled.. or if such things exist. Never heard of it. I have not tried to fix genetic flaws with Dianetics... nor have I known anyone who claimed to have genetic flaws, and doubt they would seek counselling for such conditions.

By Illogical, what if a person felt like taking a bath every time he heard the word Domino? He would wonder what the heck was making him feel like bathing.. that kind of thing is likely the illogical workings of what I would call the reactive mind. The analytical mind would think
Hmm.. I am dirty. Better take a bath".. etc..

Regarding the word "Domino" -- a psychologist would say that you gave an example of compulsive behaviour. There are many methods of treatment of compulsive behaviours. A method of treatment depends on the patient's personality -- what works for some, does not work for the others. In Dianetics, there is only one method of treatment, which is Dianetics auditing. Obviuosly, the psychologists have much more effective methods at their disposal.

The psychologists do not use the notion of "reactive mind", they base their treatment methods on a different theory (actually, there are several theories). Apparently, their theories are much closer to reality than the Tech. From practical standpoint, their theories should be chosen over Dianetics.

If you check the history of science, you will see that often there are several competing theories in the same area. The ones that are closer to reality almost always win. The Tech is one of those theories that lag far behind its competitors.

 

[Demented LRH]

Thanks, that clarifies your position. I don't disagree, but I know that the deeper one gets into "the material" the less objective one tends to be.

To me it should be a simple thing: What does Scientology promise? What does Scientology deliver?

I know what official Scientology promises, but I haven't been able to nail down what the outside Scientologists promise. They don't seem to promise anything. Maybe that's on purpose.

Bill

Yes, I agree with that.
It seems to me that the outside Scientologists say that the Xenu story is nothing more than a metaphor. But what does Xenu represent? Is he a symbol of Satan? (just kidding!)