Fundamentalist KSW IS blog: What is RIGHT with Scientology

[TG1]

Just to keep things real, Bill -- this is hardly the population that would give Scientology ringing endorsements.

TG1

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... [*]Scientology's results are not reliable, consistent or predictable. "Something" is likely to happen, but no one can predict what, ...

Really, Bill, my primary cavil with you lies here. You are absolutely correct in saying that "no one can predict what". We are in complete agreement on that point. Hubbard's promises about specific powers to be endowed upon pcs as a result of auditing are bogus.

Where I see you as being in error is in your insistence that there is nothing reliable in the use of scientology processes. The fact is that "something is likely to happen" is a reliable factor. It is in fact the really interesting aspect of scientology auditing tech.

Any factor which can reliably increase the prospect of personal epiphanies is a genuinely remarkable tool to have available. Such phenomena as epiphanies are well known to exist. However, they have always been seen as randomly occurring. There is little in the history of philosophy, psychology, or spirituality which is known to produce such breakthrough insights routinely. Of the various "earlier practices" mentioned, meditation is likely to be the most effective, yet it also remains difficult, time consuming, highly variable in results, and still largely random.

What is useful about the approach laid out in the fundamentals of auditing tech is how an individual can be reliably helped to find insights and personal epiphanies for himself. Therein lies the primary value of auditing.

Those who have sought auditing for that reason are often very satisfied with the results they experience. Those who have sought auditing for other reasons are almost uniformly disappointed.

With regard to producing a consistent and uniform result from a process involving personal introspection, only a madman would seek to control the character of another person's personal insights. That may or may not have been hubbard's intention. But that is a matter for separate discussion. It is certainly not a "reliable result" to be sought from auditing.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Lurker5]

Don't think anyone has any use for your snide evaluations, I
certainly don't.

Its on the first page of this thread here. Unfortunately its a
picture and I can't cut and paste it.

"Steve Hall's post on closed Indy Facebook group"

Infinite is real strong on DOX PLOX. He is though the one who posted
it.

I LOVE IdleMorgue's evaluations.

 

[Sindy]

I LOVE IdleMorgue's evaluations.

Me too!!!!!!

 

[Bill]

Really, Bill, my primary cavil with you lies here. You are absolutely correct in saying that "no one can predict what". We are in complete agreement on that point. Hubbard's promises about specific powers to be endowed upon pcs as a result of auditing are bogus.

Where I see you as being in error is in your insistence that there is nothing reliable in the use of scientology processes. The fact is that "something is likely to happen" is a reliable factor. It is in fact the really interesting aspect of scientology auditing tech.

Mark A. Baker

Hi Mark. We're really not too far out of agreement.

I don't see where I've ever said that "nothing is reliable in the use of Scientology processes". Did I say that? I don't think so. I did say that the results are unpredictable, which you agree with.

Where our disagreement lies is in your presumption that the results from Scientology are always significant and beneficial.

I, on the other hand, know that the results from Scientology are only sometimes significant and only sometimes beneficial. That's why so many people don't do Scientology any more.

You also denigrate all other possible therapies while I know that the results from other therapies for some people can be superior to Scientology's results.

Certainly, if Scientology has a positive effect on a person, more power to them -- but that PR line that Scientology is "far superior to all other therapies" is very much untested, unproven and quite open to question. In my experiences, my conversations and my studies, I have come to the exact opposite conclusion: Scientology's therapy is just not as effective as other, tested and proven therapies.

Until Scientology actually goes head to head against the results from other therapies as judged by independent researchers, you can't prove that Scientology is superior -- and, of course, I can't prove it isn't. There is no way to prove it. It's up to some Scientology organization to cooperate with some kind of comparison to establish their "superiority" -- which will never happen.

Bill

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

What is RIGHT with Scientology

I don't doubt for a minute that Scientology "does something", I've never said otherwise. My continuing point is that it isn't predictable, consistent or reliable in what it produces -- and that it never, ever produced the promised miracles.

While I admire your optimism, I think, after sixty years, tens of thousands of practitioners and, perhaps, tens of millions of hours of processing, that if Scientology were capable of producing any of its miracles, it would have done so.

For some people, Scientology makes them feel good and they feel they are "improving". That's great. No problem. Same thing for people in many, many other belief systems, technologies and practices. For those who get something "good" out of one of these practices, wonderful! But a key point is that Scientology does not produce anything different from these other practices.

There is no result from Scientology that is unique to Scientology -- except it does significantly more harm than most other such systems, technologies and practices. And, as you say, it consistently produces ex-Scientologists.

I make this point because Scientology uses its descriptions and promises of "miraculous gains" in order to trap people. That's why each time someone makes claims that Scientology produces "Releases", "Clears", "OTs", "cures this", says "Scientology can handle that" or "Scientology could help X" it is important to point out that it is all complete bullshit.

Any "gains" from Scientology are because the person believed and was capable of making the improvement on their own. Scientology was incidental at best and could be replaced by any practice that allows the practitioner to make such realizations.

I say, defuse the trap, always debunk Scientology's bogus claims.

Bill

Good points. However, there is another dimension to all the Scientologists babbling about their "wins" and "case gain" and "cogs".

Even granting, hypothetically, that such scientifically provable "results" are brought about by the "tech", on what basis could one reasonably conclude that the "gain", was ultimately beneficial to the participant? To illustrate, here is a comparable (unnamed) self-help therapy that produced remarkably similar gains to those of Scientology.

CASE STUDY (Therapy Modality #23)1:
One hundred (100) test subjects participated in double-blind study conducted over a period of one (1) year wherein a personal daily journal was maintained by the subject memorializing the perceived (subjective) benefits of Self-Help Modality #23. Unknown to the subject, a continuous 24 video surveillance of the subject's activities was maintained at the individual's home, work and random social interactions (e.g. shopping, recreation, restaurants, et al).

Indexing Of Cognitive Benefits: For purposes of this study, only positive results which were logged into the journal (subjective) and independently confirmed by the video surveillance (objective) were designated as "benefits". A representative sampling is provided herein for illustrative purposes:
​

Date: March 17, 1984:
Subjective: Subject log entry reported during the two-hour therapy session their mood was substantially elevated, accompanied by a significant release of stress, sudden cessation of depressive ideation and frequent laughter.
Objective: Video surveillance confirmed that subject entered the session with serious demeanor and monotonous voice pattern which over the course of the therapy session transitioned to frequent smiling and loud bursts of sustained laughter. ​

Clearly, the above example would indicate that the technology was producing a beneficial effect, much like Scientology produces. Or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the double-blind study was necessarily aborted prior to the full one-year term, due to the frequency of unexpected (personal) scheduling conflicts which arose with an uncharacteristically high percentage of the 100 test subjects. By way of example, some of those subjects had personal medical issues or legal issues (e.g. cirrhosis, DUI convictions, et al).

In case any readers find this kind of purely technical information interesting, the "Therapy Modality" employed in that study was addressing manic depression through an pharmacological agent (C2H5OH).

Outside of the scientific community, this is commonly referred to as "whiskey".

This defines the core problem with Scientology, even given the unproven hypothesized scenario where it "works". No value has been assigned to the net gain or loss to the individual being administered doses of the "tech".

Ergo. . .yet another Hubbard Law.



HUBBARD'S LAW OF COGNITION DISSONANCE: For every cognition or win there is mental confusion and/or loss of comparable or greater magnitude.






1: CASE STUDY (Therapy Modality #23): Okay, I made it up like Scientology makes everything up, so what? LOL

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Re: What is RIGHT with Scientology

;;


Ooops. Bad link on that last post I made. Here it is correctly. . .

Ergo. . .yet another Hubbard Law.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... You also denigrate all other possible therapies ...

Absolutely not, Bill. Whoever told you that was flat out lying.

I firmly believe that there are many paths and that each may be seen as "most appropriate" for some individuals. I'm always pleased to hear that a person is getting a good result whatever mode of treatment or spiritual practice they may be pursuing.

I will admit that I find little value in institutional religion. That is true whatever the religion, though living in the u.s. variant forms of christian institutions have been the dominant factors throughout my lifetime. But not valuing religions is also far from the same as not valuing other therapies and practices.

The fact that I find much value in scientology practices does not equate to my finding no value in others. I am after all also an advocate of Buddhist philosophy and am always interested in examining other techniques. I make no claim of the inherent preeminence of scientology. Many of the techniques are simple, useful, and effective. Those reasons alone are sufficient for continuing to advocate for those techniques. They certainly do not constitute all that can be said or accomplished in the way of human spirituality. And I strongly believe they are best used in combination with other materials. One of my

As far as being a freezoner I'm definitely liberal in my views, nothing at all orthodox about me.

As far as any potential testing of scientology goes, I'd like to see that happen, but not to prove its "superiority" over other practices. I simply feel that would be a useful thing to have done for many reasons.

Which practice is "best" is really a question for individuals to determine for themselves. Different people respond differently. What is useful for one may not be especially helpful for another. That said, I do think that basic auditing is generally beneficial to a wide variety of people, especially when supplemented with the study of other non-scientology materials.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Infinite]

..

Ooops. Sorry.

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

Really, Bill, my primary cavil with you lies here. You are absolutely correct in saying that "no one can predict what". We are in complete agreement on that point. Hubbard's promises about specific powers to be endowed upon pcs as a result of auditing are bogus.

Where I see you as being in error is in your insistence that there is nothing reliable in the use of scientology processes. The fact is that "something is likely to happen" is a reliable factor. It is in fact the really interesting aspect of scientology auditing tech.

Any factor which can reliably increase the prospect of personal epiphanies is a genuinely remarkable tool to have available. Such phenomena as epiphanies are well known to exist. However, they have always been seen as randomly occurring. There is little in the history of philosophy, psychology, or spirituality which is known to produce such breakthrough insights routinely. Of the various "earlier practices" mentioned, meditation is likely to be the most effective, yet it also remains difficult, time consuming, highly variable in results, and still largely random.

What is useful about the approach laid out in the fundamentals of auditing tech is how an individual can be reliably helped to find insights and personal epiphanies for himself. Therein lies the primary value of auditing.

Those who have sought auditing for that reason are often very satisfied with the results they experience. Those who have sought auditing for other reasons are almost uniformly disappointed.

With regard to producing a consistent and uniform result from a process involving personal introspection, only a madman would seek to control the character of another person's personal insights. That may or may not have been hubbard's intention. But that is a matter for separate discussion. It is certainly not a "reliable result" to be sought from auditing.


Mark A. Baker

Why don't you just come out and tell us some of your wins?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Why don't you just come out and tell us some of your wins?

I have already. Feel free to go read some of them in my prior posts. Repeatedly answering the same questions over and over again is not one of my life goals.


Mark A. Baker

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

I have already. Feel free to go read some of them in my prior posts. Repeatedly answering the same questions over and over again is not one of my life goals.


Mark A. Baker

Well I'm sorry, but I've been reading here for a few years and don't recall one....... come on - how about just one of the epiphanies (as you call them) that have happened to YOU.

And what was the process Q? Just asking, because you frequently mention that people benefit from auditing, but not exactly what process YOU benefited from.

Can't you just explain it, like I'm stupid?

 

[OTBT]

Why is a thread about what is "right" about the cult, so many pages long? Us lefties are annoyed.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Why is a thread about what is "right" about the cult, so many pages long? Us lefties are annoyed.

If you read the OP, the thread is not about what is "right" about Scientology, but about what the fundamentalist KSW IS blog said was right about Scientology in a blog post there, as well as in comments at that blog.

It is about learning and dissecting the fundamentalist KSW IS mindset.

.

 

[Gib]

Why is a thread about what is "right" about the cult, so many pages long? Us lefties are annoyed.

It appears the whole of ESMB is about people who have been involved and are out, or maybe out or maybe not, and they get a chance to communicate about their involvement, good and bad, and people respond back.

 

[In present time]

It appears the whole of ESMB is about people who have been involved and are out, or maybe out or maybe not, and they get a chance to communicate about their involvement, good and bad, and people respond back.

That's what I thought it was too, where did we go wrong gib ?