death by auditing

[AnonKat]

"Auditing is a psychological process and a psychological technology."

Thanks, Sauerlaenderlin!

OH YEAH BABY

Can be used for good or bad

 

[olska]

I have to disagree, again. While I would agree that the training and staff experience are efforts to turn people into drones, the auditing doesn't actually do that. I would agree that after auditing sessions, people are probably more suggestible, and this is exploited to get them to sign up for more services.

In one sense, I would agree that auditing is hypnotic, and that is that there is a heavy focus in auditor training on learning to control the attention of the person being audited. This is a textbook definition of hypnosis, and yet, it also applies to an author writing a book, a director of a movie, or ANY therapy, really. Without controlling the person's attention, none of those things "work". A movie which doesn't capture and direct your attention is a failure. A therapist who cannot gain and control your attention, IMO, is a failure of a therapist. In auditing, a person's personality is not replaced. Instead, they inspect their own personality. It might change, but not in a fashion which is predictable, or towards some plastic personality. Instead, it unearth's what was there, already, but typically repressed.

There are, of course, exceptions to this. Objectives are easy to abuse, and can easily be highly hypnotic, where the WHOLE point is to get the person comfortable with being controlled by another person. Where the focus is on getting them in contact with present physical reality, I don't think it's hypnotic, but when the focus is on domination, which it often is, then I would agree, it's hypnotic.

Auditing truly is a two-edged sword. It can be used to help people discover what's holding them back and release them, and then again, it can be used to dominate them. Clearly, Hubbard and his Church often use it for the express purpose of overwhelming their clients, and extracting maximum cash from them, and when that's gone, maximum labor and new recruits, while offering only as much, in terms of "wins" as the client demands to keep going.

I think that the Church should be dismantled. I think Scientology practitioners should have to be supervised by mental health authorities in the scountries that they operate. The religious cloaking that prevents this needs to be stripped away. After all, hypnotists are certainly operating in nearly every country of the world. Hypnosis gets a bad name mostly when people are attempting to abuse and dominate others.

Interesting that you start off with "I disagree," and the rest of your post completely validates and supports the claim that auditing is a form of authoritative hypnosis, used to control events in a session, and used to dominate people in session and afterwards.

You point out two purposes of auditing:

It can be used to help people discover what's holding them back and release them, and then again, it can be used to dominate them.

These two are not mutually exclusive -- they are both part of the package.

And as to

This is a textbook definition of hypnosis, and yet, it also applies to an author writing a book, a director of a movie, or ANY therapy, really. Without controlling the person's attention, none of those things "work". A movie which doesn't capture and direct your attention is a failure.

this does not hold up as argument. The big difference is that while an auditor certainly has "authority" agreed to by the pc, and a therapist from another practice usually does also (patient agrees to go because they expect the therapist will help them), while a work of film or literature might capture ones attention enough to be called "hypnotic," a writer or director has no authority at all over an audience, rather is at the mercy of the audience.

Where the focus is on getting [a person] in contact with present physical reality, I don't think [objectives are] hypnotic.

Regardless of the "focus," scn objective proecesses meet the definition of "hypnotic."

In auditing, a person's personality is not replaced. Instead, they inspect their own personality. It might change, but not in a fashion which is predictable, or towards some plastic personality.

The "predictable" result is that after the person is brought to cognition, FN, VGIs, the person will be "hooked" and want more -- want it enough to lay down the money and other forms of support. And that's enough -- that aligns with the agenda. Who cares about the other personality details?

"Unpredictable" results that don't align with that agenda are red tagged, reviewed, CSed for auditing actions that WILL bring about that result, and/or routed to Ethics and ultimately labelled PTS or SP and pushed out of the way so as to not contaminate the results in other subjects.

The desirable "plastic personality" is the subject that goes along with it all -- either because they love it, or because they are afraid NOT to love it.

This is very specifically laid out in the technical, administrative, and "ethics" materials of scientology, as written by Hubbard. Auditing sessions are an integral part of the whole picture.

 

[olska]

I couldn't even bring myself to address this thread. It's just too upsetting on many levels. I happen to believe that auditing Scientology processes IS very dangerous. I believe it is intended to lead to delusional states and is successful in this pursuit. I was a very good auditor and had lots of "success" with auditing. Some of my PCs are now out and some are still in. I allowed them to assert their certainty that they were part of a galactic confederation that had failed to salvage this sector of the universe many eons ago, and are now lucky enough to step back up to the plate to get the job done. (and other absurd delusions as well)

Here's the hitch. I have noticed in the Ex community, and even in many who say they are completely "over it", they often can't/won't/don't let go of the delusions. They usually stop using the terminology and practicing the "applied philosophy", but they hang on to some of the most absurdly delusional bits of rubbish. I think some of it is because it's needed to justify some of the behavior that can't be undone.

I'm talking about some of the "higher purpose" crap and the past life certainty and the spiritual abilities that make us feel special and yes superior to some degree. Many exes have (or believe they have) theta perception and awarenesses of things that most people can't see or are not aware of. Some even still buy into huge unprovable or even implausible conspiracy theories that normal people are just too ignorant to be able to see.

It would be hard to deny that the paranoia runs deep in the system of Scientology and auditing reenforces it by linking all the present time evils to evils from the whole track. As we continue to uncover our personal roles in the fight between good and evil we locate hallucinations that validate our certainty of our mission to help overcome the imagined evils of the world.

Bottom line. Hubbard was nuts. Captain Bill was nuts. Marty Rathbun is nuts. We were all at least a bit nuts and are most likely still at least a bit nuts today. Those who assert that they aren't or weren't were wasting their money even more than I was. At least I got my money's worth of brainwashing and hypnosis and paranoia and psychosis.

In my humble but very experienced opinion of course.

I completely agree with you -- not only the bolded part, but all of it.

 

[Nicole]

"Auditing is a psychological process and a psychological technology."

Thanks, Sauerlaenderlin!

Hypnosis (e.g.) is a psychological process and technology. Hubbard made an evil psychology cocktail.

The problem is Hubbard didn't used the positive psychology, he used the negative. He worked with negative amplifier (I am not sure, if it is the right word I mean "Verstärker"). Fear, Control, a strict command structure... It is a very evil cocktail...

 

[Nicole]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiSEulMnsQ

 

[Panda Termint]

Re what I bolded above:

That IS the "suggestion" given by the auditor to the PC. The auditor has "suggested" that the PC "imagine" the experience of conversation(s) with his father, and report that imagined experience to the auditor. The PC does so.

Per the definition from Wikipedia that I posted earlier, that is the process of hypnosis. Your example is a perfect demonstration of it.

And yes, hypnosis (and its use in "auditing") can be and IS a form of psychotherapy.
<...snip>

I suppose it could go that way, Olska. :confused2:

In my experience PC's usually told about a lot of never-said, undelivered communication; things they'd thought at a particular time but didn't say, things they'd stopped themselves from saying, things that weren't properly understood at the receiving end, things they wished they'd said, apologised for, would've taken back etc.

The answers to the question were usually real and actual failed communications in life to the PC, the telling of them in session often produced quite remarkable results.

As regards imaginary incidents, whole-track Space Opera, Intergalactic Spy vs Spy Games and so forth; whatever floats your boat, it takes all kinds!

 

[olska]

I suppose it could go that way, Olska. :confused2:

In my experience PC's usually told about a lot of never-said, undelivered communication; things they'd thought at a particular time but didn't say, things they'd stopped themselves from saying, things that weren't properly understood at the receiving end, things they wished they'd said, apologised for, would've taken back etc.

The answers to the question were usually real and actual failed communications in life to the PC, the telling of them in session often produced quite remarkable results.

As regards imaginary incidents, whole-track Space Opera, Intergalactic Spy vs Spy Games and so forth; whatever floats your boat, it takes all kinds!

The definition of imagine is:

To form a mental image of something; to envision or create something in one's mind.

In answering the auditor/ hypnotist/ guide's request per definition of hypnotism, any "memory" that the subject considers "real" would be part of the large umbrella of imagined experiences.

It's not the CONTENT, but rather the FORM of scientology auditing sessions that qualifies it as a form of hypnosis.

 

[Panda Termint]

And per what I wrote also qualifies it as a form of psychotherapy?

 

[Alanzo]

And per what I wrote also qualifies it as a form of psychotherapy?

More properly, hypnotherapy, since psychotherapy can include group therapy and CBT, which are not hypnotic.

Scientology auditing is a highly developed form of hypnotherapy.

 

[Panda Termint]

If you say so, Al, but the "any memory" concept in Olska's post applies to all psychotherapies.

 

[Alanzo]

If you say so, Al, but the "any memory" concept in Olska's post applies to all psychotherapies.

There are different ways to have psychotherapy than handling traumatic memories in one's past, even though Scientology addresses all aberration, including addiction and depression in this way - plus vitamins.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Group Therapy do not address past memories as the "sole source of human aberration" as Scientology does.

Through the use of Model Session and putting the pc in a state of IN SESSION with the auditor in control of the session using TRs - as the sole means of therapy in Scientology - calling Scientology a psychotherapy is too broad.

That's why I categorize it as a hypnotherapy.

But you may categorize it differently.

And wrongly, of course.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

It's all the 8C that is really dangerous.

 

[Goodbye]

auditing is a form of authoritative hypnosis, used to control events in a session, and used to dominate people in session and afterwards.

AUDITING, 2. the action of asking a preclear a question (which he can understand and answer), getting an answer to that question and acknowledging him for that answer. Auditing gets rid of unwanted barriers that inhibit, stop or blunt a person’s natural abilities as well as gradiently increasing the abilities a person has so that he becomes more able and his survival, happiness and intelligence increase enormously. (BTB 30 Sept 71 IV)

Auditing is not "Free Catharsis", its not Psychology. Some Dianetic Processing uses "Reverie", which also has nothing to do with hypnosis. In Fact at the End of a Book 1 auditing Session sees to it that nothing the Auditor has said will have any Command Value over the Person.

For the most part, you are merely asked a Question, no altered State is induced, except what may turn on and off as the result of running any given Process.

Any Form of dominating a PC in Session is contrary to the "Auditor's Code". The PC and Auditor work together to "get rid of unwanted barriers that inhibit, stop or blunt a person’s natural abilities as well as expediently increasing the abilities a person has so that he becomes more able and his survival, happiness and intelligence increase enormously."

The Auditor does Control the Session so that "getting rid of unwanted barriers that inhibit, stop or blunt a person’s natural abilities as well as gradiently increasing the abilities a person has so that he becomes more able and his survival, happiness and intelligence increase enormously." can take place, no different than a Doctor asks you to take deep Breaths, or a Dentist tells you to open your Mouth.

And if you consider that to be authoritative domination upon you, then auditing isn't for you. Or the Auditor's Code was violated.

And what happens "afterwards" has nothing to do with the "Auditing Session".

Regardless of the "focus," scn objective proecesses meet the definition of "hypnotic."

Hypnotic States turn on and are run out by Objectives. They do not cause them. Life did. Hubbard did state that "Things" do turn on, and if the Process is flattened, they turned off. I have experienced that many times.

Auditing works on the Principle that Things turn on and off. And if you don't like that, then auditing may not be for you.

The desirable "plastic personality" is the subject that goes along with it all -- either because they love it, or because they are afraid NOT to love it.

If you said that might be an Agenda of the Scientology Cult, I might buy into that. But it certainly is not any objective or result of auditing I have noted.

This is very specifically laid out in the technical, administrative, and "ethics" materials of scientology, as written by Hubbard. Auditing sessions are an integral part of the whole picture.

Not in the Freezone. Ethics is only applied as necessary to permit auditing/training to take place. The Freezone may not have the same Agendas as the Church, and no one is required to follow them.

 

[uniquemand]

Interesting that you start off with "I disagree," and the rest of your post completely validates and supports the claim that auditing is a form of authoritative hypnosis, used to control events in a session, and used to dominate people in session and afterwards.

My disagreement is basically that auditing is not inherently dangerous, but rather, the danger is ADDED by the culture of Scientology, before, during and after the sessions. Before, one is given expectations, if by nothing other than the Grade Chart, or by reading the claims Hubbard makes about Clear in DMSMH. During, one is possibly worried about saying the right thing so that the process can be over, and one is graduated to the next process, etc. After, a person may feel the need to pretend to abilities that they do not have, or that are not as developed as they are saying, so that they can claim some sort of status reward for having finished a level, etc. Without those sorts of inducements and problems, auditing can and does routinely produce emotional breakthroughs and sometimes profound changes for a person.

The "predictable" result is that after the person is brought to cognition, FN, VGIs, the person will be "hooked" and want more -- want it enough to lay down the money and other forms of support. And that's enough -- that aligns with the agenda. Who cares about the other personality details?

The claim was that auditing was intended to install a false personality. This is not true. A person, after deciding that they aren't what or who they thought, is more suggestible, I would admit. They can change themselves, at such points, and the Church exploits this to INSIST that they change in a manner consistent with their "ethics" system, or in compliance with their orders. Again, while the auditing can set a person up for this sort of thing (and is used that way in the Church), the danger is in the culture of the Church, rather than in the auditing.

After any activity in which I have a good time, or get what I was after, it is likely I'll lay down money to do so again. While this is the major goal of the organization (more money), there's nothing inherently wrong with a person wanting to do something that they like to do, and being willing to pay money for it.

"Unpredictable" results that don't align with that agenda are red tagged, reviewed, CSed for auditing actions that WILL bring about that result, and/or routed to Ethics and ultimately labelled PTS or SP and pushed out of the way so as to not contaminate the results in other subjects.

I agree that this is so. It is another danger of the culture of the Church, but again, not directly a danger of auditing.

The desirable "plastic personality" is the subject that goes along with it all -- either because they love it, or because they are afraid NOT to love it.

This is very specifically laid out in the technical, administrative, and "ethics" materials of scientology, as written by Hubbard. Auditing sessions are an integral part of the whole picture.

Yes, this is the Church's program. Auditing is an integral part of that program, for sure. However, it's a subroutine. When it is not part of a larger program, and is employed without any of the other intentions or activities, strictly for personal gain, I maintain it can be very healthy.

The genius of the Church is in perverting otherwise healthy processes, and exploiting them for financial gain and social control.

 

[Free to shine]

I couldn't even bring myself to address this thread. It's just too upsetting on many levels. I happen to believe that auditing Scientology processes IS very dangerous. I believe it is intended to lead to delusional states and is successful in this pursuit. I was a very good auditor and had lots of "success" with auditing. Some of my PCs are now out and some are still in. I allowed them to assert their certainty that they were part of a galactic confederation that had failed to salvage this sector of the universe many eons ago, and are now lucky enough to step back up to the plate to get the job done. (and other absurd delusions as well)

Here's the hitch. I have noticed in the Ex community, and even in many who say they are completely "over it", they often can't/won't/don't let go of the delusions. They usually stop using the terminology and practicing the "applied philosophy", but they hang on to some of the most absurdly delusional bits of rubbish. I think some of it is because it's needed to justify some of the behavior that can't be undone.

I'm talking about some of the "higher purpose" crap and the past life certainty and the spiritual abilities that make us feel special and yes superior to some degree. Many exes have (or believe they have) theta perception and awarenesses of things that most people can't see or are not aware of. Some even still buy into huge unprovable or even implausible conspiracy theories that normal people are just too ignorant to be able to see.

It would be hard to deny that the paranoia runs deep in the system of Scientology and auditing reenforces it by linking all the present time evils to evils from the whole track. As we continue to uncover our personal roles in the fight between good and evil we locate hallucinations that validate our certainty of our mission to help overcome the imagined evils of the world.

Bottom line. Hubbard was nuts. Captain Bill was nuts. Marty Rathbun is nuts. We were all at least a bit nuts and are most likely still at least a bit nuts today. Those who assert that they aren't or weren't were wasting their money even more than I was. At least I got my money's worth of brainwashing and hypnosis and paranoia and psychosis.

In my humble but very experienced opinion of course.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Bottom line. Hubbard was nuts. Captain Bill was nuts. Marty Rathbun is nuts. We were all at least a bit nuts and are most likely still at least a bit nuts today. Those who assert that they aren't or weren't were wasting their money even more than I was. At least I got my money's worth of brainwashing and hypnosis and paranoia and psychosis.

OT VIII Billy Blowdown responds...

I'm not nuts.
I just need a little repair
session to clean up some minor BPC.​

 

[Good twin]

Hella. You are one of the most nuts. You definitely got your money's worth out of the Scam cult. Good luck reclaiming the entirety of your reactive mind. You are well on your way.

Good Twin

 

[olska]

AUDITING, 2. the action of asking a preclear a question (which he can understand and answer), getting an answer to that question and acknowledging him for that answer. Auditing gets rid of unwanted barriers that inhibit, stop or blunt a person’s natural abilities as well as gradiently increasing the abilities a person has so that he becomes more able and his survival, happiness and intelligence increase enormously. (BTB 30 Sept 71 IV)

You've quoted a bulletin put out by organized scientology. Naturally, that bulletin would forward the agenda of organized scientology. You are free to believe that bulletin is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth if you wish; but after viewing some of the ruinous "results" of the application of scientology (some of those "graduates" who did NOT become more able, whose survival, happiness, and intelligence did NOT increase enormously), some of us don't believe it and are engaged in an attempt to analyze what's REALLY going on behind the propaganda.

Auditing is not "Free Catharsis", its not Psychology. Some Dianetic Processing uses "Reverie", which also has nothing to do with hypnosis. In Fact at the End of a Book 1 auditing Session sees to it that nothing the Auditor has said will have any Command Value over the Person.

Frankly I'm not concerned with, nor was I discussing anywhere, the "command value" of what the auditor said that might remain AFTER the session. What I am pointing out is that the FORM -- the FORMAL PROCEDURE -- of an auditing session is a form of hypnosis. Per the definition of hypnosis. Despite what you were told by Ron (that it had "nothing to do with hypnosis").

For the most part, you are merely asked a Question, no altered State is induced, except what may turn on and off as the result of running any given Process.

The PC's state of being "in session" (per the scientology definition of that term) is an altered state -- a state different from the state most people are in when they are NOT "in session" -- induced intentionally by the auditor, as the auditor is trained to do.

Any Form of dominating a PC in Session is contrary to the "Auditor's Code". The PC and Auditor work together to "get rid of unwanted barriers that inhibit, stop or blunt a person’s natural abilities as well as expediently increasing the abilities a person has so that he becomes more able and his survival, happiness and intelligence increase enormously."

The Auditor does Control the Session so that "getting rid of unwanted barriers that inhibit, stop or blunt a person’s natural abilities as well as gradiently increasing the abilities a person has so that he becomes more able and his survival, happiness and intelligence increase enormously." can take place, no different than a Doctor asks you to take deep Breaths, or a Dentist tells you to open your Mouth.

Unlike the auditor in an auditing session, the doctor doesn't repetitively ask you to take deep breaths, and the dentist doesn't repetitively ask you to open your mouth, until you reach cognition, VGIs, and FN. So your statement that it is "no different" is false.

And if you consider that to be authoritative domination upon you, then auditing isn't for you. Or the Auditor's Code was violated.

In a scientology auditing session the auditor is acting as the "authority" (second to the CS, a higher authority) and is controlling, or "dominating" the session. That's what auditors are trained and instructed to do. Perhaps when someone says "authoritative domination" you were expecting whips and chains? or DMs fists?

You're absolutely right -- auditing is not for me.

And what happens "afterwards" has nothing to do with the "Auditing Session".

So the auditor says "end of session," the PC gathers up his coat and hat and leaves and that's all there is to it? Yeah, right -- ever seen it done that way?

Hypnotic States turn on and are run out by Objectives. They do not cause them. Life did. Hubbard did state that "Things" do turn on, and if the Process is flattened, they turned off. I have experienced that many times.

This statement leads me to believe that you do not understood what hypnosis is. Or maybe we are speaking different language. Or our worlds are just tooooooo far apart. Oh well.

Auditing works on the Principle that Things turn on and off. And if you don't like that, then auditing may not be for you.

Things "turn on and off" during other kinds of hypnotic processes, as well -- for example, when one does affirmations (a form of self-hypnosis). I've experienced that. I liked it. But you're right, scientology auditing is not for me.

Not in the Freezone. Ethics is only applied as necessary to permit auditing/training to take place.

Can you give me a realistic example, from the Freezone, of circumstances under which ethics would need to be applied "as necessary to permit auditing/training to take place"?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I can. I knew someone who was drinking and acting destructively but who very very much wanted to do Scn in the FZ. The person needed to put his/her ethics in. Ethics, as originally written (and not as applied in CofS) was meant (allegedly, if anyone prefers) to be something someone would put in on him or herself.

 

[olska]

And per what I wrote also qualifies it as a form of psychotherapy?

Yes, you could fit scientology under the large umbrella of "psychotherapy". But don't tell the scientologists -- you know how they hate psyches!

And there could begin a controlled study of whether or not it was an effective psychotherapy -- whether using it achieved desirable results.

For example:

If a person's Narcississtic Personality Disorder is reinforced by scientology auditing, and they become even more narcissistic, are they more able?

If as a result of scientology auditing, a bipolar person's depressive episodes go away but the manic episodes become more intense, are they better? is that a gain?

If a person who is somewhat paranoid but has doubts about the validity of the paranoia becomes, as a result of scientology auditing, CERTAIN their paranoia is "real", is that an improvement?

If a person who now and then had the fleeting thought they might have been Mozart in a past life is, after auditing, absolutely convinced that they were Mozart in a past life, would that qualify as a positive emotional breakthrough?

If, as a result of auditing up through the OT levels, a person was convinced that they could fight fires at a distance using only their mind, and in fact were more effective at fighting fires that way that actual firefighters on the ground using fire trucks, hoses, water, fire retardant, etc. would that person's mental state as an "OT" be an improvement over what it was before the auditing?