What's new

Are Freezoners Scientologists?

Veda

Sponsor
Apologies if I got you wrong. Anyone who claims to have had benefits from auditing is on the defensive here and I suppose I tend to lump people together in that regard.

It nevertheless wasn't my intention to claim that you're saying people who claim to have had benefits from the Tech are lying, but it did seem that you think those who have had such benefits are self-deluding.

In my experience there's nothing hallucinatory about blowing charge, especially LOTS of charge, any more than there is in having a thorn plucked out of your body.

You know something's happened when that occurs. I've been shrieking with laughter for minutes on end when something big has blown in session. A lot, in fact most, of the time it's not as dramatic as that but you know you've got a new and clearer viewpoint after an auditing cycle has completed, and that's worthwhile too.

I'm not saying the Tech's perfect, but IMO it needs to be improved upon rather than simply trashed.

Just a few questions, if you don't mind.

Are there parts of Scientology that you haven't examined because they're uninteresting? Or because they're unpleasant?

Are there parts of Scientology you haven't examined because you're not ready, due to your case level?

What's your next step on the Scientology Grade Chart?

Does it concern you that L. Ron Hubbard secretly authored a booklet having to do with "asserting and maintaining dominion over thoughts and loyalties through mental healing"?; and does it concern you that he, secretly, used much of that booklet on Scientologists, and made it part of Scientology?

And lastly, when did you decide that you were a Scientologist?
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Veda said:
Just a few questions, if you don't mind.

Sure, though I find it odd that you haven't seen fit to comment on the points I made. This is beginning to feel like an inquisition.

Veda said:
Are there parts of Scientology that you haven't examined because they're uninteresting?

1 / No. OK, maybe a lot of Ron's writings about Dianetics seem repetitive.

Veda said:
Or because they're unpleasant?

2 / "The History of Man" has some weird stuff in it certainly, but nothing else. Apart from Pilot's "Big Splitter" implant in SuperScio, which has about 108 legs (I took one look at that and decided something like Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy looked more inviting....).


Veda said:
Are there parts of Scientology you haven't examined because you're not ready, due to your case level?

Not the orthodox bridge, no. I'd be happy to look at the solo NOTs materials if I could afford them and was convinced there was a point. I got about halfway through audited NOTs but never finished it.

As it is, I made decent gains with entity handling using Pilot's materials (with contributions from Ralph).

Veda said:
What's your next step on the Scientology Grade Chart?

I've done all I care to on the orthodox Bridge, though I could probably do with having my grades put back in or at least some flying of ruds. My interest now is in the freezone materials which go a lot further and deeper than anything in the CofS, such as Super Scio.

I've had a go at Paul's "Rub and Yawn" and have got some good results, though so far I haven't tackled anything heavy with it.

Also though I have to admit Pixie's solution to Vinny's ills sounds like a good one for me too :). Probably temporary in its effects.

Veda said:
Does it concern you that L. Ron Hubbard secretly authored a booklet having to do with "asserting and maintaining dominion over thoughts and loyalties through mental healing"?; and does it concern you that he, secretly, used much of that booklet on Scientologists, and made it part of Scientology?

Probably. I admit there's a dark side to the subject.

Knowledge can be used for good or ill. At the centre I attended I was allowed to have my own viewpoint to a far greater degree than I was in the CofS, otherwise I probably wouldn't have stuck with the subject. No, make that certainly.

Veda said:
And lastly, when did you decide that you were a Scientologist?

After my life repair (not in the CofS), perhaps even during it, I identified as a scientologist (small letters). Meaning; I experienced for myself the value of the tech and wanted more of its benefits for myself and for others.
 
Last edited:

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
Apologies if I got you wrong. Anyone who claims to have had benefits from auditing is on the defensive here and I suppose I tend to lump people together in that regard.

Oh well that's certainly understandable and might be because this forum tends to attract people who've been made wrong, invalidated, manipulated, heavy-handedly pressured to give up their time, their homes, their money, their career ambitions, their friends, their lovers, their children, their health, their sense of right and wrong, and their sense of who they are or who they thought they were;

people who've been lied to, ripped off, implanted with false goals, sec checked for hours on end, held prisoner and denied access to any avenues of communication with the outside world, worked like slaves, coerced to abandon or abort their children, and otherwise used and abused;

people who've been told that the reason they're feeling mentally unbalanced and their lives are a mess is because of their critical thoughts or words or their "withholds" or their "overts" or their "crimes" or their "misunderstood words," or their "out ruds" or because they are "PTS" or are "suppressive persons" and/or "no case gain cases;"

people who've been told they are degraded beings and "low-toned" "victim" types who pretty much don't deserve to live, who've been told to go away and shut up about it and to never never never speak ill of "scientology" or "the tech" or face severe consequences now and on into all their eternity;

people who've been told those things by practicing scientologists.

Shame on all us rascals making you feel uncomfortable or putting you on the defensive just because you claim to have had benefits from auditing.

It nevertheless wasn't my intention to claim that you're saying people who claim to have had benefits from the Tech are lying, but it did seem that you think those who have had such benefits are self-deluding.

Actually, there are cases in which I do think those who have had benefits from "the Tech" are self-deluding:

"Success stories" from the older Advance magazines come to mind -- especially one [wish I had the link handy, but I don't] from a couple who sat on their comfortable balcony some safe distance away from a serious fire and, while the professional firefighters on the ground struggled in "confusion" these two successfully "fought the fire" with their "OT abilities."

Another example is my scientologist friend telling me that the lovely sunny day we were having in Southern California was a result of him "controlling the weather" -- and he hadn't even done the OT levels yet! Wowee!

Another example is the group of "OTs" taking credit for keeping the hurricane from hitting Clearwater, Florida. (Too bad they weren't around when Katrina hit New Orleans, but I guess you just can't be everywhere and do everything, even if you are "OT").

And my scientologist friends tell me that the reason why the "big one" (earthquake) hasn't hit Southern California is because all the "OTs" out there are "postulating" that it won't. (Doggone, that must be why I don't have any elephants in my house -- my "OT" friends are looking after me, and I didn't even realize it!)

I'd be interested to know where YOU draw the line between reality, delusion, and hallucination. Might be good subject for a thread all its own.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh well that's certainly understandable and might be because this forum tends to attract people who've been made wrong, invalidated, manipulated, heavy-handedly pressured to give up their time, their homes, their money, their career ambitions, their friends, their lovers, their children, their health, their sense of right and wrong, and their sense of who they are or who they thought they were

But it's also attracted people like me, Fluff, Terril, DOF, Mark and Dart. OK, I'm the only one complaining here about being given a hard time but until Emma decides to limit forum membership we need to find a way to live together.

people who've been lied to, ripped off, implanted with false goals, sec checked for hours on end, held prisoner and denied access to any avenues of communication with the outside world, worked like slaves, coerced to abandon or abort their children, and otherwise used and abused;

people who've been told that the reason they're feeling mentally unbalanced and their lives are a mess is because of their critical thoughts or words or their "withholds" or their "overts" or their "crimes" or their "misunderstood words," or their "out ruds" or because they are "PTS" or are "suppressive persons" and/or "no case gain cases;"

people who've been told they are degraded beings and "low-toned" "victim" types who pretty much don't deserve to live, who've been told to go away and shut up about it and to never never never speak ill of "scientology" or "the tech" or face severe consequences now and on into all their eternity;

people who've been told those things by practicing scientologists.

Yeah, practicing scientologists IN THE CofS. I haven't seen any such stories yet about the freezone / independent field, where I've spent most of my time in Scn.

Shame on all us rascals making you feel uncomfortable or putting you on the defensive just because you claim to have had benefits from auditing.

And I'm a fair target for that, am I, even though most of my experience of scn was in the independent field? I haven't done those things, to anyone here or out in the world. I wasn't in the Church very long and wasn't on staff. So why take it out on me?

Shame isn't appropriate here, I agree with that much.

Actually, there are cases in which I do think those who have had benefits from "the Tech" are self-deluding

There may be some, sure, the question is whether everyone who claims to have had such benefits is self-deluding.

"Success stories" from the older Advance magazines come to mind -- especially one [wish I had the link handy, but I don't] from a couple who sat on their comfortable balcony some safe distance away from a serious fire and, while the professional firefighters on the ground struggled in "confusion" these two successfully "fought the fire" with their "OT abilities."

Another example is my scientologist friend telling me that the lovely sunny day we were having in Southern California was a result of him "controlling the weather" -- and he hadn't even done the OT levels yet! Wowee!

Another example is the group of "OTs" taking credit for keeping the hurricane from hitting Clearwater, Florida. (Too bad they weren't around when Katrina hit New Orleans, but I guess you just can't be everywhere and do everything, even if you are "OT").

And my scientologist friends tell me that the reason why the "big one" (earthquake) hasn't hit Southern California is because all the "OTs" out there are "postulating" that it won't. (Doggone, that must be why I don't have any elephants in my house -- my "OT" friends are looking after me, and I didn't even realize it!)

Sure, fatuous assertions of causality like those are very entertaining. It's worth pointing out though that during World War II British Intelligence took the possibility of occult practitioners being able to influence the weather so seriously that they had a group of senior magicians, including I believe Aleister Crowley, perform a set of rituals in advance of a major troop landing; I think it may have been the D-Day one in 1944.

I'd be interested to know where YOU draw the line between reality, delusion, and hallucination. Might be good subject for a thread all its own.

Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. I am sitting here in a room, in the south western part of the UK, typing on a keyboard which is linked to a computer.

I'm listening to the Police's "Ghost in the Machine" on my radiocassette player. It's coming up to 6.30 pm.

Those are facts in my experience, which I can't prove to you.

Delusion and hallucination; If a sexually experienced person were asked whether or not sex was enjoyable, what do you think they'd say? They can't "prove" that it is unless the questioner had experienced it him or herself, in fact someone in the grip of an orgasm apparently looks and sounds like someone in severe pain.

So it's just "possible" (to an outside observer) that the enjoyability of sex is a delusion. The same with the benefits of auditing.

I probably won't read your reply, if any, to this. I could do with a break anyway.
 
Last edited:

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
But it's also attracted people like me, Fluff, Terril, DOF, Mark and Dart. OK, I'm the only one complaining here about being given a hard time but until Emma decides to limit forum membership we need to find a way to live together.

Seems to me we are already "living together" in the internet forum sense. I don't see any need to "limit forum membership" and I hope you're not suggesting that.

Yeah, practicing scientologists IN THE CofS. I haven't seen any such stories yet about the freezone / independent field, where I've spent most of my time in Scn.

And your point is? I hope you're not suggesting that people's experiences with scientology and scientologists that I listed in my previous post are somehow "unimportant," or "invalid," or "not worthy of attention or discussion" because they mostly happened "in" the CoS?

And I'm a fair target for that, am I, even though most of my experience of scn was in the independent field? I haven't done those things, to anyone here or out in the world. I wasn't in the Church very long and wasn't on staff. So why take it out on me?

You're not a "target," and no one is "taking it out" on you. If you aren't up for having scientology "tech" and/or some of your own ideas and opinions discussed and challenged, maybe a discussion forum such as this not your cup of tea?

There may be some, sure, the question is whether everyone who claims to have had such benefits is self-deluding.

Did someone say everyone who claimed benefits from auditing, in all instances was self-deluding? If so, I missed it.

Conversely, if some claims of benefit from auditing ARE NOT self-deluding, are you implying that the "some, sure" that ARE INDEED self-deluding should just be brushed aside and dismissed as inconsequential?

What is your view on those claims of benefit that are indeed delusional? care to comment?

Sure, fatuous assertions of causality like those are very entertaining. It's worth pointing out though that during World War II British Intelligence took the possibility of occult practitioners being able to influence the weather so seriously that they had a group of senior magicians, including I believe Aleister Crowley, perform a set of rituals in advance of a major troop landing; I think it may have been the D-Day one in 1944.

So ... would you class those "fatuous assertions of causality" that I mentioned in my last post as delusional? or not? and if not, what in your opinion might motivate people to make such assertions?

So it's just "possible" (to an outside observer) that the enjoyability of sex is a delusion. The same with the benefits of auditing.

It's also just "possible" that the enjoyability of sex is a delusion to the people actually engaging in sex -- the world is full of things strange, ya know?

Again, I'd be interested to know where YOU draw the line between reality, delusion, and hallucination. Care to share?

I probably won't read your reply, if any, to this. I could do with a break anyway.

Well allllriighty then.

But wait ... what if I gather up a group of heavies from this forum and we record this post on audio tape and tie you up with your ears unobstructed and MAKE you listen to it? over and over, for hours and hours? Just kidding.
 

Smitty

Silver Meritorious Patron
additional comment on illogic in debates with scientologists

"This is an informal discussion, not a fucking academic debate"
The quote of a freezone scientologist in response to my asking for a citation to verify his statements. He was passing off his speculations as facts. When called to prove his statements, he attempted to change the terms of our discussion --- or is it that in discussions between scientologists, it is understood that facts are irrelevant?
Smitty
 

Pixie

Crusader
"This is an informal discussion, not a fucking academic debate"
The quote of a freezone scientologist in response to my asking for a citation to verify his statements. He was passing off his speculations as facts. When called to prove his statements, he attempted to change the terms of our discussion --- or is it that in discussions between scientologists, it is understood that facts are irrelevant?
Smitty

But sure isn't that the way it always is Smitty? I've said it before, it's nigh on impossible to get a straight answer to a straight question.
 

Pixie

Crusader
Olska: ""But wait ... what if I gather up a group of heavies from this forum and we record this post on audio tape and tie you up with your ears unobstructed and MAKE you listen to it? over and over, for hours and hours? Just kidding"".


Olska, you're such a naughty little minx! :coolwink:
 

Smitty

Silver Meritorious Patron
reply to Pixie

But sure isn't that the way it always is Smitty? I've said it before, it's nigh on impossible to get a straight answer to a straight question.

Discussions with them can be rough. It appears to me that the belief in scientology cripples one's powers of reasoning.
Smitty
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Olska: ""But wait ... what if I gather up a group of heavies from this forum and we record this post on audio tape and tie you up with your ears unobstructed and MAKE you listen to it? over and over, for hours and hours? Just kidding"".

Olska, you're such a naughty little minx! :coolwink:

Oh I get it. It doesn't matter what suggestions you make as long as you put "just kidding" at the end of it.

Funny how the initial suggestion is never anything pleasant.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

So it seems to me that Freezoners can rightfully call themselves Scientologist, but not members of the Church of Scientology. Just as when Martin Luther split from the Catholic Church of Rome he could still call him self a Christian. A person’s religion is determined what the person believes and is applying in life. It is not determined by administrative authorities whether it is the Pope or David Miscaviage.

The Anabaptist Jacques

That is a reasonable conclusion.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I personally don't care if they think of themselves as scientologists or not. Couldn't give less than a damn and don't see why it's even important. They're just very slim customers is all. I have no idea what they believe, and they refuse to tell me. That's a very great mystery to me.

I figure if you're happy about something you'd want to tell the world. And, quite frankly, they can't. Or - at least - I haven't met one yet who can.

That is an absolutely correct reasoning from Escalus's viewpoint.

.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I don't really care about whether people call themselves 'Scientologists' or not. Where I do begin to object is when people calling themselves 'Scientologists' then proclaim that the bowderized, castrated, sanitized and defanged verion they practice is 'Scientology', and, insist that 'Scientology doesn't say/do that, and, I know because, I'm a 'Scientologist' and *I* don't do/say that'.

It's a deliberate misrepresentation, with the intention of 'rehabilitating' the term 'Scientology' by distracting from the most objectionable parts.

Zinj
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I don't really care about whether people call themselves 'Scientologists' or not. Where I do begin to object is when people calling themselves 'Scientologists' then proclaim that the bowderized, castrated, sanitized and defanged verion they practice is 'Scientology', and, insist that 'Scientology doesn't say/do that, and, I know because, I'm a 'Scientologist' and *I* don't do/say that'.

It's a deliberate misrepresentation, with the intention of 'rehabilitating' the term 'Scientology' by distracting from the most objectionable parts.

Zinj

Yes, you've said that (many many many times) before, but I don't know of ANYONE who does that.

Everyone I know who, say, touts or runs an auditing process like 3XRD or something like that, SAYS it's not written by Hubbard.

Freezoners, indies and others indicate if they're by the book purists, if they agree or disagree with Hubbard on various things, and so on.

So what you say is just not true.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
But it's also attracted people like me, Fluff, Terril, DOF, Mark and Dart. OK, I'm the only one complaining here about being given a hard time but until Emma decides to limit forum membership we need to find a way to live together.



Yeah, practicing scientologists IN THE CofS. I haven't seen any such stories yet about the freezone / independent field, where I've spent most of my time in Scn.



And I'm a fair target for that, am I, even though most of my experience of scn was in the independent field? I haven't done those things, to anyone here or out in the world. I wasn't in the Church very long and wasn't on staff. So why take it out on me?

Shame isn't appropriate here, I agree with that much.



There may be some, sure, the question is whether everyone who claims to have had such benefits is self-deluding.



Sure, fatuous assertions of causality like those are very entertaining. It's worth pointing out though that during World War II British Intelligence took the possibility of occult practitioners being able to influence the weather so seriously that they had a group of senior magicians, including I believe Aleister Crowley, perform a set of rituals in advance of a major troop landing; I think it may have been the D-Day one in 1944.



Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. I am sitting here in a room, in the south western part of the UK, typing on a keyboard which is linked to a computer.

I'm listening to the Police's "Ghost in the Machine" on my radiocassette player. It's coming up to 6.30 pm.

Those are facts in my experience, which I can't prove to you.

Delusion and hallucination; If a sexually experienced person were asked whether or not sex was enjoyable, what do you think they'd say? They can't "prove" that it is unless the questioner had experienced it him or herself, in fact someone in the grip of an orgasm apparently looks and sounds like someone in severe pain.

So it's just "possible" (to an outside observer) that the enjoyability of sex is a delusion. The same with the benefits of auditing.

I probably won't read your reply, if any, to this. I could do with a break anyway.

It's interesting to see the earlier comment about people being made wrong. I think that for some, making others wrong is ok if that person does not have the majority point of view.

It's hard to take protestations of empathy for ex members who are being mistreated so seriously when some of those making those protestations are so busy making others wrong themselves.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
"This is an informal discussion, not a fucking academic debate"
The quote of a freezone scientologist in response to my asking for a citation to verify his statements. He was passing off his speculations as facts. When called to prove his statements, he attempted to change the terms of our discussion --- or is it that in discussions between scientologists, it is understood that facts are irrelevant?
Smitty

Sounds like some things I've seen posted by various (non Scn'ist) critics to people who were only trying to answer or discuss things with them.

Bottom line: this is the sort of thing people say when they're annoyed.
 
Top