Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt boogie

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

Now, I started this thread because of a number of communications wherein it was opined that pro tech discussions don't belong on this board or any critical forum. Of course, that's bullshit because as long as the rules of conduct don't disallow it, then we can discuss it.

But I also want to mention one other thing. When this was kind of getting lobbed at me in Chat last week, several mentions were made of my own "pro tech"/"pro Scn" board.

But you know what? I allow criticism of Scn on that board.

Think about it.

More than 'allow'. That board was established precisely to serve the purpose of promoting the rational and factual discussion of matters relating to scientology.


Mark A. Baker

 

[RogerB]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

Claire,

I tried to get to your site my clicking on the "link" in your signature line . . . but it's a no go. I keep ending up in Yahoo no-man's-land.

However, inserting your web address into the address line of my browser gets me there.

Maybe you need to fix the sig line?

Rog

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

Ok, fixed the broken link.

Now, the forum I have is www.scnforum.org. My website doesn't have a discussion group on it-- yet.

Anyway, when Geir had the forum, he prized freedom of speech. I have been doing my humble best to follow in his footsteps in this regard.

The exchange to which I referred in yesterday's post was actually a comment by Ladybird in chat- which was repeated maybe a couple times or so. In this chat exchange, she expressed the opinion that it is cruel to come to a forum like this and talk pro tech. Now, of course, I had to remind her that I've written many many posts criticizing the cult and that I don't write many pro tech posts nowadays. Though of course, I have recently stated that there were some things in Scn I truly liked and still like. I also indicated that pro tech commentary is not forbidden on ESMB pursuant to its ROCs.

But be that as it may, one of the things she said was that I have a pro tech board. Yes, I do. But I allow criticism. I encourage criticism. Geir always has, too.

There are fora where one can go to just post all one side and not the other. There is a critical board that allows no pro Scn commentary of any kind. There are also FZ groups where you will just get pilloried by people if you do not toe the party line. However, ESMB is not like the former and scnforum.org is not like the latter.

Both boards- with this one being, of course, the far more major of the two- encourage a mix of viewpoints. So for contributors to indicate that some viewpoints should not be allowed is just way beside the point.

 

[RogerB]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

Ok, fixed the broken link.

Now, the forum I have is www.scnforum.org. My website doesn't have a discussion group on it-- yet.

Anyway, when Geir had the forum, he prized freedom of speech. I have been doing my humble best to follow in his footsteps in this regard.

The exchange to which I referred in yesterday's post was actually a comment by Ladybird in chat- which was repeated maybe a couple times or so. In this chat exchange, she expressed the opinion that it is cruel to come to a forum like this and talk pro tech. Now, of course, I had to remind her that I've written many many posts criticizing the cult and that I don't write many pro tech posts nowadays. Though of course, I have recently stated that there were some things in Scn I truly liked and still like. I also indicated that pro tech commentary is not forbidden on ESMB pursuant to its ROCs.

But be that as it may, one of the things she said was that I have a pro tech board. Yes, I do. But I allow criticism. I encourage criticism. Geir always has, too.

There are fora where one can go to just post all one side and not the other. There is a critical board that allows no pro Scn commentary of any kind. There are also FZ groups where you will just get pilloried by people if you do not toe the party line. However, ESMB is not like the former and scnforum.org is not like the latter.

Both boards- with this one being, of course, the far more major of the two- encourage a mix of viewpoints. So for contributors to indicate that some viewpoints should not be allowed is just way beside the point.

Yes, on that part highlighted in red above:

in chat- which was repeated maybe a couple times or so. In this chat exchange, she expressed the opinion that it is cruel to come to a forum like this and talk pro tech.

The question becomes: "talk pro which tech?"

Some get/have been criticized for talking any tech other than $cn, even when they are dissecting and criticizing $cn tech.

It's like, some folks appear to not want any workable answers to anything discussed at all, nor any discussion of what might help folks messed up in $cn to find any helpful answers to repair the $cn damage.

Yet, the board was set up to "discuss the Scn experience and its technology" among we exies.

So in actuality, while you write:
"So for contributors to indicate that some viewpoints should not be allowed is just way beside the point." . . . I would go further, and say they are out of line. And surely, they can't not be aware of it.

Rog

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

Hi, Roger,

Right. I've been on critical fora since 1998 and have, particularly on OCMB (where several people who now also post here are "from", so to speak) had people try to shout me down or Terril and others. It wasn't a "I disagree with you" type thing - although that isn't a reason to try to shout someone down- but in almost every case, real dismay was indicated that any of us would post any pro Scn type stuff, with the implication that we did not have the same rights as they did. And it got carried over to here by those people. (certainly not by me)

I thought it would stop when I left CofS (I used to be in CofS when I first found Scn critical/skeptical sites, newsgroups and msg boards) and it didn't. Then I thought it would stop when I stopped labelling myself an Indie/non CofS Scn'ist. It didn't. In fact, some people are still referring to me as a Scn'ist.

There was a recent freakout over my criticizing an "opinion leader" of sorts with one person speculating that I don't like what that person says about Scientology. Stupid post since I no longer have a dog in that fight and even when I did, I never ever had a problem with ANYONE criticizing CofS, Scn, Hubbard, the FreeZone, etc.

I personally think it's a matter of people behaving exactly like the cult, even though they've all left that cult. Cuz what does the cult do when someone says something negative about Scn, Hubbard, CofS, Slappy? It goes after people. It states that they don't have the right to air their opinions. It lies about those people. It digs up personal history then lies about it.

I think it's more like the cult when they want to make people STOP saying things. The cult isn't looking at Hubbard's material on pan determinism or tone scale position or free communication. No, it's looking at the fact that it cannot have certain types of communication and the fact that it would rather try to intimidate the people uttering those communiques rather than ignoring them or even just attempting to do a straightforward rebuttal without dirty tricks and intimidative tactics. Pretty much the same sort of thing

So they come onto a board which they do not own and tell people that they should not say certain things about Scn. It's not a matter of thinking someone is breaking the ROCs and someone else wants to say something to the person. No, it's a matter of believing and stating that although Scn and all ex member experiences are on topic for this forum, it is still wrong to say anything positive about Scn. My own little board was given as an example in a "you can go to the back of the bus and have a separate drinking fountain" communication. However, it's NOT a separate drinking fountain since my board- just like ESMB (in that regard)- allows other viewpoints re "the tech". Not only allows, but encourages.

And that, dear people, is also the way ESMB admin and moderators behave. They are ok with minority viewpoints about Scn. It doesn't mean they agree with them. It doesn't mean that they, if participating in the discussion, aren't going to indicate disagreement, but it does mean that they are ok with someone discussing Scn tech, offshoots of Scn and Dianetics, other methods- from a pro standpoint.

So you've got both forums, the large and the small, the ex member mostly critical/skeptical/been there done that (but with a goodly sprinkling of Scn friendly views) and the Indie/Non CofS Scn'ist mostly pro Scn/pro offshoot (but with a goodly sprinkling of skeptical posts) allowing BOTH sides of the issue to be FREELY expressed.

So the next time someone says "Fluffy has a board for pro tech"- yeah, what of it? This board has no restriction on pro or anti Scn and neither does my little board.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

Yes, on that part highlighted in red above:


The question becomes: "talk pro which tech?"

Some get/have been criticized for talking any tech other than $cn, even when they are dissecting and criticizing $cn tech.

It's like, some folks appear to not want any workable answers to anything discussed at all, nor any discussion of what might help folks messed up in $cn to find any helpful answers to repair the $cn damage.

Yet, the board was set up to "discuss the Scn experience and its technology" among we exies.

So in actuality, while you write:
"So for contributors to indicate that some viewpoints should not be allowed is just way beside the point." . . . I would go further, and say they are out of line. And surely, they can't not be aware of it.

Rog

Whether it's 'pro-scientology' tech or 'pro-other' tech, it's ridiculous to label as 'cruel' an interest among ex-scientologists for discussing tech issues on an ex-scientologists board. It's the attempt to enforce upon others through a campaign of public 'moral condemnation' one's own peculiar standards of morality.

If a person is offended by such discussions, then they are free to skip them.


Mark A. Baker

 

[uniquemand]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

I don't think it's cruel at all to discuss these things. In fact, such discussions often make it extremely clear to people who are on the fence exactly why they should get out.

Personally, I find the tech talks interesting for many reasons. Chief amongst them is the complexity people create out of extremely basic, simple systems. Then the complexity is viewed as great wisdom, while the simple systems are basically ignored, because they are so simple, straightforward and obvious. Hawkers of these complex systems often emphasize that their complex system is better than someone else's, for whatever reason. Perhaps they're right, perhaps they're wrong, the conversation is interesting.

To me, the basics of any good "tech application" are quite simple:

1. Be present.
2. Find out where the other person *is* (what is their attention on)
3. Talk to them about that without evaluation or invalidation or any form of coercion, asking questions for the purpose of getting them looking, getting them through any emotions that come to the fore, until their attention becomes free.
4. End session.

If there is an agreed upon framework for digging around and the person wants to do that, you could put those steps into step three without any change.

All the bells and whistles are essentially a confidence game. They exist to make the person think there is a great and powerful wizard working with them, so that they will feel safe looking and confiding. I think this is destructive and unnecessary. Much better to just be "another guy" who happens to have done some training in how to get and keep things rolling until resolution occurs, then do so. As rapport builds, confidence (natural and without transference) can builds as well, and deeper material will become available without recourse to magic eight balls and impressive sounding rundowns.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

There are some people who just plain don't believe a mix of viewpoints (if such contain any viewpoints that differ from theirs) should be presented. But it's healthy to discuss these things and it's healthy to have different types of people.

What amuses me is that as I get farther and farther away from Scn as chief personal ideology, the same people are still representing that I post mainly pro tech stuff and that if I don't like some critic, it's because they are against Scientology.

In Scn, that is called a "fixed idea" and maybe with a dash of "op term"ing.

Fact is, I'm totally for freedom of speech if it's in accordance with ROCs. Ad homs don't qualify. But, as I said, even when I was really into Scn as my ideology, my thought was "want to criticize Scn? Knock yourself out!" and I said so numerous times. Still do.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

My emphasis ...

I don't think it's cruel at all to discuss these things. In fact, such discussions often make it extremely clear to people who are on the fence exactly why they should get out.

Personally, I find the tech talks interesting for many reasons. Chief amongst them is the complexity people create out of extremely basic, simple systems. Then the complexity is viewed as great wisdom, while the simple systems are basically ignored, because they are so simple, straightforward and obvious. Hawkers of these complex systems often emphasize that their complex system is better than someone else's, for whatever reason. Perhaps they're right, perhaps they're wrong, the conversation is interesting.

To me, the basics of any good "tech application" are quite simple:

1. Be present.
2. Find out where the other person *is* (what is their attention on)
3. Talk to them about that without evaluation or invalidation or any form of coercion, asking questions for the purpose of getting them looking, getting them through any emotions that come to the fore, until their attention becomes free.
4. End session.

If there is an agreed upon framework for digging around and the person wants to do that, you could put those steps into step three without any change.

All the bells and whistles are essentially a confidence game. They exist to make the person think there is a great and powerful wizard working with them, so that they will feel safe looking and confiding. I think this is destructive and unnecessary. Much better to just be "another guy" who happens to have done some training in how to get and keep things rolling until resolution occurs, then do so. As rapport builds, confidence (natural and without transference) can builds as well, and deeper material will become available without recourse to magic eight balls and impressive sounding rundowns.

That is a great post UM.

I often feel that the pro tekkies (here) are hoping that they do upset people with their tekky talk and try to introvert them when they receive any disagreement (lol) but I agree that their presence is interesting and reminds us why we are out and hopefully helps lurkers to make the leap too.

Many of the Indies here have changed a few things but basically it's still scientology that they are pushing, or so close to it that it really doesn't matter.

What you describe is simple and caring 'tech application' with not a know-all or a guru in sight ... it could almost be two friends chatting on an equal footing, neither assuming some imagined status.

Genuine careful listening and caring seem to me to be far more important than rundowns, endless lists and meters but then I have felt for a while now that those accoutrements are there merely to impress the client and make the auditor feel more like a professional.

 

[uniquemand]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

My emphasis ...

That is a great post UM.

I often feel that the pro tekkies (here) are hoping that they do upset people with their tekky talk and try to introvert them when they receive any disagreement (lol) but I agree that their presence is interesting and reminds us why we are out and hopefully helps lurkers to make the leap too.

Many of the Indies here have changed a few things but basically it's still scientology that they are pushing, or so close to it that it really doesn't matter.

What you describe is simple and caring 'tech application' with not a know-all or a guru in sight ... it could almost be two friends chatting on an equal footing, neither assuming some imagined status.

Genuine careful listening and caring seem to me to be far more important than rundowns, endless lists and meters but then I have felt for a while now that those accoutrements are there merely to impress the client and make the auditor feel more like a professional.

I obviously concur. There is lots to know about the sorts of things that can crop up, and each point could probably be made into several chapters (and I will do just that, believe you me) for full explication. That basic skeleton, though, is what it's all about.

There's nothing wrong with increased sophistication of the approach, as long as it's not used as an attempt to make yourself into a guru, or to assert the rightness/wrongness of any approach. In my opinion, as long as you make the basics very clear for the person you're working with, don't pretend to knowledge you don't have, and don't try to do anything other than help them stay on-track and moving through, it's pretty hard to go wrong.

I've had some people say that they would have worked with me more readily if I had a better "professional bearing", if I weren't such a quirky guy, myself, that sort of thing. To me, they're talking about their own hangups, not mine, and to a bias born out of a stereotype or false concept about what a "therapist" is supposed to be. Thank Allah that a therapist doesn't have to be a perfect person, or a person who has all their issues worked out. If so, we'd have no therapists!

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

My emphasis ...




That is a great post UM.

I often feel that the pro tekkies (here) are hoping that they do upset people with their tekky talk and try to introvert them when they receive any disagreement (lol) but I agree that their presence is interesting and reminds us why we are out and hopefully helps lurkers to make the leap too.

Many of the Indies here have changed a few things but basically it's still scientology that they are pushing, or so close to it that it really doesn't matter.

What you describe is simple and caring 'tech application' with not a know-all or a guru in sight ... it could almost be two friends chatting on an equal footing, neither assuming some imagined status.

Genuine careful listening and caring seem to me to be far more important than rundowns, endless lists and meters but then I have felt for a while now that those accoutrements are there merely to impress the client and make the auditor feel more like a professional.

Well, I don't think they want to upset anyone. But I think people being people, they sometimes dig in their heels when they encounter any resistance, regardless of type or validity thereof. So don't discount defensive mode. It can look antagonistic. (not necessarily using this word in the Scn sense of the word though maybe it fits in that way, too. I don't use a lot of Scnese. My Mom got me to stop years ago!)

I think genuine listening and caring ARE very important and there've been times when I've derived a lot of benefit from it. But I will say this- if you had, say, therapy- and we'll just say non Scn/non Dianetic totally unrelated to Hubbard's stuff type therapy- like psychoanalysis, one wouldn't compare that to being better, worse, same as good counsel from a friend. The thought is that sometimes someone else can guide a person through some tricky mental or spiritual paths and that with therapy or other professional counselling, the idea is to direct that person's attention at the areas.

And actually I've seen people do well with psychology based therapy. And I've seen people do well with Scn and Dianetic therapy and not so well with any of those things.

I think the idea maybe should be that there's more than one way to go on things. I also reject the one size fits all aspect to Scn and Dn that says that if it's applied correctly (and ethics is in and the pc gives it 100% and all this other stuff) that it's always going to resolve the problems. I figured out a long time ago that it doesn't always. Neither does psychotherapy always. Or talking to friends.

But sometimes some of those things work when other ones don't.

Some people even need psychiatric meds. I'm not a big fan but I am very very sure that there are people who have a chemical imbalance or, for some other reason, just can't function properly on talk therapy alone.

My premise is and has been almost from the beginning (say 1 year after I got into the critic's scene) that there is more than one way to go on things. I don't think it has to be either/or.

I also want to express that a lot of people who are talking "tech" are just discussing stuff. I don't see a lot of proselytizing here. SOME, yes. Yes, indeed. But I see a lot of things where it's just people having a conversation. And I see a lot of exchanges that are represented by others as being proselytization (goddamn, that's hard to type) when, in fact, they weren't.

I've moved farther from Scn though I will probably always like some of the things in it. (I like some Catholicism, too, and I'm light years away from being ANY kind of Xtian) And when I go home, what do I hear? My husband listening to oodles of LRH lectures on his computer. Sometimes he wants to discuss them with me. I've less interest than I used to. But it's fine. He's doing his own thing. It's no threat to me.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

snipped.

Well, I don't think they want to upset anyone. But I think people being people, they sometimes dig in their heels when they encounter any resistance, regardless of type or validity thereof. So don't discount defensive mode. It can look antagonistic. (not necessarily using this word in the Scn sense of the word though maybe it fits in that way, too. I don't use a lot of Scnese. My Mom got me to stop years ago!)

Oh, I really do think some Indies/FZoners enjoy trying to rub peoples faces in scientology here in order to try to upset them (and shut them up) and I've just assumed it's because much or even most of scientology is about 'handling people and situations, being at cause, gaining control using 8C, lifting the supposed tone of others, saving the planet, and piles of other associated controlling tek including of course the rigidly applied processing tek' and old culty habits die hard (attack attack attack, promote promote promote) but this is essentially an Ex scio board and even though I've heard all the reasons why it's OK for them to push themselves and their tek here, it still seems incredibly ill mannered (to me) to do so, but then manners never were important in the cult except for PR purposes.

Indies that promote the tek (here) must surely have a more suitable audience elsewhere due to being so excellent at producing real 'case cracking' results on their many clients and if that is not the situation, why isn't it?

Having said all that I'm not nearly as serious as I pretend to be about the issue, I just sometimes like to poke them and watch the resultant hissy fit because it's fun and I'm beyond caring how they take it, but mainly because there's no point at all in being subtle with a scientologist (or similar) because they will always defend the tek and converse through and via the tek and it bores me rigid, having heard it all before in it's various incarnations for decades.

I'm very fond of many of our Indies though, I just can't take them seriously.

​

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Re: Discussing Scn frm a pro tech viewpoint, whether only sorta-kinda or full tilt bo

I obviously concur. There is lots to know about the sorts of things that can crop up, and each point could probably be made into several chapters (and I will do just that, believe you me) for full explication. That basic skeleton, though, is what it's all about.

There's nothing wrong with increased sophistication of the approach, as long as it's not used as an attempt to make yourself into a guru, or to assert the rightness/wrongness of any approach. In my opinion, as long as you make the basics very clear for the person you're working with, don't pretend to knowledge you don't have, and don't try to do anything other than help them stay on-track and moving through, it's pretty hard to go wrong.

I've had some people say that they would have worked with me more readily if I had a better "professional bearing", if I weren't such a quirky guy, myself, that sort of thing. To me, they're talking about their own hangups, not mine, and to a bias born out of a stereotype or false concept about what a "therapist" is supposed to be. Thank Allah that a therapist doesn't have to be a perfect person, or a person who has all their issues worked out. If so, we'd have no therapists!

LOL!

Quirky rocks!