Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you guys

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

That may be true for you, U, but it's not for me. In my home there are two ex-scientologists who succesfully co-Audited their entire lower Bridges (one of us in the 70s and the other in the 80s) and even managed to get in several major Rundowns such as FPRD in later years. We each co-audited with like-minded students of scientology under the auspices of the CofS.

I remember a chance meeting with Ray Mithoff at Flag where my wife bravely pointed out the fact that training and co-auditing had fallen by the wayside in recent years. Mithoff agreed wholeheartedly at the time.

Oh, I know there are exceptions to the rule. Co-Auditing, if the purpose is to have wide impact, would be the only sane route. Professional Auditing costs too much. Centralization has associated costs. Centralization also has associated vulnerabilities. Too much money in one place, too much power in one place. Distributed networks of people helping each other would be far more efficient.

Now, of course, I don't advocate that people do Scientology to help themselves or others, because I believe that Scientology, as a whole system, exists to bait and trap people to exploit their money and their labor (and their reputation). However, I still stand by the model of people helping each other out, rather than relying on professional help, unless the situation is unusual, dangerous, or too complex for a "layman". At that point, move 'em to the professional.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

OK. I guess you're determined to continue with the lie. Good luck with that.

OK. I guess you're determined to continue with the lie. Good luck with that.

Okay, class, where did we get to with this - ahh, now I'm a liar. Heh! I am reminded of a snippet from a 1955 L Ron Hubbard lecture where he talked about an army General. Seems this chap was unable to accept new data. This was because the messenger was deemed to be of insufficient rank and the information itself did not comply with existing war manuals and/or the current battle plan. The lesson, of course, is that some people are unable to accept new data because it is beyond their ability to look past existing constructs. Check it out, the lecture is from the Pheonix public lecture series on "Processing", its called "Knowingness".

No progress, then, on the second statement?

2. Scientologists are required to believe the Xenu story.

Can't say as I blame you; again, the evidence is overwhelming. From the philosopher's "reductionism" perspective, the Xenu story is just another piece of tech. Its as equally valid as, say, "thought has mass" or "Venus has trains". Its just another stepping stone on the way to "clearing the planet". From the "philosophically coherent" aspect one sees that the Xenu story fits in perfectly with the overarching "extra-terrestrial" meme. Its as equally valid as the scripture which states the asteroid belt is a low-gravity platform for an occluded Martian civilisation. As for "scripture" we can turn to "SCN Policy Directive 58 - SCRIPTURES DEFINED" - 6 November 1982". That document directs that any L Rn Hubbard recordings and writings is defined as "scripture". Chief among the Scientology scripture is KSW. This document directs that for Scientology to work adherents must have sufficient belief in it so as to be beyond doubt. And then there's the endless admonishments as to the dutiful application of "Standard Tech" scattered throughout L Ron Hubbard's Opus.

Those admonishments lead to my third statement. Can't remember the exact words but something like:

3. Auditors are complicit in achieving items 1 and 2 in this list.

I'll go further: Standard Tech Auditing is designed to cash-in on a deliberate lie and is designed to reduce the PC's cognitive functioning down to such as state that they will believe the Xenu story. Far from setting a person free, Auditing ensnares humans in a slow-motion, yet thorough, mind-fuck. Check out Tape 7 (6209C18) from the "Essentials of Auditing" series. It provides a step-by-step process on how to tell a PC what to think. Its called "Directing a PC's Attention".

TL/DR: Incoming data from outside the recipient's preconceived notions is not necessarily false, nor even "a lie". The Xenu story is just another piece of tech Scientologists have to believe if they are to achieve Total Freedom. Auditors are not your friends.
 
Last edited:

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

Okay, class, where did we get to with this - ahh, now I'm a liar. Heh! <...snip>
All BS aside, why not simply revise your original statement to more closely reflect the truth? Either that or produce some actual dox to verify your assertion that it costs "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to get to the Xenu story in the CofS.

After that, you may choose to produce some actual dox of actual scientific studies which prove conclusively the remaining points in your original assertion. Either that or simply label it as the opinion/speculation it is rather than calling it "facts".

Otherwise, you haven't really addressed the points I made but I'm easy either way, my points have been made.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

All BS aside, why not simply revise your original statement to more closely reflect the truth? Either that or produce some actual dox to verify your assertion that it costs "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to get to the Xenu story in the CofS.

After that, you may choose to produce some actual dox of actual scientific studies which prove conclusively the remaining points in your original assertion. Either that or simply label it as the opinion/speculation it is rather than calling it "facts".

Otherwise, you haven't really addressed the points I made but I'm easy either way, my points have been made.

Tsk, tsk . . . more Scientology 101. Disappoint am I.

Okay then: deal. My proposed emended statement will read something like:

1. Some Scientologists end up giving the organisation over $100,000 before ever receiving the Xenu documents.

. . . fair nuff?

Scientific studies about Scientology? Heh! Seriously? I suggest a gaze be turned to evidence presented in some of the cult's legal disputes. Perhaps start with the Anderson Report.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

Tsk, tsk . . . more Scientology 101. Disappoint am I.

Okay then: deal. My proposed emended statement will read something like:



. . . fair nuff?

Scientific studies about Scientology? Heh! Seriously? I suggest a gaze be turned to evidence presented in some of the cult's legal disputes. Perhaps start with the Anderson Report.
LOL, it's not Scientology 101 nor Ad Hom to utilise normal English pronouns in a sentence, get over yourself, mate. You're disappointing yourself. The Anderson Report contains no such scientific study validating your assertions. Allow me to refresh your memory about what you actually stated; (my bolding)
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Infinite
The point we were discussing is that Scientology scripture requires the exact duplication of the time, form, place and event in regard to Xenu for progress along the Bridge as an OT. What critics criticise are the abuses of Scientology. One of those abuses is the fact that Scientology denies knowledge of Xenu until such time as the Scientologist has handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for endless hours of hypnotic-like trance sessions designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact.
To which I said, "Blip, You are VERY much mistaken in the bolded text above, what you have written is false information. Check your sources."

Your response was,
1. its costs a Sientologists hundreds of thousand of dollars to get the Xenu story

2. Scientologists are required to believe the story

3. Auditors induce hypnotic like states in PCs to achieve points one and two.

. . . which of those facts do you doubt?

I responded in some detail to all 3 points basically asking for "Dox or GTFO" and am still waiting.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

What would be the consequences of someone, upon completion of some course or action at an AO or at Flag, speaking to the assembled Scientologists and saying, "Oh, by the way, I had this cognition that Incident 2 of OT 3 was just an hallucination that Ron had. It's not an actual incident because it never happened." ???
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

. . . I responded in some detail to all 3 points basically asking for "Dox or GTFO" and am still waiting.


The Anderson Report has an entire chaper on Scientology and hypnosis based on evidence it found convincing. From the report . . .

. . . Frequently a preclear who in auditing has experienced hallucinations concerning murder, rape, homosexuality and other criminal and disgraceful behaviour comes to believe that such behaviour actually occurred during his present lifetime. This results in feelings of anxiety. guilt and selfloathing and a desire for confession and self-abasement, all of which increase dependency on and domination of the HASI. This position is to be contrasted with what obtains where passive hypnosis is used by skilled practitioners; in such cases, though the patient under hypnosis may be uninhibited and may experience distressing hallucinations, they are handled by the practitioner in such a way that, if recollected at all, they do not persist as realities, and beneficial results are obtained from competently administered hypnotic techniques. Furthermore, whereas in the professional use of hypnosis the objective is to bring to a conclusion a course of such treatment as speedily as possible, scientology practice is to prescribe more processing to deal with the hallucinations already experienced and bring to light fresh ones . . .

. . . not good enough to convince you as to the means by which the PC's cognitive functioning is crippled?
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

The Anderson Report has an entire chaper on Scientology and hypnosis based on evidence it found convincing. From the report . . .



. . . not good enough to convince you as to the means by which the PC's cognitive functioning is crippled?
Blip/Infinite, I have to ask; are you deliberately missing my point?

From memory, The Anderson Report does indeed contain much opinion from, as far as I can recall, unnamed "experts" likening auditing to hypnosis but that opinion is based on what? Anecdotal testimony, actual auditing sessions observed, actual auditing sessions experienced, theoretical speculation... which?

I specifically framed my question about dox in terms of "scientific studies".

As far as I know, just as there are no actual scientific studies of scientology auditing to prove or disprove Hubbard's claims for it, there appear to also be none which prove or disprove your statement that auditing amounts to "hypnotic-like trance sessions designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact." Whilst it may or may not be true, it's pure speculation as far as I can tell and cannot be called factual without something more substantial to back it up.

The whole point I'm trying to get across to you is very simple, stick to the facts about scientology and you can't go wrong. There is no need to exaggerate, alter facts, resort to speculation-as-fact etc. Standard scientology already provides us with all the material we'll ever need to validly criticise its practices, just stick to the proven facts. If you want to opine and speculate that's fine but you should at least have the honesty to recognise and acknowledge it as opinion and/or speculation.

Allow me once again to quote your original statement to illustrate what I mean;

"One of those abuses is the fact that Scientology denies knowledge of Xenu until such time as the Scientologist has handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars (GROSS EXAGGERATION) to pay for endless (HOW MANY?) hours of hypnotic-like trance sessions (SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?) designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down (EVIDENCE?) to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact." (FALSE CONCLUSION, DO ALL SCIENTOLOGISTS ACCEPT XENU AS FACT?)

Disclaimer: None of what I'm saying in response to Infinite/Blip's posts should be construed as a recommendation that anyone pursue Hubbard's Bridge to Nowhere.
 
Last edited:

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

What would be the consequences of someone, upon completion of some course or action at an AO or at Flag, speaking to the assembled Scientologists and saying, "Oh, by the way, I had this cognition that Incident 2 of OT 3 was just an hallucination that Ron had. It's not an actual incident because it never happened." ???
LOL. I can imagine what would happen to the poor Schmo who said that! :omg:
Fortunately for said Schmo, that's not an actual incident because it's never happened either! :D
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

Blip/Infinite, I have to ask; are you deliberately missing my point?

From memory, The Anderson Report does indeed contain much opinion from, as far as I can recall, unnamed "experts" likening auditing to hypnosis but that opinion is based on what? Anecdotal testimony, actual auditing sessions observed, actual auditing sessions experienced, theoretical speculation... which?

I specifically framed my question about dox in terms of "scientific studies".

As far as I know, just as there are no actual scientific studies of scientology auditing to prove or disprove Hubbard's claims for it, there appear to also be none which prove or disprove your statement that auditing amounts to "hypnotic-like trance sessions designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact." Whilst it may or may not be true, it's pure speculation as far as I can tell and cannot be called factual without something more substantial to back it up.

The whole point I'm trying to get across to you is very simple, stick to the facts about scientology and you can't go wrong. There is no need to exaggerate, alter facts, resort to speculation-as-fact etc. Standard scientology already provides us with all the material we'll ever need to validly criticise its practices, just stick to the proven facts. If you want to opine and speculate that's fine but you should at least have the honesty to recognise and acknowledge it as opinion and/or speculation.

Allow me once again to quote your original statement to illustrate what I mean;

"One of those abuses is the fact that Scientology denies knowledge of Xenu until such time as the Scientologist has handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars (GROSS EXAGGERATION) to pay for endless (HOW MANY?) hours of hypnotic-like trance sessions (SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?) designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down (EVIDENCE?) to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact." (FALSE CONCLUSION, DO ALL SCIENTOLOGISTS ACCEPT XENU AS FACT?)

Disclaimer: None of what I'm saying in response to Infinite/Blip's posts should be construed as a recommendation that anyone pursue Hubbard's Bridge to Nowhere.

You draw no distinction between "opinions" and the findings of a Government enquiry?
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

You draw no distinction between "opinions" and the findings of a Government enquiry?
Now you're just being silly. It was a Board Of Inquiry and per Wikipedia on The Anderson Report, "A Board of Inquiry does not have the same legal status as a trial. It is not necessarily presided over by a judge or a magistrate and does not sit in a courtroom; witnesses are not subpoenaed but appear by invitation. It is not bound by the rules of evidence. The Board of Inquiry into Scientology consisted of Mr Anderson sitting alone, assisted by Mr. Gordon Just who was instructed by the Victorian Crown Solicitor. After an initial sitting on 6 December 1963, the Board sat in the theatrette of the National Herbarium of Victoria from 17 February 1964 to 21 April 1965."
(More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Report )

The "findings" you are referring to are based on testimony about "auditing is hypnosis" which is the opinion of the "experts" called to give evidence to the Anderson Commission. Do you even know who these "experts" were?

(Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cunningham_Dax)

I'm talking about "valid scientific study", why is this so hard for you to grasp?
 
Last edited:

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

I'm wondering why different people are having varying experiences with it. This is really weird.


I've been 'out' a long time, but when I did the SHSBC, we co-audited every single Grade process to EP. You never know when you will need the experience when you audit a PC who hasn't EPd on the major process for the Grade. I was already OT3X when I co-audited the expanded grades as a student. I ran every*thing* that came up. Loved it! Recommend it. Cut much time off NOTs, as ran 'em all on Grades. Whoo!
When the Dn Clear Issues came out, many many people attested to various states of Clear. Natural, Past Life, Dianetic. These guys were then programmed to do the major processes for the Grades. ( This was the last process on the Grades sheets).
After a while, it was seen that those guys were obviously "out-Grades", and some Auditors ( me included) felt that their PCs were being cheated out of their Grades by not having run each process for the Grade. Somebody on high decided that it would be better ( and produce more income) if PCs were to have all processes for a Grade run.
hth

chlng
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

Blip/Infinite, I have to ask; are you deliberately missing my point?

From memory, The Anderson Report does indeed contain much opinion from, as far as I can recall, unnamed "experts" likening auditing to hypnosis but that opinion is based on what? Anecdotal testimony, actual auditing sessions observed, actual auditing sessions experienced, theoretical speculation... which?

I specifically framed my question about dox in terms of "scientific studies".

As far as I know, just as there are no actual scientific studies of scientology auditing to prove or disprove Hubbard's claims for it, there appear to also be none which prove or disprove your statement that auditing amounts to "hypnotic-like trance sessions designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact." Whilst it may or may not be true, it's pure speculation as far as I can tell and cannot be called factual without something more substantial to back it up.

The whole point I'm trying to get across to you is very simple, stick to the facts about scientology and you can't go wrong. There is no need to exaggerate, alter facts, resort to speculation-as-fact etc. Standard scientology already provides us with all the material we'll ever need to validly criticise its practices, just stick to the proven facts. If you want to opine and speculate that's fine but you should at least have the honesty to recognise and acknowledge it as opinion and/or speculation.

Allow me once again to quote your original statement to illustrate what I mean;

"One of those abuses is the fact that Scientology denies knowledge of Xenu until such time as the Scientologist has handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars (GROSS EXAGGERATION) to pay for endless (HOW MANY?) hours of hypnotic-like trance sessions (SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?) designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down (EVIDENCE?) to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact." (FALSE CONCLUSION, DO ALL SCIENTOLOGISTS ACCEPT XENU AS FACT?)

Disclaimer: None of what I'm saying in response to Infinite/Blip's posts should be construed as a recommendation that anyone pursue Hubbard's Bridge to Nowhere.

Go Panda! :)
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

What would happen? Tell us.
Don't you just hate it when someone asks you a question to which they already know the answer but ask it anyway for reasons other than hearing the answer? I do.

As I said, I can imagine what might happen. I'm sure you can too.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

You draw no distinction between "opinions" and the findings of a Government enquiry?

Government enquiry. The ultimate statement of truth as sussed out
by a committee with no bias, hidden agenda, no conflict of interest etc.

Ultimate, irrevocable, immovable, transparent and implacable.

Personally I'd rather go by the tooth fairy.

WMD anyone?
 

Veda

Sponsor
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

Don't you just hate it when someone asks you a question to which they already know the answer but ask it anyway for reasons other than hearing the answer? I do.

As I said, I can imagine what might happen. I'm sure you can too.

I asked it so others could hear your response or lack of response.

Scientology is expensive, not just for public, but expensive in other ways to those who join staff or join the Sea Org. Worse, it doesn't deliver what it promises, but it does produce people who don't mind that a bit, and even justify it.

People use words like "Brainwashed" and "hypnotized" when describing Scientologists, and for good reason. IMO, while these are relevant terms, the most defining characteristic of Scientology is its deviousness, including its use of well-intentioned dupes to forward its devious agenda.

It's not outrageous at all to suggest that there are "hypnotic" aspects to some auditing. The "bait" of the lower levels is followed by the "switch" of the "upper levels," with Scientologists being sufficiently "set up" that they don't notice or mind.

Scientologists take their voyage through the "non-interference zone" - from Clear to OT 3 - very seriously. And if you want a demonstration of sudden panic and a cold sweat, have an ethics order, prohibiting the person from doing any more OT levels, handed to someone who just finished OT 2.

You, yourself, have argued, that people should be careful about reading and "trying to solve" OT 3, as it can lead to illness. This echoes Hubbard's ominous warnings. You've even stooped to using the gimmick of saying that not ALL Scientologists accept the Xenu story, knowing that it's only necessary to produce ONE that does not to "prove" your point.

Shades of a Scientology "Dead Agent" pack, that ignores vast evidence and focuses on ONE thing to "prove" something.

You've only been out of Scientology for a short time, so I'll give you a pass and assume that your old Scientology conditioning is kicking in. It happens.

Maybe a walk in the park would help. :)
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

I asked it so others could hear your response or lack of response.

Scientology is expensive, not just for public, but expensive in other ways to those who join staff or join the Sea Org. Worse, it doesn't deliver what it promises, but it does produce people who don't mind that a bit, and even justify it.

People use words like "Brainwashed" and "hypnotized" when describing Scientologists, and for good reason. IMO, while these are relevant terms, the most defining characteristic of Scientology is its deviousness, including its use of well-intentioned dupes to forward its devious agenda.

It's not outrageous at all to suggest that there are "hypnotic" aspects to some auditing. The "bait" of the lower levels is followed by the "switch" of the "upper levels," with Scientologists being sufficiently "set up" that they don't notice or mind.

Scientologists take their voyage through the "non-interference zone" - from Clear to OT 3 - very seriously. And if you want a demonstration of sudden panic and a cold sweat, have an ethics order, prohibiting the person from doing any more OT levels, handed to someone who just finished OT 2.

You, yourself, have argued, that people should be careful about reading and "trying to solve" OT 3, as it can lead to illness. This echoes Hubbard's ominous warnings. You've even stooped to using the gimmick of saying that not ALL Scientologists accept the Xenu story, knowing that it's only necessary to produce ONE that does not to "prove" your point.

Shades of a Scientology "Dead Agent" pack, that ignores vast evidence and focuses on ONE thing to "prove" something.

You've only been out of Scientology for a short time, so I'll give you a pass and assume that your old Scientology conditioning is kicking in. It happens.

Maybe a walk in the park would help. :)
So what's your point?

That scientology is expensive (in the terms of money and human cost) and devious is beyond question, I've never said otherwise.

I knew exactly why you asked that question of me, that's why I didn't bother answering.

Almost anyone here would be able to predict exactly what would occur in your postulated scenario... it's completely obvious and, despite what you may think of the intelligence of others here, they probably don't need you to ask inane questions for them.

I'd like you to show an occasion where I have cautioned against *reading* the OT3 materials. I have often pointed out that Hubbard warned that the "danger" stems from attempting to *solve* the supposed condition, not from reading or hearing about them.

I didn't say it was "outrageous" to suggest hypnosis as a possibility, I asked for scientific evidence that such is a "fact" as Infinite claimed. "Dox or GTFO" is a perpetual catch-cry from Blip and I think he should be held to the same standards as he insists upon applying to others. It's not really a serious request, I'm pretty sure that no such scientific research or documentation exists.

Your attempts to dismiss my arguments as being the viewpoint of someone "only recently out" and your condescending BS about "giving me a pass" are much closer to Dead Agenting than anything I've said in presenting my case in this discussion. Despite that, I would enjoy a walk in the park.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

-snip-

I'd like you to show an occasion where I have cautioned against *reading* the OT3 materials.

-snip

It's impossible to do a thorough search of all your posts where you discuss OT 3, but I'll accept that your views have changed over time and that you no longer regard it as dangerous to read - or even to "try to solve" - OT 3.

The rest of my post stands.

Now take your walk. :eyeroll:
 
Top