What's new

Scientology explained

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
It's perfectly possible for someone to reach a ceiling in what they're doing, where they know they've still got more - even a lot more - to learn.

I know few people here will like this analogy, but it's the first one which comes to mind. Newton wasn't a rubbish physicist just because Einstein came along, in fact Newtonian physics is still good enough for almost all of the things we need to do in the world of mechanics (even with astronomical bodies).


If your auditor went to Edinburgh and did her psych degree she wouldn't have been furthering her education on the mind though, she would have been starting from scratch.

IOW her cofs training would have counted for nothing and I doubt she would have expected it to be taken seriously, if she even mentioned it to anyone.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
<Snipped>

I have said on other posts recently that to apply the standards of the scientific method to non-physical subjects like spirit and mind can never work. I'm not going to repeat all of that here. You can read it on the other thread.

You can test for the degree of vacuum in a container by testing for the presence of atoms and molecules and mass (or however they do it). But you can not test for the state of clear by looking for the presence of engrams - engrams are in the mind and the mind is in a space of its own - it is not in the brain but can yet influence the brain. It is not in the physical universe but its influence on the physical universe can be seen and, to a degree, measured. All that an e-meter measures is that influence on a person's body. It does not measure the mind itself.

There is no physical test that can measure the relative non-existence of any engrams. The idea is laughable.

So while the influence of 'engrams' (the given name for a hidden control centre that operates on a stimulus-response basis and that influences a person's conduct without his knowledge) can be seen in the behaviour of people, yet their actual existence can only be assumed and not proven.

But this is an assumption - perhaps like the square-root of minus one - that can lead to very useful applications. And now, please note, we depart from any sort of realm of 'Scientific Truth' and enter the domain of Usefulness. Workability. And we disregard the demands of scientific purists.

So we assume the existence of engrams and we look for value in that assumption....

<Snipped>


Leon I do believe you've just outlined an argument that the practice of auditing is a faith. :yes:
 

JustSheila

Crusader
However, no auditor outside of CofS I knew was doing what they are doing for money.

I haven't met one yet (and I've met a few) for whom making money was anything like their main consideration. Without exception they were auditing others because they wanted to help people, and it was the best way they knew of doing it.

:no: No.

First of all, there isn't a single FZ auditor or FZ mission holder who will ever admit to themselves, much less anyone else, that they make more money delivering to those that leave COS than anything else they might do, because these are the only skills they know well.

That's a hard thing to give up. It's scarey to start over. It's even scarier to admit to one's self that more people have been damaged and died and left Scientology than have actually had their lives improved and that you, personally are part of that evil machine. It's easier to just continue on as you always have. More lucrative, too. After all, those gullible people are still around, still wanting the service. If they don't do it, someone else will, right?

There are some who have become exceedingly wealthy from their little FZ practices, but I'm sure they also say they "don't do it for the money." Everyone in the FZ or the Indies or whatever true Rons or whatever they call themselves says they "don't do it for the money". What kind of guru would admit if he did? That's just not a good guru image, and it's all about getting the person to believe you can cure them, isn't it? Helen Chen has become exceedingly wealthy from her missions. David Mayo made bucketloads of money until COS got onto him.

Helen Chen had a child die from neglect in her little child care setup just last year. Paying qualified staff would have prevented that, but that would have meant less profit. But she "doesn't do it for the money." It's for the expansion of Scientology, of course (but it so happens that as she invests more money in her missions, she makes more money). Hubbard wouldn't pay wages but instead used slave labour from the well-intentioned naive, but Hubbard made sure he was rolling in the money with slaves to jump at any little thing he wanted. He'd rather spend millions on race cars for his personal pleasure than pay a decent wage to the staff. How did he NOT do it for the money?

David Mayo had one of his ACC members suicide as well. She was on OT3.

Even Terril has a story or two of FZ clients who have not fared all that well.

I am sure not all the FZ auditors are getting wealthy from it, but quite a few are pretty well off from their auditing or mission incomes. It's a cozy little setup, where the brainwashing has already been done.

I can't even begin to comprehend the cognitive dissonance of continuing to use a cult technology to "help" people that is known to have caused more suicides, psychotic breaks and mental health problems than if people had been left entirely alone and never heard of it in the first place.

Someone with a pure heart would think twice about taking advantage of the victims of a cult.

I've been pretty easy-going about the FZ in the past, seen it as a stepping stone or a necessary evil, but so many people who should know better just continue to exploit the cult's victims year after year. Some even recruit their own. And looking at all these suicides, all these names, all these psychotic breaks, all the damage, all the pain, all the suffering, I wonder how heartless one can be to just ignore all that and still continue to call it "helping others."

I'm going to be on that Type III thread for weeks just gathering the hundreds, maybe a thousand or more names of the victims.

And still, the victims are ignored by COS, and still the true believers continue on, as if nothing bad ever happened, blinders on, because it's too uncomfortable to take them off and see the truth.
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
I tried but I just can't seem to take this post seriously Balthasar due to your repeated assertion that hubbard wasn't a scientologist and wasn't in it for the money.

:biggrin:


---snipped--

Founders seldom identify themselves with their own creation. As a matter of fact, I haven't observed that, did you?

What I did observe is that once a person reaches the very top of any ideology, he would cease to identify himself with it. That's an odd phenomenon at first glance, I agree. However, the top end pyramide guy always considers himself to be the best, the smartest and above the ideology within. Rather than following or subjecting himself to ideologic rules, he feels being beyond and above them, which he in fact is. Like all the others below him, they are all above idelogic boundaries. The only difference is, they don't know it.

Hubbard motivations? The following may may freak you out - Hubbard was coming from the dark side doing amends project :coolwink:. I find he did quite well considering his background :).
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Hubbard motivations? The following may may freak you out - Hubbard was coming from the dark side doing amends project :coolwink:. I find he did quite well considering his background :).

If Hubbards stats are number of psychotic breaks, number of devastated families and lives, number of broken marriages, abortions, broken hearts, homes, incomes, suicides and murders by Scientologists, he has done exceedingly well. Satan would be proud.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Founders seldom identify themselves with their own creation. As a matter of fact, I haven't observed that, did you?

What I did observe is that once a person reaches the very top of any ideology, he would cease to identify himself with it. That's an odd phenomenon at first glance, I agree. However, the top end pyramide guy always considers himself to be the best, the smartest and above the ideology within. Rather than following or subjecting himself to ideologic rules, he feels being beyond and above them, which he in fact is. Like all the others below him, they are all above idelogic boundaries. The only difference is, they don't know it.

Hubbard motivations? The following may may freak you out - Hubbard was coming from the dark side doing amends project :coolwink:. I find he did quite well considering his background :).


Lol, the silly old geezer was still up to his ears in scientologists when he died ... if he "no longer identified with them" how come he chose to keep their company?

I'm not freaked out by your suggestion, just a little stunned and bemused.


:biggrin:
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Even Terril has a story or two of FZ clients who have not fared all that well.

This is also the only auditor I know who has a money motivation.
She demanded a further $1500 or so and then left without delivering any
further auditing. Strangely I was attacked for bringing this up here.

In your further searches you may be able to get some rough idea
as to what percentage of scientologists had psychotic breaks. Per
another post of mine both US and UK seem to cite 3% of people
suffering a fairly serious psychotic episode. Probably with the data
you can get a difficult task, but with a rough knowledge of how many
staff and public came through your org you may get something of
interest.
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
Jeez, I can't win with this discussion, can I?

An auditor in the FZ is either arrogant and thinks they're one of God's chosen people (slight paraphrase) who know everything about the mind, or they know sweet Fanny Adams about it and shouldn't even be bothering to do it in the first place?

No disrespect intended, but can you see why I'm coming to believe that discussing this subject is pointless, on here at least?


http://tonyortega.org/2015/01/03/jo...t-who-gives-up-the-dream-of-being-superhuman/

This was over at the underground bunker this morning. Regardless of the reason the auditor is auditing, they are the ones that are responsible for the perpetuation of the mindfuck that all those stuck in scientology and the scientology mindset stay in. The endgram is an idea planted by a lunatic and from there auditing is necessary to fix the planted idea.
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
This is also the only auditor I know who has a money motivation.
She demanded a further $1500 or so and then left without delivering any
further auditing. Strangely I was attacked for bringing this up here.

In your further searches you may be able to get some rough idea
as to what percentage of scientologists had psychotic breaks. Per
another post of mine both US and UK seem to cite 3% of people
suffering a fairly serious psychotic episode. Probably with the data
you can get a difficult task, but with a rough knowledge of how many
staff and public came through your org you may get something of
interest.

Heck that might be the very best kind of auditor, the one that leaves without delivering any further auditing.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I haven't met one yet (and I've met a few) for whom making money was anything like their main consideration. Without exception they were auditing others because they wanted to help people, and it was the best way they knew of doing it.

But apart from that, even auditors, like therapists and counsellors in other fields, need to eat and pay their bills.


That brings to mind a curiosity about Scientology. . .

How much are the bills that have to be paid by Sea Org Class XII auditors who are billing the PC @ the rate of $1,000 per hour?

At average pay of $20 per week, that Class XII's entirely ANNUAL salary is paid for in the first hour of auditing they deliver on January 1st. From January 2nd to December 31st, the rest of the amount collected is pure profit for the org.

In my companies I'd love to have employees and executives who only get paid for the first 1/2 hour they work each year and volunteer to work for free the remaining 364.8 days.

Wouldn't it be cool if there was ever a forensic chart done showing where each dollar goes in Scientology? Some of the graphics arrows would be leading to $300,000 custom Italian marble bathroom floors in executive suites that only the biggest being might use a few times a year.

Sometimes it just staggers the imagination how little Scientologists know about Scientology. LOL
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
http://tonyortega.org/2015/01/03/jo...t-who-gives-up-the-dream-of-being-superhuman/

This was over at the underground bunker this morning. Regardless of the reason the auditor is auditing, they are the ones that are responsible for the perpetuation of the mindfuck that all those stuck in scientology and the scientology mindset stay in. The endgram is an idea planted by a lunatic and from there auditing is necessary to fix the planted idea.


Was that a typo?

If it was, it's still the perfect description of the horrible end phenomena of doing the Scientology "Bridge".

ENDGAME + ENGRAM = ENDGRAM
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
George,

That's valid, and decently put.

Please realize, I got into this spiritual abilities/powers/capacities thing long ago, (mid 1950's actually) researching athletic performance with two stellar names from Sydney University: Prof. Cotton and Forbes Carlisle . . . Forbes and I even experimented with hypnosis . . . (Forbes who? Check him out on wikipedia)

Thus, the endeavor, as to results, was measured in the terms of verifiable result in the context of athletic performance (among other things).

This all before Hubbard ever crossed my path.

Scientology is a sham . . . no doubt about it. However, the subject matter it addresses and mispresents is valid.

That is the distinction here.

As I noted above: Hubbard tainted a valid area of research into the human condition and of spiritual existence.

Those who refuse to or cannot differentiate between the two are bound to come up with wrong answers . . . and only show their lack of class when being insulting to others when doing so.


You'll note, I do not go on about the Hubbard claims regarding "clear" or "OT."

My schtick is about improved ability to perform, improved awareness, improved response times . . . all kinds of stuff that CAN BE MEASURED, VERIFIED AND SHOWN TO HAVE OCCURRED.

Roger, if Scientology is a sham and Hubbard tainted a valid area of research into the human condition and of spiritual existence, why would anyone who wished to do research along these lines call it 'Scientology'?

You want people to differentiate but you're certainly not helping them do that by using the name of a subject whose organization only expanded due to fraudulent marketing, misrepresented the state of the "science", and exploited thousands of staff who worked for 50 cents an hour because they were recruited under false pretenses.

By using the term 'Scientology' you're paying tribute to a lying thieving con artist who's work resulted in thousands of lives being affected in a negative way; finances ruined, families broken apart, people damaged mentally and spiritually, suicides, coerced abortions, and much more.

For anyone who endeavors to utilize this term for a serious area of research and wonders why rotten tomatoes are being launched in their direction, they're either completely out of touch, insensitive, or just enjoys upsetting people who have been damaged by the subject.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard motivations? The following may may freak you out - Hubbard was coming from the dark side doing amends project :coolwink:. I find he did quite well considering his background :).
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Wow! That is so impressive! You actually know this? Amazing! Really remarkable! You knew Ron in past lives and you saw him assigned an "amends project"!!

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

It is so very magnanimous of you to say "he did quite well considering his background"!

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Are you basing this on Hubbard's lectures about his imaginary past lives or are you basing this on your imaginary past lives?


(I apologize for this. Whenever I see someone all puffed up with their own importance, I go looking for a pin. This is just mean. I am sorry.)
 

RogerB

Crusader
Well, I did get some nicely reasoned and courteously presented responses, and to those I say thanks and respond as follows.

As I said, I was researching the subject of human ability and performance etc., long before I collided with Scn.

I collided with Scn as a result of attending an evening promoted at "Applied Psychology" at "The America Academy or Personal Efficiency" in 1957.

It turned out to be you know what!!! Dennis Stevens (or is it Stephens) was there from London with the "latest and greatest" . . . I pursued/investigated Scn as it was at that time and continued to investigate its offering to ascertain what was workable and useful till I had done it all.

Any old timer will tell you that the Scn scene pre-1965 was a very, very different scene that what it has developed into . . . the difference is like night and day.

Those who call it now murderous are right. And all of the recent revelations as to Hubbard's lies etc., are correct.

I do not support or condone the current Scientology enterprise in any way shape or form . . . any who think I do are misrepresenting the facts (what's new?).

I have simply pointed out that those who refuse to consider that there is any merit in research into the spiritual nature of humankind are being un-scientific and blinding themselves to opportunity. They shout that there is "no proof" . . . but fail to determine what reasonable and sensible proof they should be provided . . . they only ever cry on about no proof of what Hubbard's falsely claimed was being delivered . . . .umm, please observe I too say his claims were false, fraudulent and misleading.

However . . . the product of valid and reliable investigation into the realm of human spirituality is a valid and valuable outcome . . . even if, at the moment, it is not a codified body of knowledge enshrined in the ivory tower of universities (to the acceptance of all . . . but then psychology had its troubles being accepted in it's day).

Though there is, today, an increasing mountain of information being gathered from research in university research activity, as I will cite below.

I have answered as I have on this thread not in defense of Scn . . . and I have not defended it. My two posts to date here have been on the issue of that a) it is a valid area of scientific research to investigate the spiritual nature of man and what the true powers, abilities and capacities are of that spiritual presence and, b) Hubbard screwed it up and misrepresented it.

Coincidentally I was editing a document I wrote for the Sir John Templeton Foundation some years ago. It's title being: Observations of the Subject of Purpose. The John Templeton Foundation exists to marry the merits of science and religion.

Here is an excerpt that applies:

(Snipped . . . . . )

PURPOSE IN NATURE

There is observable purpose in nature for those who wish to honor what is there to be seen.

In 1991, Rupert Sheldrake, the renowned biologist and researcher at Cambridge University, wrote the following in the introduction of his book, The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God:
“From the time of our remotest ancestors until the seventeenth century, it was taken for granted that the world of nature was alive. But in the last three centuries, growing numbers of educated people have come to think of nature as lifeless. This has been the central doctrine of orthodox science—the mechanistic theory of nature.
“. . . this book is a response to the idea that nature, which we have treated as dead and mechanical, is in fact alive; it is coming to life again before our very eyes.”​

The error of the “mechanistic theory of nature” was exemplified in an interview of Dr. Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA structure, in The New York Times, “Science Times” section dated April 13, 2004.

Dr. Crick says he has been studying “consciousness” and the “soul” for the last two decades — but in actuality, he has not. Operating from within the paradigm of the mechanistic theory of nature, that life is some sort of happy accident of atoms only, we find Dr. Crick is indeed only studying atoms and molecules and the effects produced on them by the life-force of the spirit—the actual source of life—the you that has volition; the you who has the power of decision to act and affect the physical. Dr. Crick’s error is in mistaking the effect manifested as being the producer of the effect. Instead of studying the actual source that produces the effect, he has studied only effects.

Dr. Crick states[ii]: “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

This does not accord with the competent observations of the many millions of people who, as spiritual Beings, are aware of their earlier lifetimes and the pursuit of purpose therein. And it conflicts with the observations and studies of nature by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and others. Dr. Crick’s belief is understandable when one observes he has, in fact, addressed only the physical elements of the body; the atoms, molecules and cellular structures; and not the spirit, or “soul”.

The basic proposition that Sheldrake so ably demonstrates with many examples and case histories, is expressed on p45 in his The Rebirth of Nature:
“The orthodox philosophy of nature, taught in the cathedral schools and medieval universities, was animistic: all living creatures had souls. The soul was not in the body; rather, the body was in the soul, which permeated all parts of the body. Through its formative powers, it caused the embryo to grow and develop, so that the organism assumed the form of its species.”​

Sheldrake then goes on to delineate the various levels of soul and their functions among other life-forms, animal and vegetative; and how these evolved to include the intellect we humans enjoy. He points out our English word “animal” comes from anima, Latin for “soul”. He continues:
“In human beings, in addition to the animal instincts, there is the rational aspect of the soul: the mind or intellect. This added the qualities of thinking and free choice to those aspects of the soul that were shared with animals and plants. The human intellect was not separate from the animal and vegetative souls . . . In other words, the human soul included both a person’s conscious mind, or spiritual essence, and the life of the body, senses, bodily activities, and animal instincts.
“This understanding of the human soul clearly connected human life with the life of animate nature, as well as defining the differences between plants, animals, and human beings. At the same time, man was a microcosm of the entire cosmic organism, the macrocosm. Human society likewise reflected the hierarchical order of the universe, and the movement and conjunctions of the planets were connected with human lives and the destinies of nations.”​

Rudolph Steiner, the developer of the Biodynamic farming principles and founder of Anthroposophy, the first “Spiritual Science,” put these truths to beneficial use for his fellows. Steiner first lectured on the spiritual element of plants, nature, and man in 1910; and showed how they could relate in optimum harmony for the benefit of all.

Historically, the observed purpose being pursued by nature can be seen to be that of evolvement, by adaptation if need be, to accomplish higher levels of more survival-capable forms. Even science has shown that the evolvement of species would be an expression of this purpose to optimize survival potential, and to gain continued existence.

But, is there a higher level of purpose? Yes: and it is one that is expressed and taught in all the religions of man: in the earliest writings of Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the religions of the east and far-east, and in all the religions of our native peoples.

History shows that at their inception all religions contained common ideals as to conduct and relationships between Beings; both human and other life forms. It can also be observed that these precepts express purpose.

Direct research into the nature of spiritual presence, its powers and harmonious interface revealed the Pillars of Spiritual Power[iii] as being the powers of: Creation, Love, Knowledge, Truth, Relationships and Integrity. It is these several key aspects of human existence and affairs that all religions deal with; and at their inception taught that if practiced correctly would yield prosperity, peace, and harmony at one with one’s God.


http://www.forum.exscn.net/#_ednref1 Sheldrake, Rupert, The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God (Rochester, VT, Park Street Press division of Inner Traditions International 1994)

[ii] Crick, Francis, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York, Touchstone 1995)

[iii] Alan C. Walter, video lectures dated 12/19/2001, 12/30/2001, 1/16/2002 (St. Jo, Texas: Wisdom Publishing)


As to a validation of the point that we can improve human performance by addressing the spiritual nature, abilities and powers that are native to us?

Well, I earned my Certification as a Certified Performance Improvement Technologist with the International Society for Performance Improvement by submitting proof before a panel of "judges" (for want of a better word. They were a committee of PhD's empaneled to judge candidates worthiness for certification). I demonstrated and proved the results to be had . . . it had nothing to do with Scn . . . but had everything to do with what I am writing on above.

And let me warn you, these PhD dudes do jealously guard their turf . . . you have to show them something real.

More that this . . . I am not going to spend time on . . . .

R



/
 

RogerB

Crusader
Roger, if Scientology is a sham and Hubbard tainted a valid area of research into the human condition and of spiritual existence, why would anyone who wished to do research along these lines call it 'Scientology'?

You want people to differentiate but you're certainly not helping them do that by using the name of a subject whose organization only expanded due to fraudulent marketing, misrepresented the state of the "science", and exploited thousands of staff who worked for 50 cents an hour because they were recruited under false pretenses.

By using the term 'Scientology' you're paying tribute to a lying thieving con artist who's work resulted in thousands of lives being affected in a negative way; finances ruined, families broken apart, people damaged mentally and spiritually, suicides, coerced abortions, and much more.

For anyone who endeavors to utilize this term for a serious area of research and wonders why rotten tomatoes are being launched in their direction, they're either completely out of touch, insensitive, or just enjoys upsetting people who have been damaged by the subject.

Yes . . . perfectly valid, Type-4 . . . but hey! I don't call what I do Scn . . . and nor am referring to Scn as being "valid" . . .

I am still endeavoring to point out that Scientology is the product of Hubbard having purloined a valid area of research and human endeavor . . . that of the realm of human spirituality . . . and not only screwing it up but misusing what was made available to destructive ends . . .

His activity should not besmirch the valid work that is being done elsewhere on the subject of human spirituality, such as in our university research centers.

And for those who think what I am writing is not about Scn and the condemnation of it . . . . please re-read my missives.

R
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
Yes . . . perfectly valid, Type-4 . . . but hey! I don't call what I do Scn . . . and nor am referring to Scn as being "valid" . . .

I am still endeavoring to point out that Scientology is the product of Hubbard having purloined a valid area of research and human endeavor . . . that of the realm of human spirituality . . . and not only screwing it up but misusing what was made available to destructive ends . . .

His activity should not besmirch the valid work that is being done elsewhere on the subject of human spirituality, such as in our university research centers.

And for those who think what I am writing is not about Scn and the condemnation of it . . . . please re-read my missives.

R

Because it turned out to be so spiritually abusive and misguiding some might argue that hubbard's works shouldn't even be mentioned in a valid search for human spiritual advancement.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
<snip>

I do not support or condone the current Scientology enterprise in any way shape or form . . . any who think I do are misrepresenting the facts (what's new?).

I have simply pointed out that those who refuse to consider that there is any merit in research into the spiritual nature of humankind are being un-scientific and blinding themselves to opportunity. They shout that there is "no proof" . . . but fail to determine what reasonable and sensible proof they should be provided . . . they only ever cry on about no proof of what Hubbard's falsely claimed was being delivered . . . .umm, please observe I too say his claims were false, fraudulent and misleading.

However . . . the product of valid and reliable investigation into the realm of human spirituality is a valid and valuable outcome . . . even if, at the moment, it is not a codified body of knowledge enshrined in the ivory tower of universities (to the acceptance of all . . . but then psychology had its troubles being accepted in it's day).

<snip>

Personally, I don't refuse to consider that there is merit in research into the spiritual nature of humankind. On the contrary, its an area I have a strong interest in. But this thread is specifically about Scientology, a subject which has been shown to be replete with fraud.

I wasn't around in 1965 so have no first hand knowledge of how things were different back then, but there is compelling evidence of fraud in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. It's now almost 65 years past the publication of that book, yet still the promised abilities cannot be delivered.

If there is value in it, if it increases your ability, your IQ, or whatever, it it up to those who wish to forward the subject to demonstrate that value in a convincing fashion, and to show that this method is better than the other alternatives out there.



Yes . . . perfectly valid, Type-4 . . . but hey! I don't call what I do Scn . . . and nor am referring to Scn as being "valid" . . .

<snip>


I get that, but Leon does call it Scientology.

And it sounds like he's wanting to include much more than what Hubbard did but still call it 'Scientology'.
For me, Scientology is ONLY about the tech. Everything else is peripheral sideline stuff of no consequence. It's the tech. And that is a far broader subject than Hubbard ever dreamed of. Various other people have made major contributions to it and I include all of them in the broad sweep of the subject. And then there are quite plainly areas where no research or development has been done yet but that are obvious candidates for opening up and developing a tech for. As is probably the case in every other known area of human endeavor, the area where we know that we know is far tinier than the area where we don't know that we don't know. In the middle is the area where we do know that we don't know and I do perceive that that area for Scio is much bigger than what Hubbard described.

<snip>
 

Anonycat

Crusader
OF COURSE faith plays a role in it.

Commitment plus Participation = Results.

Spectatorism = NCG

You have pretty much just defined Placebo. The following is an excerpt from the Mayo Clinic:

How the placebo effect enhances healing


The placebo effect is most evident in medical research. It’s a person’s belief that an inactive treatment is working just as well as the presumed active therapy being studied. Well-intentioned medical advances, when compared to the placebo treatment, sometimes derive most of their benefit from positive expectations rather than the therapy itself.

The placebo effect isn’t limited to research and doesn’t have to involve false therapy. It’s likely to occur to some degree just about any time a patient seeks healing in a setting that creates the expectation of improvement. And it’s not separate from — or in conflict with — true active therapies that have proved to work. In many cases, effective drugs, injections and surgeries can attribute a major portion of the effects to healing that occurs over time, as well as the placebo effect.

The placebo effect can vary from having zero to a 100 percent effect, even in the same condition. Variation can be caused by preset beliefs or expectations, the words or tone used by the doctor and the body’s biological mechanisms, such as those that impact pain, the immune system and chemicals produced by the body in response to stress.

Optimal therapy isn’t about avoiding the placebo effect, it’s about using it to add to healing. Researchers don’t fully understand how people in need of healing can harness the placebo effect to help themselves. Several factors appear to be important, including:

Believing health will improve: Patients who maintain optimism improve their situation by matching their belief with actions. They follow through on therapy recommendations, focus on healthy eating, stay physically active, maintain social connections and take time for relaxation and stress reduction.

Healthy relationships: Having trust and confidence in a physician supports healing, as do healthy relationships with friends and family members.

Alternative therapies: Adding alternative therapies ― acupuncture, massage, spinal manipulation, meditation or hypnosis — may play a role in the placebo effect.

As doctors learn more about the placebo effect, more deliberate attempts at harnessing its power in open ways are expected to emerge.

Mayo Clinic Health Letter: Highlights from the April 2014 Issue

http://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/d...-letter-highlights-from-the-april-2014-issue/
 
Because it turned out to be so spiritually abusive and misguiding some might argue that hubbard's works shouldn't even be mentioned in a valid search for human spiritual advancement.

sorry george but i didn't find it to be "so spiritually abusive and misguiding"

many do argue hubbard's work shouldn't be mentioned and there have always been many households where it may not be mentioned

but...

it has certainly fallen far short of The Spanish Inquisition and the roman catholic church is still here
 
Top