What's new

Black and White

freethinker

Sponsor
Mind you, "Three feet back of your head" command had to be coupled with R2-45 and leveled directly at the preclears head.

It worked like a charm and those clears are six feet undergound which is why they are so difficult to find.


So, the tech works and it helps people end their lives.
Yeah when I first started reading about Scientology I read all the books through pretty quickly and basically it looked to me like he would come out with some new process, this was _the_ process that would make everyone clear then he would 'research' a new process that would make clears faster and would say like forget that old stuff its crap, now we all use this new process even though it had been like 6 months since the old process was invented so you know there could have been much actual research involved there. This culminated with that be three back of your head stuff that I can't imagine works for anyone who isn't already hypnotized or in a trance. This to me is what much of the R2 processes are for, inducing a trance via repetitive mental imagery - they get you into a trance then can "exteriorize" and run R1.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
No, I am implying that it will allow others to manipulate you, as did Ron with the IRS.

I appreciate your concern but I got this.


I like the terms religious philosophy or nontheistic religion. But when you say "religion" as applied to a perosn of faith, that is not the first image conjured up.

All I did was apply a term to a group that applies that term to itself. I have never tried to convince anyone that their usage of the term cult was wrong on that themselves saying it isn't a religion is wrong - I am merely defending my usage of the term in my own posts. I don't care if other people consider Scientology a religion or not I just wish there were not so many people intent on telling me that I shouldn't think it is a religion either.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
--snipped--
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hoaxie's Law of Commotion is 100%, not at all, but there ARE a LARGE AMOUNT of contradictions (as I described above and earlier). Making this a "law" is an exaggeration - poetic license to make a point.


You have sometimes alluded to the idea that I use the "Hubbard Law of Commotion" as poetic license. But, I don't. It is observably true that each and every policy and piece of tech in Scientology has a corresponding negation.

For example: Any "firm policy" that one might cite is easily brushed aside in favor of "Purpose is senior to Policy".

For example: Any application of the "ethics tech" can be redirected to either lawful or illegal acts, depending on the expediency or whim of interpreting "the greatest good".

For example: The tech itself purports to make "free beings" but when Scientologists manifest freedom (of thought, speech or action), the very same tech is then used to crush them with sec checks, truth rundowns and other "black" Dianetics/Scientology psychological terrorism focused on crushing the person's freedom.​

I once challenged anyone on ESMB to find an exception to that Hubbard "law" (of commotion) and so far nobody has.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
I appreciate your concern but I got this.




All I did was apply a term to a group that applies that term to itself. I have never tried to convince anyone that their usage of the term cult was wrong on that themselves saying it isn't a religion is wrong - I am merely defending my usage of the term in my own posts. I don't care if other people consider Scientology a religion or not I just wish there were not so many people intent on telling me that I shouldn't either.

I am like Hoaxie, Kate, in that I don't mind what you think of it so much as my concern for lurkers and especially people in power that might decide one way or another based on what they read about this group. Any "religious component" is purely secondary to the money making component and it is important to me that people of influence who might know little or nothing about Scientology aren't taken in by the deliberately erected religious facade and mistakenly extend the protection of this awful group under the auspices of political correctness and "religious freedom". For Scientology "religious freedom" has mostly amounted to the freedom to abuse with impunity.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
You can read Hoaxard's stuff and get a dial wide grin or...

You can read Hubbard's stuff and get a dial wide duped.

He's trying to save you the inevitable conclusion. The accuracy of Hoaxard's stuff is irrelevent because it IS a workable technology.

Or, you can wade through Hubbard's stuff and start threads like this to try and figure out what can't be figured out unless you insert the infallible datum that Hubbard was full of crap.
That there are opposites for everything in Scientology. I think there are a lot, but its not 50% statements and 50% opposite of those statements.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Originally Posted by Gadfly
You disagree with WHAT exactly?

That there are opposites for everything in Scientology. I think there are a lot, but its not 50% statements and 50% opposite of those statements.


If you are really going to include Scientology as part of a thesis or some other scholarly effort, you might want to better understand how Scientology is constructed. If you think there are any parts of Hubbard's Scientology that are not fully negated by other parts, you are going to fall far short in crafting a useful instrument to further people's understanding.

Notice that I bolded "Hubbard's Scientology". All the other people you see picking and choosing certain portions of Scientology (to the exclusion of others) are not talking about the real Scientology. They are talking about their own idiosyncratic, slanted and illusory interpretation of it.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
If you are really going to include Scientology as part of a thesis or some other scholarly effort, you might want to better understand how Scientology is constructed. If you think there are any parts of Hubbard's Scientology that are not fully negated by other parts, you are going to fall far short in crafting a useful instrument to further people's understanding.

Notice that I bolded "Hubbard's Scientology". All the other people you see picking and choosing certain portions of Scientology (to the exclusion of others) are not talking about the real Scientology. They are talking about their own idiosyncratic, slanted and illusory interpretation of it.

Sure, I'm very interested in how it is constructed but my main area of interest is in individual processes and the mental states they can induce rather than the organization itself. I think one thing where I often run into trouble posting here is that in many of my posts when I talk about Scientology I am referring only to the non-Dianetic processing part of Scientology and not any other part but I just use the word Scientology and then other people reasonably assume I am talking about Scientology as a whole.
 
I appreciate your concern but I got this.




All I did was apply a term to a group that applies that term to itself. I have never tried to convince anyone that their usage of the term cult was wrong on that themselves saying it isn't a religion is wrong - I am merely defending my usage of the term in my own posts. I don't care if other people consider Scientology a religion or not I just wish there were not so many people intent on telling me that I shouldn't think it is a religion either.

Is your study/enquiry "academic" or not? Your categorization of scientology as a religion and how your arrived at that is not very academic.
If it is not supposed to be academic, it is still way too fuzzy to have a sensible discussion.
If it is not a discussion, but just you telling people what you think without wanting feedback, I suppose it doesn't matter.
 

Gib

Crusader
Scientology being declared not a religion is unlikely to happen in the USA in the foreseeable future either unfortunately and I prefer to support what I view to be the correct approach of removing special laws for all religious groups.

Thanks for the information. Aside from some of the posts by other members I have already read the documents you provided links to, one of which ( http://www.bible.ca/scientology-not-religion-kent.htm ) states: "the more appropriate position to take is that the organization is a multi-faceted transnational that has religion as only one of its many components" which is certainly in line with my views on it however saying "the religious portion of Scientology" everytime I would say "Scientology" is overly cumbersome in casual conversation.

well, you can dig all you want into the religious aspect of it. That would be thetan = soul.

But I think it's just a sales and marketing organization that has it's own PR division and Mafia division (to silence people that come to their senses and realize it is just a sales & marketing organization that actually is a rip-off under hubbards 4 conditions of exchange). And hubbard boasts many times that scientology is priceless or the selling of the fourth condition of exchange.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Is your study/enquiry "academic" or not? Your categorization of scientology as a religion and how your arrived at that is not very academic.
If it is not supposed to be academic, it is still way too fuzzy to have a sensible discussion.
If it is not a discussion, but just you telling people what you think without wanting feedback, I suppose it doesn't matter.

my study into Scientology is a hobby but as I am now a Psychology and Religion major it is of academic interest as well.
Nothing in this thread was intended to be academic and it was started merely to point out a glaring contradiction in the LRH's books and maybe get a couple people laugh at it and say like 'oh yeah I noticed that too' or 'oh yeah I saw that and come up with a justification for it' or 'oh there actually is x explanation for it' and maybe get a couple people tell about their experiences running that process. For a while this is how it went but then people decided they had to pick apart every word I said and make accusations which I was merely defending.

Regarding the usage of the term religion - I never told anyone else to use that term, but other people are insisting that I not use that word either which I do not agree with.
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Contrast. Hubbard couldn't figure it out either, watch out for them BT's too... :p

Illusion_43_-_Black_and_white_Spirals_Wallpaper_7at2i.jpg



*sigh*
 

kate8024

-deleted-
well, you can dig all you want into the religious aspect of it. That would be thetan = soul.

But I think it's just a sales and marketing organization that has it's own PR division and Mafia division (to silence people that come to their senses and realize it is just a sales & marketing organization that actually is a rip-off under hubbards 4 conditions of exchange). And hubbard boasts many times that scientology is priceless or the selling of the fourth condition of exchange.

Those are certainly aspects of the organization. I have a tendency to separate Scientology from the Church of Scientology and ascribe crimes and abuses to the church since I believe there are independent Scientologists which still practice Scientology but do not engage in such abuses.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I love Hoaxie, but he can get carried away at times, and to me, he sometimes sees "trolls" and "handlings" where NONE actually exist. He did so with Mark Baker (even though Baker was a pain in the ass in various ways). But, I don't see it good to pock a person out and continually jump on them (here on ESMB) - it almost becomes a form of cyber-stalking. To me, it can get obsessive. Now, granted I have myself occasionally succumbed to that sort of less-than-honorable urge . . . . :duh: :ohmy:


Just for the record Gad, over my 4-plus years of posting, I think I only invoked the "T" word (troll) about 3 or 4 times. Each time it was born out in fact that the person WAS a troll and took off (not by my doing alone, usually by popular decree and significant numbers of fed-up posters).

We seem to disagree about what exactly Baker was doing. By the way, since you brought him up, where is he anyways? He was posting here when I went on my sabbatical and after I left. But when I returned months later, he had vanished.
 
Last edited:

Terril park

Sponsor
So, Chapter 5 of Scientology 8-80 is filled with praise for Black and White such as



and it basically says Black and White is going to solve all the problems of other processes and have the whole planet clear within a week or something.

but in Scientology 8-8008 it says



Both of these books were published in 1952. Surely I am not the only one who has noticed this and found it rather odd.

Consult PAB 12 for more on black and white. Basically saying running explosions is the most effective form of black and white. Then relate that to
OT 3.

Just realised you're not a scientologist and would have no subjective insight into OT 3.
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Those are certainly aspects of the organization. I have a tendency to separate Scientology from the Church of Scientology and ascribe crimes and abuses to the church since
I believe there are independent Scientologists which still practice Scientology but do not engage in such abuses.

true. And whats missing is the data if those folks are "clear" or "ot" per hubbard's definitions.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Consult PAB 12 for more on black and white. Basically saying running explosions is the most effective form of black and white. Then relate that to
OT 3.

That's quite interesting. Long before I ever read anything about Scientology while I was doing some hallucinatory experimentation I ran into a bunch of stuff about bombs and explosions which was odd for me as it was something I had pretty much never though about before (unlike LRH of course who wrote about bombs constantly). It didn't involve volcanoes or implants though so yeah...
 

Gib

Crusader
Those are certainly aspects of the organization.
I have a tendency to separate Scientology from the Church of Scientology
and ascribe crimes and abuses to the church since I believe there are independent Scientologists which still practice Scientology but do not engage in such abuses.

so why didn't hubbard do the same?

He is the one who created the SO and approved the RPF, and wrote KSW and the PTS/SP stuff.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
true. And whats missing is the data if those folks are "clear" or "ot" per hubbard's definitions.

I doubt it though that's not a criteria I personally think about personally. It would be very interesting to see actual data on something like this. The research I hope to eventually do is nowhere near the scope of something that could claim to prove or disprove clear or ot or prove the source of those feelings in people that do experience them.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
If you are implying my liberal definition of religion and church are an attempt to control others you are not at all understanding what I am saying. My definition specially allows others to control me by saying they are a church or religion and specifically disallows me controlling others since I only apply those labels to those that apply it to themselves.



I understand this argument, however its not really the case.


I would say it is more correct to call a religion without a deity a 'non-theistic religion' in many cases. IMHO it would be reasonable to call Scientology a "religious philosophy" but because it, like Buddhism, contains other indicators of being a religion I personally believe that simply "religion" is a reasonable term to use in casual discussion.

I agree. Not all scientologists do.

Axiom 1 Life is basically a static.

DEFINITION: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

Axiom 2 The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
so why didn't hubbard do the same?

He is the one who created the SO and approved the RPF, and wrote KSW and the PTS/SP stuff.

Likely because was overly obsessed with control and worried about bad PR stemming from people doing things in the name of Scientology that he didn't agree with. I don't have specific data on this but I think early on in Dianetics there were some independent people practicing it that did even worse things than LRH did, so he attempted to reign that in though what seems to be largely fear-based control mechanisms.
 
Top