And still...

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
As you guys know, I have no problem with anyone using Scn ideas and all that sort of thing, as long as they look at them and as long as they aren't in some hideous group that RPFs people and rips them off.

That having been said, I tend to think that if one is going to do that, that the essence of the concept(s) should be considered rather than something like "LRH said". That's exactly why I had to ditch my Indie Scn'ist self assigned label. So I guess the thing is to get away from things Scn'ological and look at commonality. If something is true for you (or me or Jane Doe) it should be because it really does work out, is helpful. So one should strip away the framework. Think of a piece of info as a piece of jewelry. It's set in a setting that is the wrong kind of metal, maybe base or sterling silver when one really wants gold or platinum- and the prongs are loose and it tends to snag on clothing. But the gem really is nice. So you reset it. Then it's no longer a Victorian mourning ring or a mother's ring or a harem ring or whatever. It's YOUR ring.

I noticed the other week that I still have some of the old settings and that they still are snagging and that I didn't notice til I looked down at my (metaphorical) skirt.

I was at my masseuse's last week (she's helped me immensely with some neck issues I was having) and we were talking. She'd hurt her arm years ago and was frightened of losing her livelihood. So she went to the physical therapist faithfully, AND got two kinds of massage AND got acupuncture and I think some counselling. She said "I hit it with all I could." And she got better quite quickly.

Well, do you know what my first thought was? Surprise that "mixing methods" could work. See, in Scn (and a couple other disciplines/ologies, but Scn is INFAMOUS for this stricture) you don't mix methods. You're told that from a tech standpoint it "obscures results" and that's what Scn'ists say when they're being mellow and forgiving about it. Otherwise, they may say that only Scn works, don't squirrel, etc. But the ones who are kind of mellow about other practices at least say don't mix methods. And I always thought, hey, fair enough. You could do one thing at a time and still do all your other dealibops that you wanted to do.

But talking to my masseuse, a very wise lady, I thought, well, hell, why is mixing methods a problem? I mean, what, is your head gonna explode? No. You might get better faster! Ok, so what if it just makes it hard for CSing (if the person's in the FZ)? Then I thought, maybe it doesn't even do that.

So upshot is that there are probably a few of those old settings and miscellanous dusty corners and things around in my mind and maybe I thought I didn't have any.

That's why I come out and admit when I have labored under the wrong impression about stuff, like I did re Joan Wood. Like many others, I still have some old incorrect ideas and the best I can do is try to spot and address them.

So I now am looking at the "mixing methods" idea completely differently. It actually feels a bit dizzying. I'm not kidding.
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
IMHO, the following is the key datum to consider:

So therefore the bottom line is that while L. Ron Hubbard may be a crossroads, he certainly is not "The Source". And naturally I think you can see what would happen to him personally and to the organizations when he got so deeply involved in the misassignment of source, the misassignment of cause, when he tried to own things or have things that weren't his. And also when he tried to get people to focus on him as a terminal, as a source terminal rather than (on) the truth, or in this the plural truths. That is to focus on the MEST rather than the theta. It would be like getting someone to focus on the TV set instead of the message, the truth, the information and the knowledge coming through the TV set. The TV set is not Source at all. And naturally, trying to make the lie persist, one gets heavily into force, disconnection and suppression.
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology-and-occult/tape-by-L-Ron-Hubbard-jr.htm

IMHO, all that hip-hip-hooraying and clapping to LRH photos (that are everywhere around orgs), LRH offices with a pack of "Kool", "What would Ron do?", "LRH said... so that's what/how you ... (wash windows, do your laundry)", inability to do something any other way than he said ("because it's doomed" in the mind of true believer),
stems from Hubbard's imposing himself as THE Terminal for any thought, emotion, behavior and effort of an individual whom he caught into his web of lies.

Just sayin'
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
Nibs' word "terminal" I understood this way:

"final part of some system that enables connection of the system with the external environment"

(Terminal < French terminal < Late Latin terminalis (“pertaining to a boundary or to the end, terminal, final”) < Latin terminus (“a bound, boundary, limit, end”); see term, terminus.)

In other words, Hubbard set himself up as The Decision-maker for any hopes, dreams, fears, endeavors, ... of an individual. - The Only One that gives him the only correct, pro-survival decisions to be carried out to succceed in life.

Sounds familiar?
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I agree with you VC, I too find things on occasion that are pure cultic/scio thinking and am quite surprised and shaken at how they still lurk within me.

My annoyance with the wannabee gurus here is partly due to this ... one in particular never misses an opportunity to 'disseminate his tek' even though the FAQ's very clearly state that ESMB is not for this purpose.

It could take a lifetime to rid ourselves of all the tekky tripe we each bought into and I urge everyone to have a regular look at their thinking to make sure they are choosing the way they think and act and are not still using bits of a tek they may no longer wish to lean on or as you put it, so that they can 'reset' in order to make it their own.

:happydance:
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'm not sure it's exactly the content of Scientology that's the problem, so much as the ingrained Scientology attitude of certainty. My impression is that Scientologists are strongly encouraged to be confident in all they believe, to the point where they end up firmly believing all kinds of things on very little evidence and with very little critical thought.

I think this kind of self-confidence — or shall we say complacency? — is maybe like the nicotine in the Scientology cigarette. Certainty is nice. If you don't believe that you 'know how to know', then life is much harder. You're stuck with either admitting ignorance and uncertainty about things, which is uncomfortable and even frightening, or else doing a lot of hard work to think them through and check them out — and maybe never attaining full certainty even with a lifetime of hard work. If instead you have the complacent assumption that notions you can pick up easily are all correct, then life is much calmer and easier. This is attractive.

I expect that for a lot of people, leaving Scientology may be like switching to nicotine gum, and remaining hooked on that. It's one thing to decide that a certain amount of Scientology was 'false data', and try to replace it with other 'data'. It's quite another thing to root out the basic belief that data of any kind is easy to find and assess. Simplistic thinking, especially about evidence and judgement, may be the most lingering effect of Scientology, or of any other certainty cult.

It's not for nothing that the 'con' in 'con game' stands for 'confidence'.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Something that seems to be helping me is this situation I mentioned months ago in a thread I wrote about prayer. I kind of meditate (in my own way) and I sometimes get impressions back, like thoughts- no, I don't hear voices- and I feel I get some good guidance there. Around the time I decided I was ditching the Indie Scn'ist label was when the phenomenon had really kicked in more.
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
I think that's one thing the turd got right.

Something that seems to be helping me is this situation I mentioned months ago in a thread I wrote about prayer. I kind of meditate (in my own way) and I sometimes get impressions back, like thoughts- no, I don't hear voices- and I feel I get some good guidance there. Around the time I decided I was ditching the Indie Scn'ist label was when the phenomenon had really kicked in more.

By dumping the word "prayer" and replacing it with "postulate", one also dumps the 'graven images' attached to "prayer". It doesn't have to be a poster on the wall, the graven image can be entirely in your head and, for many christians it is.

While some of the "basics" (no, not scn) can be one-size-fits-all, detailed development has to be one on one because each of us is different.
 
... But talking to my masseuse, a very wise lady, I thought, well, hell, why is mixing methods a problem? I mean, what, is your head gonna explode? No. You might get better faster! Ok, so what if it just makes it hard for CSing (if the person's in the FZ)? Then I thought, maybe it doesn't even do that. ...

Actually your head might explode, or then again as you say you might improve faster. :)

The basic problem with 'mixing methods' generally, not just as regards scientology, is that outcomes are not necessarily 'additive' in an 'obvious' way. Different techniques can easily work at cross purposes or even contrarily to each other. Drug based therapies are especially notorious for potentially dangerous outcomes resulting from 'combinations'. When the outcome from combinations is not a disastrous one, it may also occur that the different practices each interfere with the effectiveness of the other. And even where none of the above are at issue, there is the complication of 'attribution', i.e. where two or more different 'changes' are ongoing in a trial it eliminates the ability to distinguish what the 'cause' may be for any observed changes. This last is a serious problem when trying to isolate patterns of specific 'cause/effect'.

Thus, when doing anything even remotely like some sort of observable test/trial procedure 'mixing practices' is not a 'good' thing.

Now with that said, my own personal take was never to 'mix practices' while currently being audited. Other than that I ignored the stricture as, except in the situation that auditing is actively ongoing, it serves no valid purpose beyond isolating the individual from ideas with origins outside of the church. That for me was not a valid reason. I never adopted scientology practices as a substitute for other ideas. :no:

The most probable outcome of 'mixing practices' is, at worse, slightly confusing to the process of any active ongoing auditing. In some rarer cases and depending on 'what practices were in the mix', it could greatly complicate a situation or even potentially create a dangerous situation, e.g. imagine the worst case scenario of a person dropping lsd just before a dianetics session. :omg:

In all likelihood 'mixing practices' will simply allow a person a few more viewpoints to enter into their own interpretation of their life experiences. That to me is a good thing. :thumbsup:

I respect the recommendation not to 'mix' while receiving auditing. I think generally it's a good idea, just as sticking with a diet that a doctor may have prescribed as a part of a medically recommended regimen. It adds a level of stability & predictability to what is a process of deliberately instigated change. The running rule of science & technology is try not to change more than one 'variable' at a time, it simplifies the process of understanding what has happened. However, the choice belongs to the individual and the reality with regard to scientology procedures is that 'mixing practices' is only rarely a seriously problematic issue.


Mark A. Baker
 
When I was a young Catholic boy, I prayed and prayed for a bicycle.
But I never got one.

Then I realized the Lord works in mysterious ways.

So I stoled one and then asked for forgiveness. That's how I got a bike.

The Lord answers all prayers. It is just that most of the time the answer is "No!"

The Anabaptist Jacques

(In case anyone here ever had a bike go missing, I'm just kidding. I never stoled a bike)
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
When I was a young Catholic boy, I prayed and prayed for a bicycle.
But I never got one.

Then I realized the Lord works in mysterious ways.

So I stoled one and then asked for forgiveness. That's how I got a bike.

The Lord answers all prayers. It is just that most of the time the answer is "No!"

The Anabaptist Jacques

(In case anyone here ever had a bike go missing, I'm just kidding. I never stoled a bike)

got it.
 
Top