Good things in Scientology

[Lone Star]

I will answer for me.

Scientology: A New Slant on Life

It is a compilation of a great many good ideas and methods that was designed as a perfect "lure". I can leaf through the book and find very little to disagree with. But keep in mind that this book was put together to do EXACTLY THAT. It was created to function as "bait". It is used to reel people into the scam, and to do so it is filled with various decent and good ideas.

It was created so that any person could read it easily, find many points of agreement, find many ideas of value, and then make the mistake of identifying all of these nice and good things with Hubbard and the general subject called "Scientology". While there are many interesting ideas in the book, as part of Scientology it is used to attract the suckers. If you just read it, used what you liked, and STOPPED there, you might be fine.

Here are a few quotes, and I very much LIKE every one of them:

. . . but the truth of the matter is that all the happiness you ever find lies in you.

Ones attitude toward life makes every possible difference in ones living. You know you don't have to study a thousand ancient books to discover that fact. But sometimes it needs to be pointed out again that life doesn't change as much as you.

Two Rules for Happy Living

1. Be able to experience anything.
2. Cause only those things which others can easily experience.

There is a great deal of "truth" interwoven throughout the subject materials of Scientology, but the whole subject taken collectively is an IMMENSE TRAP. One might ask how that can be. Forget about asking why, and just look at what is. What is there is what is there, and no amount of thinking can or will change it into something else. Who knows why. For me, I suspect Hubbard was a very bright but nasty fellow, who used what he managed to figure out and knew to acquire wealth, power and admiration. Again, that does not mean that isolated ideas and techniques have real value, and that some aren't actually quite unique and original in their own right.

I've got all of the much heralded "Basic Books" still shrink wrapped in the garage. Most of them I have no desire to read, but I might read one or two based on recommendations. Thanks to you and Mark for your recommendations. If anything it could be good research. Mark liked Science of Survival. I still probably won't read that one because I just don't care for the Tone Scale idea. Never did. But that cumbersome book may be readable now that DM got all the pages and paragraphs in the proper order. You know he fixed the transcriber's errors!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Mark liked Science of Survival. I still probably won't read that one because I just don't care for the Tone Scale idea. Never did. ...

I can understand that. I don't think hubbard's take on the tone scale phenomenon is correct, and certainly not to the degree to which he extends it. He gives the appearance of being fixated on hierarchies, especially in correlating hierarchies with numerical indices. He treats it as if the mere ability to put a number on something made it precise or scientific. A tendency also indicated in his early fixation with assigning case level based on emeter tone arm readings.

However, one of the things that I've found interesting in auditing others is how something like the tone scale does appear in the course of actual auditing. Mood changes demonstrably in session based on what is happening with the person, as does the character of their communication. Nor does it matter if the person has any familiarity with the tone scale idea. The same thing is true in auditing with "virgins" as with "educated" pcs.

Extending that basic observation to some sort of "general metric of humanity" though is beyond being a stretch.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Lone Star]

I can understand that. I don't think hubbard's take on the tone scale phenomenon is correct, and certainly not to the degree to which he extends it. He gives the appearance of being fixated on hierarchies, especially in correlating hierarchies with numerical indices. He treats it as if the mere ability to put a number on something made it precise or scientific. A tendency also indicated in his early fixation with assigning case level based on emeter tone arm readings.

However, one of the things that I've found interesting in auditing others is how something like the tone scale does appear in the course of actual auditing. Mood changes demonstrably in session based on what is happening with the person, as does the character of their communication. Nor does it matter if the person has any familiarity with the tone scale idea. The same thing is true in auditing with "virgins" as with "educated" pcs.

Extending that basic observation to some sort of "general metric of humanity" though is beyond being a stretch.


Mark A. Baker

Yes I can see it's usefulness for an auditor. I hated the course I did in which you had to plot several people you knew on the tone chart contained in the S.o.S. book. Each person was supposed to fit every single trait across a tone category. I found it to be impossible. Then it was off to the word clearer. I remember her saying something that set off perhaps the first warning bell in my head, "Well let's see where your MU is because if LRH said it then it's true".

 

[uniquemand]

Okay, so with all due respect, is it worth a "new understanding of your spouse", having an "improvement" or a "subjectively experienced improvement" if people at the higher levels are beaten, enslaved, held against their will and brutalized by their leader, and families continue to be torn apart, and disconnected.

My point is, whatever you call them or whatever the "specific viewpoint", these gains can be found in other places, and without the extraordinary human suffering that occurs in Scientology.

Nobody was beaten anywhere because of me. I didn't look the other way, I didn't tolerate abuse, and I left as soon as I decided that was the best thing to do. So, yes: the improvements were worth it. The people who were beaten or enslaved or held against their will were held against their will by others. I've certainly done my best to warn people since I left, in 1995. BTW, your last sentence is basically an echo of my own views, which I have only posted over 12,000 times.

 

[Xenu's Boyfriend]

I see your remark as being without any legitimate point. No one here is advocating promoting or continuing the abusive behaviors characteristic of the cult. Mark A. Baker.

Well, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle an SP.

First of all, it is not anyone's place, least of all mine, to tell anyone what their experience was like in Scientology. Still, I think it is a legitimate question to ask - what constitutes a "win", and is it truly a win when there is exploitation involved to create the context of that win? For some people the answer would be no - for others yes. I appreciated Gadfly's point, and I've heard Tory Christman say in lectures that she truly liked the Comm Course, and I'm sure I would too. But I also appreciate the warning to stay as far away from the church as possible.

We've all discussed before whether anyone has a responsibility to lurkers or people who read posts here who may be thinking of joining or leaving the church. In the end, I think it was made clear, no one has a responsibility to anything or anyone except their own experience. Still, I maintain, the conversation about "wins" is a charged one for many reasons, like a parent who takes a deep, satisfying drag of a cigarette, but says to their kids, "Don't ever smoke." My concern is that people who read about "wins" will think, well there are "two sides" to the CoS, the tech works, and except for a few bad eggs here and there, it is sound organization overall.

But that's my shit and I need to get over it.

What I also need to do is to learn to make points here without trying to control the discourse. The fact is, people can and should share whatever they want. So if that is your point to me here, it is well taken.

However, I do think it is fascinating that you write that no one here is advocating promoting or continuing the abusive behaviors characteristic of the cult. My experience, whether it is conscious or not, is that you do exactly that from time to time. The incredible thing is I have no idea exactly which tactics are being used on me by you, I just have a basic litmus test: I feel like shit afterwards.

For example, above you write that I have no legitimate point - which is not just saying you disagree with my ideas, it attacks me personally by calling into question whether what I have to say is "legitimate" - your intent is to shame me. Then, you'll pull back next and go coy and pretend like you didn't attack me, and leave me to figure out what the fuck just happened. And you've been doing that from time to time since I got here.

It's none of my business what you think or how you choose to express yourself, Mark, but I'm just saying: there are many ways to keep the cult alive, and that includes perpetuating its attitude of disdain and contempt.

 

[Gadfly]

I've got all of the much heralded "Basic Books" still shrink wrapped in the garage. Most of them I have no desire to read, but I might read one or two based on recommendations. Thanks to you and Mark for your recommendations. If anything it could be good research. Mark liked Science of Survival. I still probably won't read that one because I just don't care for the Tone Scale idea. Never did. But that cumbersome book may be readable now that DM got all the pages and paragraphs in the proper order. You know he fixed the transcriber's errors!

Just always keep in mind that for whatever "good" or "decent " thing Hubbard might say, there is a very good chance that he contradicts it elsewhere in Scientology.

For example, take:

The Two Rules For Happy Living

1. Be able to experience anything.
2. Cause only those things which others can easily experience.

Scientology and Scientologists do NOT often practice these two things.

They surely cannot easily experience disagreements, criticism or sincere questioning. In fact Scientology is set up to severely ATTACK all such instances. There are so many things that organized Scientology cannot easily experience.

And as far as the second part goes, how many people can easily experience Scientology forced disconnection, overwhelming lawsuits, noisy investigations, SP Declares, endless crush regging and hard sell, being lied about, being lied to, and so forth?

The operation or Scientology that is based on Hubbard's many policies and orders OFTEN directly violates these more "kind and decent" recommendations.

Scientology is an exercise is hypocrisy. The stated ideals are often NEVER sincerely aspired to and often never achieved.

Take what is good and decent and useful but always keep on mind that most of these things have little to do with Hubbard's overall basic purpose - which seems to have been to deceive and manipulate as many people as possible.

 

[Lone Star]

My comments in bolded blue....

Well, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle an SP.

Huh? He has never called anyone an SP in the year I've been on this Board.

First of all, it is not anyone's place, least of all mine, to tell anyone what their experience was like in Scientology. Still, I think it is a legitimate question to ask - what constitutes a "win", and is it truly a win when there is exploitation involved to create the context of that win? For some people the answer would be no - for others yes. I appreciated Gadfly's point, and I've heard Tory Christman say in lectures that she truly liked the Comm Course, and I'm sure I would too. But I also appreciate the warning to stay as far away from the church as possible.

Which Mark and all of us do.

We've all discussed before whether anyone has a responsibility to lurkers or people who read posts here who may be thinking of joining or leaving the church. In the end, I think it was made clear, no one has a responsibility to anything or anyone except their own experience. Still, I maintain, the conversation about "wins" is a charged one for many reasons, like a parent who takes a deep, satisfying drag of a cigarette, but says to their kids, "Don't ever smoke." My concern is that people who read about "wins" will think, well there are "two sides" to the CoS, the tech works, and except for a few bad eggs here and there, it is sound organization overall.

No, I've been here a year and I've not read one post saying that the CoS is a sound organization as a whole. Nor has it been implied.

But that's my shit and I need to get over it.

Yes.

What I also need to do is to learn to make points here without trying to control the discourse. The fact is, people can and should share whatever they want. So if that is your point to me here, it is well taken.

However, I do think it is fascinating that you write that no one here is advocating promoting or continuing the abusive behaviors characteristic of the cult. My experience, whether it is conscious or not, is that you do exactly that from time to time. The incredible thing is I have no idea exactly which tactics are being used on me by you, I just have a basic litmus test: I feel like shit afterwards.

Provide one piece of clear evidence of a post in which that's been done.


For example, above you write that I have no legitimate point - which is not just saying you disagree with my ideas, it attacks me personally by calling into question whether what I have to say is "legitimate" - your intent is to shame me. Then, you'll pull back next and go coy and pretend like you didn't attack me, and leave me to figure out what the fuck just happened. And you've been doing that from time to time since I got here.

So you read minds? How can you truly know anyone is trying to shame you merely by disagreeing? How is disagreeing with ideas "personally attacking" you?

It's none of my business what you think or how you choose to express yourself, Mark, but I'm just saying: there are many ways to keep the cult alive, and that includes perpetuating its attitude of disdain and contempt.

Well, if you want to make a case that he has an attitude of disdain and contempt, then so be it. But how does that perpetuate an organization's attitude of which he hasn't been a member since the early 80s?

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Yes I can see it's usefulness for an auditor. I hated the course I did in which you had to plot several people you knew on the tone chart contained in the S.o.S. book. Each person was supposed to fit every single trait across a tone category. I found it to be impossible. Then it was off to the word clearer. I remember her saying something that set off perhaps the first warning bell in my head, "Well let's see where your MU is because if LRH said it then it's true".

yoiks...

nobody but nobody fits perfectly onto a single position on the tone scale. and i don't believe elron ever said they did. and the dorkbrains commonly think A=A homosexuality = 1.1. the sea change in societal considerations about homosexuality greatly diminished the forces which commonly pressed people into covert hostility. but you do still have the archetypal (as differentiated from stereotypical) gay villain

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Continuing the theme of being lazy, I'm going to be lazy again and re-post this from an earlier thread:


Asking a person, "How ya doing?" and listening attentively, and acknowledging, qualifies as "auditing" by an introductory definition of "auditing," as does asking a person to recall a pleasant experience, listening, and then acknowledging.

Such introductory actions, presented as "auditing" are often what leads a person into Scientology, and causes the person to pursue the Scientology "bait and switch" Grade Chart.

Scientology/Scientology Philosophy/Scientology Doctrine, is sneaky. It wraps itself in positives so as to mislead the unsuspecting.

Not recognizing this mostly benign introductory aspect means not recognizing the "cheese" part of the trap, and means also not recognizing a part of Scientology's disguise layer.

Thoroughly describing Scientology is the most dangerous thing that can be done to Scientology.

Scientology uses good people, and uses - sometimes - good ideas, to mislead, to build confidence, and to trap.

A description without noting the above is incomplete, IMO.


The definition of auditing changes as the person descends further into Scientology. At first, auditing is little more than one person talking with another person. At this stage, in and of itself, auditing is, essentially, benign. It may even be beneficial.

This "sells" the person on the idea of "auditing."

Then it becomes something else.


"Auditing" has multiple meanings that, in accordance with Scientology's "gradients of deception" and "bait and switch" pattern, mislead a person onto the Scientology Grade Chart, a Chart that begins with mostly benign actions, and eventually becomes manipulative, "hypnotic," and potentially psychologically damaging.

That's why issuing forth a Bronx cheer,

indiscriminately, on the topic of auditing is helpful to Scientology. Such a Bronx cheer asserts that one of Scientology's - sometimes initially (in and of itself) benign, and even helpful - enticements, and lead-ins, is entirely without value, which is sometimes simply not so.

Describing Scientology fully means gritting one's teeth and forcing oneself to recognize that there are some twinkling ornaments of light, and (even) truth, wrapped around the black hole of Scientology doctrine.

IMHO.

Reading Clearbird (or any Scientology materials for that matter) is like reading a glowing review from an iPhone buyer on eBay, where they rave about the excellent packing and quick delivery (failing to mention that the phone didn't work).

 

[Infinite]

. . . <snip> . . . I know of NO other set of ideas and practices anywhere that simply explains the variables involved in communication, and that also gets a person to practice these variables in real life. Show me. Where? . . . <snip> . . .

Seek and ye shall find <--- beware of Scilon links.

 

[Veda]

Reading Clearbird (or any Scientology materials for that matter) is like reading a glowing review from an iPhone buyer on eBay, where they rave about the excellent packing and quick delivery (failing to mention that the phone didn't work).

For those curious, my take on Clearbird can be found earlier in this thread.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?30737-Good-things-in-Scientology&p=781673#post781673

 

[degraded being]

:
:One basic:

Communication is not about staring at people.


Another one:
Communication is not about preparation to CONTROL.
On the nuances of words ( You were arguing with Profesor Baker that the word "technology" is not very fitting for what Scientology claims to be - and I agree with your arguments there).....The word "confront", it's overused, and the battle-mentality it conjures up seems to assume that communication is going to be about an ongoing fight or flight crisis. It seems basically a huge flaw in a basic communication course. I still remember doing the comm course and reading about the rationale behind it --to prepare auditors to drive through any resistance and get the pc to answer the question. Good for a police interrogation course maybe.

 

[Veda]

Old thread on TRs, and yes, I do think that people can sometimes benefit from having done TRs, but as with so much in Scientology, there are "hidden hooks." So beware: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?944-TRs-are-always-good!-TRs-are-always-bad!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRKvpZ7PjE

The book 'Alice in Wonderland' is used on Training Routine 1. Lines are read from "Alice." The stated idea is to train the person to deliver a communication as "his own," in a "new unit of time."

The person thinks he's on a "Communications Course," or is doing "Auditor training" to sharpen his "auditing communication cycle skills," and, as usual, in Scientology, something else is also (covertly) happening.

In any event, here's a chronology of references to 'Dear Alice':

1952: During the 'PDC' lectures, Hubbard speaks positively (a rarity) of a book that he calls 'The Master Therion'. The alternate title for this text is 'Magick in Theory and Practice'. In one section, Crowley presents a long list of books 'For serious study'. One of these is, 'Alice Through the Looking Glass'. It's described as being "Valuable to those who understand the Qabalah."

1955: The next reference is a medical/psychiatric term http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=24174

1955: The first reference to 'Alice in Wonderland' in Hubbard's writings appears in his ("Russian") 'Textbook on Psycho-Politics', a.k.a. the 'Brainwashing Manual' (which denounces Dianetics multiple times), originally written as a black propaganda vehicle for identifying his critics, including psychologists and psychiatrists, with Russian Communism, and then, later, used by him as a kind of blueprint for his Scientology operation. (And if Scientology is anything, it is a 'psychological-political operation', but I don't believe one initiated by any government.)

Says Hubbard - in the guise of a Russian psychiatrist - "There are those who have foolishly embarked upon some spiritual Alice-in-Wonderland voyage into what they call the 'subconscious' or 'unconscious' mind... There is no strength in such an approach."

[Note Hubbard's use of "enemy tactics" and methods. Discussed elsewhere. Is the above Hubbard's actual opinion of the Alice-in-Wonderland voyages on which he would send Scientologists?]

Next is a quote from the out-of-print compilation book from the 1970s, 'Dianetics Today', which is taken from a recorded lecture (probably in the late 1950s), where Hubbard says, "Why 'Alice in Wonderland'? Well, that's just because it is, no further significance."

So Hubbard, as usual, is hiding something.

 

[Gadfly]

:
:One basic:

Communication is not about staring at people.

Another one:
Communication is not about preparation to CONTROL.

On the nuances of words ( You were arguing with Profesor Baker that the word "technology" is not very fitting for what Scientology claims to be - and I agree with your arguments there).....The word "confront", it's overused, and the battle-mentality it conjures up seems to assume that communication is going to be about an ongoing fight or flight crisis. It seems basically a huge flaw in a basic communication course. I still remember doing the comm course and reading about the rationale behind it --to prepare auditors to drive through any resistance and get the pc to answer the question. Good for a police interrogation course maybe.

Well, when I did the Comm Course, and later a few different versions of the TRs Courses, I never for a moment had the viewpoint that communication was about staring at people. Is that what YOU thought it was?

If one can't sit there or stand there and comfortably observe, one will not be able to operate from any position of stability. I think Hubbard defined confront as "being able to easily face or comfortably perceive". Both are prerequisites to any decent living or working. If you can't even be there comfortably with what is there, well . . .you might as well pack it in. THAT is a prerequisite to just about anything else.

Oh yeah, "to face without flinching or avoiding". That sounds like a good thing to me. The idea of confront, to me, as I understood it, was to be able to "be there comfortably, with nothing else". That is ALL it means until one ADDS to it.

Like any "tool" it all depends HOW one uses it. Now, granted, there is much about Scientology that nudges one towards "control". But, even control is not necessarily a bad thing. I control my car. I control by steps when I am walking on the side of a 70-degree cliff on the side of a steep mountain. I control my fingers when I play the guitar. I control the razor when I am shaving. And on and on.

The "control" that most people don't like is the type that either forces one against their will, or tricks people when they are unaware of such trickery. People don't like mind control, thought control, behavioral control, etc. People don't like manipulation parading as control.

One can communicate to make friends, to make people feel good, and to make people smile. I do it all of the time. I generally look them right in the eye - but I don't "stare" at them. And reversely, one can communicate to deceive, to spread lies and to manipulate the ideas of others.

Communication is entirely neutral. I never saw it as anything else when I did the Comm Course and TRs.

I hate to sound like Baker here, but it seems to me that what you are saying above says more about YOU than it does about the subject being discussed. Why? Because I never got any of that from what I studied. :confused2:

"Confront" as a "battle mentality" is YOUR own contribution to the subject. Now, there is no doubt that there are OTHER ideas in Scientology that frame life sort of as a battle - the whole notion of life as a game (which it is in many aspects) exists in MANY other subjects and views. Now, yes, add in the KSW lunacy of "we are fighting for our eternal salvation", and THAT adds tinges of insanity to all the rest of it. But, I have long ago thrown such ideas away.

Now about auditing. I audited some, and I worked with auditors for awhile. To me, as I understood it, and as it seemed the others understood it, people have a sorry tendency to evaluate and invalidate others in their communication, so part of the TRs were to help drill auditors to NOT do that. Thus, "muzzled TRs". Another aspect was that sometimes PCs have trouble getting through the processes. Sometimes they need some encouragement. I recently described how I "turned-on" a severe urge to puke while running an engram chain. I was PISSED. I wanted to KILL the auditor. I wanted to leave the room (blow). The auditor persisted, having done TRs before, handled my origination, and got me to keep running the chain. In the end the severe feeling of sickness vanished, and I was VERY glad that he "helped me through it" with TR3 and TR4. People might giggle at the phrase, "the way out is the way through", but guess what, sometimes it is!

Comparing actions that are designed (in some cases) to help a person face and handle past areas of upset to "police interrogation" is just so horribly disingenuous.

There is so much wrong with Scientology, that as I see it, there is no need to MAKE UP and exaggerate aspects of the more innocent and innocuous stuff, much less about the stuff that actually might be helpful.

I NEVER for a moment interpreted or used ANY of the TRs as a "fight crisis". Did you?

Now yes, GO and OSA staff take the TRs and use them in specialized versions to learn how to LIE. THAT sucks. TR-L is real. They are trained to IGNORE questions that they don't want to answer, and to misdirect attention. When some idiot stands there and bellows, "what are your crimes", he IS using TRs, but in a very STOOOOPID manner.

But for the guy on the street who walks in and does an introductory Comm Course, I would suspect that most benefit by the simple drills that help just about anybody become and remain more comfortable in his or her own skin, and address simple points like speaking clearly, not getting flustered, and persisting to get a simply question answered.

Again, the Comm Course was put together so that it would be useful and helpful to most people most of the time. Why? Sadly, NOT to help them, but to lure them into the larger scam known as Scientology. See, THAT is REALLY evil. Hubbard took the time to actually figure out valuable things that could actually benefit people, but then wrapped them up in a convoluted messy organization that was designed to entrap people.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

XB let me illustrate it for you. You've been here long enough to get what I'm about to say...

The true reality on this matter is balanced somewhere between Helluvahoax and Mark Baker. And that point of balance is Gadfly.

You're welcome.

Just a note. I have never said that nothing good can ever happen with a Scientologist studying/applying Scientology. But, that is not my concern.

I am, however fascinated by the NET result of applying Scientology, which in my expert opinion is extremely dangerous and damaging.

Think of me as a Hoax Prosecutor, interrogating the defendant. I don't need to ask them questions about whether they read the Bible, put some loose change in the March of Dimes collection can or attend church on Sundays. It's not relevant to the case.

I do understand, however, why the defendant's attorneys keep jumping up and objecting to the withering cross-examination and introduction of impeachment evidence. They would love to introduce copies of the defendant's glowing personal Success Stories instead of surveillance footage of the defendant throwing a terrified 4 year old child in a chain locker.

There is an ancient Latin legal expression which applies:

Fanculo le vittorie tech.
Qualcuno afferra un paio di manette
e bloccare alcuni di questi bastardi culto up.

Fuck the tech wins.
Somebody grab a pair of handcuffs
and lock some of these cult bastards up. ​

 

[Gib]

Old thread on TRs, and yes, I do think that people can sometimes benefit from having done TRs, but as with so much in Scientology, there are "hidden hooks." So beware: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?944-TRs-are-always-good!-TRs-are-always-bad!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRKvpZ7PjE

The book 'Alice in Wonderland' is used on Training Routine 1. Lines are read from "Alice." The stated idea is to train the person to deliver a communication as "his own," in a "new unit of time."

The person thinks he's on a "Communications Course," or is doing "Auditor training" to sharpen his "auditing communication cycle skills," and, as usual, in Scientology, something else is also (covertly) happening.

In any event, here's a chronology of references to 'Dear Alice':

1952: During the 'PDC' lectures, Hubbard speaks positively (a rarity) of a book that he calls 'The Master Therion'. The alternate title for this text is 'Magick in Theory and Practice'. In one section, Crowley presents a long list of books 'For serious study'. One of these is, 'Alice Through the Looking Glass'. It's described as being "Valuable to those who understand the Qabalah."

1955: The next reference is a medical/psychiatric term http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=24174

1955: The first reference to 'Alice in Wonderland' in Hubbard's writings appears in his ("Russian") 'Textbook on Psycho-Politics', a.k.a. the 'Brainwashing Manual' (which denounces Dianetics multiple times), originally written as a black propaganda vehicle for identifying his critics, including psychologists and psychiatrists, with Russian Communism, and then, later, used by him as a kind of blueprint for his Scientology operation. (And if Scientology is anything, it is a 'psychological-political operation', but I don't believe one initiated by any government.)

Says Hubbard - in the guise of a Russian psychiatrist - "There are those who have foolishly embarked upon some spiritual Alice-in-Wonderland voyage into what they call the 'subconscious' or 'unconscious' mind... There is no strength in such an approach."

[Note Hubbard's use of "enemy tactics" and methods. Discussed elsewhere. Is the above Hubbard's actual opinion of the Alice-in-Wonderland voyages on which he would send Scientologists?]

Next is a quote from the out-of-print compilation book from the 1970s, 'Dianetics Today', which is taken from a recorded lecture (probably in the late 1950s), where Hubbard says, "Why 'Alice in Wonderland'? Well, that's just because it is, no further significance."

So Hubbard, as usual, is hiding something.

I actually hated doing the TR's with alice in wonderland. It made no sense to me to use the lines. I've never read the book. except in parts in doing the drills. It seemed weird to me in using the lines to do the tr drills.

some lines I'd get a laugh. but really, I hated doing that drill, seemed not real.

 

[Gib]

Oh yeah, "to face without flinching or avoiding". That sounds like a good thing to me. The idea of confront, to me, as I understood, was to be able to "be there comfortably, with nothing else". That is ALL it means until one ADDS to it.

I've seen "wogs" just staring at each other and talking and having a real conversation.

And I went "hmmmmmm".

And getting involved with scientology, why those two I observed would have to sit in front of each other for two hours in the pro tr's course. For something they could do already.

:confused2:

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Wow, what a win!

...


Scientologists get huge "wins" from TR-0. The ability to comfortably confront something and do nothing.

That's why they can write success stories simply by standing by, "confronting" and "doing nothing" when a terrified 4 year old is thrown into a chain locker.

 

[Gadfly]

Re: Wow, what a win!

...

Scientologists get huge "wins" from TR-0. The ability to comfortably confront something and do nothing.

That's why they can write success stories simply by standing by "confronting" and "doing nothing" when a terrified 4 year old is thrown into a chain locker.

THAT is so disingenuous (even though sort of funny on a very exaggerated level).

I am not any sort of Scientologist. I greatly enjoyed what I got out of TR0. I find great value in the eastern notion of "quiet mindfulness" (i.e. Eckhart Tolle, Baba Ram Das, and others).

99.999999% of the people ever involved in Scientology were NEVER AWARE of any 4 year-old thrown into a chain locker.

Jesus Hoaxster, that is such a distortion of reality. You usually do what you do far better that THAT.

 

[Infinite]

..

A particularly slippery thing about the Comms Course, as wryly observed by Ford Schwartz, is that . . .

. . . the certificate for completing the Communication Course does not even mention the word "communication." The certificate for completing the Communication Course certifies the student as a "Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist", or "H.A.S." Whether he likes it or not, upon completing the Communication Course, the new student has become a Scientologist . . .

. . . bait and switch, built in from start to finish!