DM kinda follows our suggestions

ThisFenceHurts

Patron with Honors
Escalus;82913 [B said:
Fence[/B] - I'm not altogether certain why you may think I must be compelled to explain my "purpose" as, between the two of us here on an ex-scientologist venue there is really only one "ex-scientologist."

I was interested in knowing the answer, that's why I asked. As far as being an "ex-Scientologist" - well, I have not set foot in a Church of Scientology for several years, and I haven't considered myself a "Scientologist" in about as long. I still use, successfully, a lot of the tech that Hubbard published. I also used to go to a Christian Church. I still practice some things that I learned about in Sunday School. I consider myself neither a Scientologist, nor a Christian. I don't think that, in order to be an "ex-Scientologist", one has to denounce the entire subject.


But in the interests of the point at hand I'll be happy to explain that as I stood in the hallway at the old DC org on S Street watching a recently returned, brand new OTIII being physically held down to keep him from blowing staff by his wife and an ethics officer, with him explaining that the two of them have to understand that "this is all bullshit", it began to play on my already growing doubts and, much to the chagrin of all my fellow robots, I pretty much determined that any organization that denies the capacity of its members for critical thinking is... well... a cult.

I've got no argument with that. It IS a cult. The CoS, anyway. I think that most, if not all, organized "religious" groups tend to turn into cults at some point in their history. If the Crusades and the Inquisition weren't cult-like behavior, I'd like to know how. But that doesn't mean one can't read the Bible, see Jesus' teachings on love and acceptance, and find truth and value in them.


How much did we accept from Hubbard's writings on faith? How much did we wink and eye at, knowing this or that wouldn't fly out in "wog" society but we Knew best anyway? And what the living fuck is a Scientologist doing but on a permanent "make wrong" of everybody around him who hasn't bought into the game?

Most Scientologists accept most of what Hubbard said on faith, IMHO. Many, perhaps most, are on a permanent make-wrong. BUT, and this is the only thing I have been saying on this thread, I have found the SP tech to be workable and valuable BY MY OWN EXPERIENCE. I couldn't care less if you have bought into the game of Scientology or not. I do care that you seem hell-bent on trying to convince me that I should abandon what I have found to be true by my own experience. You maybe have found it be not true. I don't go around on other people's threads telling them that they are in error about their own experience. You did. So, who's making who wrong? I'm just defending my original position.


The idea that "you become what you accuse others of" seems somehow not to apply to Scientologists, only their critics.

Have I accused you of something you feel you have not done? If so, point it out to me and I'll happily apologize.


But I read up a few posts about OHTEEATE not caring what other people think about the gains on an OT level. They had space, they had calmness, they were big and cool and bright and had chrome wheels or something. OK. How does that help the argument that such a state exists/ I mean, I have at least two vodka-cranberries when I get home from work every day and I'll be damned if I let anybody tell me that isn't good for me and give me chrome wheels and stuff. "And I don't care what anybody thinks" either.

The thing with OHTEEATE is that he can enjoy his experience whether you believe it to be true, are convinced it is not, or have no opinion on the subject. Just to clarify, I hope it has been made clear that I am not arguing for or against the existence of anything on this post other than an SP.



What Scientologists fail to accept is ANY kind of critical thinking.

It may be true of some, or many, or most. It is not true that someone who does not agree with you is not accepting any kind of critical thinking. I'm guessing that you have had many frustrating exchanges with Scientologists. I have. As far as critical thinking goes, you had challenged me to name an SP and you would prove how he was not an SP. I did and you have not yet taken up the challenge. I can promise you that, if you do, I will read it and give it thought.



They had this mysterious weight pop off the side of their head and the auditor says, "your needle is floating" and all of a sudden they're immortal, and if you dare to question the answer, invariably, is that you're either saying what you're saying because you don't understand a word somewhere, have this or that Scientological something or other you have to get out of before you can see the truth, or (guess what) you're an SP. Gosh - maybe someday we'll be in Tom Cruiseland and laugh about "heeeeeheeeee huhhuh huh huh haaaaa... did you ever see an SP?"

Tom Cruise is a nutjob. I have run into the same barriers that you mention above.

This is all in the way of explaining to you my "purpose" or my "mission" or whatever you want to imagine me just having an animated conversation with someone like a regular old normal person is.

Thank you for explaining. I like to know what the position is of the person I am communicating with. It helps.

I scan these threads and see maybe four or five actual ex-scientologists. The rest are on a holding pattern waiting for the recent movement to oust the Miscavige boogeyman so they can get on with their hypnosis... I mean auditing. So my premise is question everything because they won't. The position of the recidivists here is "I feel better about myself so it works" is not the problem. The problem is there is no evidence that WHY they are feeling this way is happening because of what they say is happening. Where are the trials when processing techniques were being worked out... or did they spring whole from the fertile imagination of a godlike genius who couldn't even handle his allergies without medication even in the advanced state of beingness before he dropped the body to pursue the higher levels?

I don't disagree with your assessment. I don't agree that it is hypnosis. As far as evidence goes, I am not out to prove that Scientology works. I simply think that there are people that fit the SP characteristics, and I have used PTS/SP Tech to improve my life. Questioning is fine. Telling me to "snap out of it" is not questioning. It's demanding that I change my viewpoint to match yours.


We can't show a dianetic engram. We can't show that what we're doing to it when when find one is actually what is happening. We can't display any real "at cause" activity over matter, energy, space or time. We can't find any babies coming out of the womb telling you "Hi I'm Joe, just thought it would be fun to pick up a body." So why should we simply accept the category of "SP"? Because you read it some where and you say so? Because that's good enough for me? Not likely.

It's fine with me if you don't want to accept the category of SP. Is it fine with you if I DO want to accept the category of SP? But, as I stated earlier, the label is not significant to me. I have met the type of person that Hubbard describes, seen the effects that Hubbard describes. Others may call these people "toxic personalities", the label is not important.


And as to the standard running argument about "well you just want to make people wrong" - the truth is a bit different. I don't have to make people wrong, there are folks who can do that all by themselves. It's just most people are too nice and pleasant to mention they're not wearing any clothes. I'm not.

I agree, most people are too nice and pleasant. I agree that sometimes someone needs to stand up and say, "WTF This is bullshit!", as you experienced above. I probably agree with you on a lot of what you think about Scientology, Scientologists, etc.

If I walk outside and say, "It's a nice sunny day!" and someone says, "No it's not! Prove it! What's wrong with you? It is NOT a nice sunny day", etc., I may decide to communicate my reasons why I feel that way, my feelings about being talked to that way, and any number of other things. That's what I have decided to do on this thread. But at the end of the day, I started out thinking it was a nice sunny day, I continued to think it was a nice sunny day, and I ended up thinking it was a nice sunny day.
 

Wisened One

Crusader
Quote by Oteeate:
Sometimes I don't put OT 8 wins out, as they tend to get slapped around by those who object to anyone believing they got something out of the pre-OT and OT levels ( OT 8 is the first real OT level).
In this case , I don't give a good crap if anyone objects. I had incredible wins on OT 8, and it really pisses me off that it will be a long while until I ever get that close to breaking through, if ever.
My space as a being went to over 400 yards in diameter, and kept growing.
I was sane, calm, at peace, and I KNEW.
It was only a glimpse of something far greater than that.
The state was unstable and was gone in 3 weeks.
Ten years later I was told I was unflat on OT 7, so I did solo NOTs certainty part 1, Ethics Specialist, PTS/SP, and trained to Class IV.
I also spent $100,000 on set ups.
I did not make it onto solo NOTs Certainty part 2.
It really pissed me off.
I joined the Sea Org, trying to help and get onto OT 7 so I could break through.
It was insane in there.
I left, was Declared/Expelled.
Then, I found out what a cluster fuck I had been involved in for 34 years.
Now, I know OT is not reachable with current management, at least.
Endquote by Oteeate.

Quote by Veda:
Lots of people have had similar experiences and without the expense and sacrifice. Most of these people have never heard of Scientology, so they didn't become Scientology Bridge-"junkies" as a result. It not a good thing to be stuck in a "pleasure moment," so intense, and filled with so much hope for MORE, that it becomes 'aberrative'. That's a trap. It makes a person a kind of "junkie" if he/she has been told/believes that if he/she can just get MORE, then the same experience will occur again, and maybe even better.
People have experienced similar to what you describe that have had nothing to do with Scientology, and also - sometimes - even with some part of Scientology. In Scientology, I've seen it happen (two times) on the old Communications Course (cost, $15, then). One ended his association with Scientology at that point. He looked around, and saw the giant picture of Ron on the wall, and the Sea Org people in their (circa 1972) "doorman" uniforms, and knew that this was a kind of fluke - that he had lucked out and had - as you say - a glimpse, but that, as the saying goes, "It wasn't going to get any better than that." The other went on to spend a lot of money on Scientology before eventually joining staff, and never made it back to his - as some would call it today, "ascension experience." He left Scientology broke and older, and very "un-ascended."
When I was auditing people after having resigned my $cientology membership, I experimented with old 1958 type identity/help processes, and had a PC/client who had a very dramatic "ascension experience," and his space became huge. I ended off in definite terms, made it plain that - as far as Scientology goes - it doesn't get any better than this, and the person is now very happy and successful, as he was pretty much before, but he never "crashed," the way people sometimes do, when they keep "picking at it."
People have "ascension experiences" in all sorts of things. It's becoming stuck on it, because one is in a "system" that promotes the idea that if one can just get more, and more, THEN, well, it will be even better. Usually works in the opposite direction. You're done. Accept your "EP." When people have such experiences in Scientology - and a some do - they have it in different places in Scientology, and these experiences also occur in other subjects, and in life generally.
It's when someone becomes a "junkie" for whatever "system" that he/she believes is THE WAY, and can provide more "ascension experience," and even better experiences, that others sometimes find that objectionable. "Junkies" tend to become "pushers." And they can't help themselves. It's "got a grip on them," no matter how decent they are, no matter how good and intelligent they are. It's "got them," and they need to shake the craving for MORE from that same "system," to be truly free. And first and foremost, free of the "system."
So stand back and realize that you got it. You're done. And that there are lots of ways of getting it.
It's done.
And there are lots of other things to do, areas to explore. But, IMO, you're done with the "Scientology Bridge."
There's always sky diving, or running marathons, or Yoga or the Monroe Institute or rock climbing, or just living.
IMHO.
Endquote by Veda:

WOW, you two. I sat speechless after reading BOTH your stories...and somehow feeling serene, too.

Thanks Oteeate, for posting your experience/wins with OT VIII. I could feel your words!:)

I myself also have felt similarly (but probably not as powerfully and hugely as you have)...but only for brief periods of time, both while in, and while out.

May you experience that state again soon, and for longer!:)

Veda: Your post really hit home. There ARE also other 'ways' simply by living and experiencing life.....

That fact took quite a few years for me to get used to. I was so ingrained into believing $cn was the ONLY way...(such as many religions do, eh?;)
 

Pascal

Silver Meritorious Patron
OT WINS

Thanks OTVIII

I used to dream about OT abilities and shit and I know they will come one day. For now I'm extatic at being ME! I'm so glad I'm ME! And not other people, LOL! I feel I love myself so much that others will feel left out and think I need to love others too, as in what is greatness. I feel so theta and people seem so poor in theta! It's like if I were walking with a million bucks in a slum. hehe

Ignore Veda and his generalities about "people". If I were you I'd train some more. Read all the FZ stuff about OT and listen to OT tapes, you'll rehab your state eventually.

Remember, with great power comes great responsability and vice versa, if you want great power, take great responsability.

Noone can tell you how big you are or limit your size. An unflat VII could be it or a desire to "be human". :coolwink:

I heard an OTVIII who could see "truth", as in look at a house and see a bunch of facsimiles about it's history and where every atom came from. Did you get this too?
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
But the minute the Scientologist says it is a "science" it is they who have crossed the line into another realm that has every right to doubt what is being claimed until proof is collected. And no - absolutely no - amount of "this is true for you and this is true for me" is acceptable or even logical.

Excellent point!
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Originally Posted by Escalus
But the minute the Scientologist says it is a "science" it is they who have crossed the line into another realm that has every right to doubt what is being claimed until proof is collected. And no - absolutely no - amount of "this is true for you and this is true for me" is acceptable or even logical.

Not entirely correct. Medicine as a "science" follows the rule of absolutes and makes inadequate allowance for the fact that every person's biology is unique. There may be some common factors, but you cannot ignore the fact (like Scientology also tries to do) that a significant number of people do not fit into pre-defined pigeon holes.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Note re. the 1966 PR piece, 'What is Greatness?': http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=82511&postcount=23 L. Ron Hubbard had come to regard John F. Kennedy as an enemy, whom he blamed for the American FDA/e-meter troubles, and here referenced his assassination of just 28 months earlier. From the 'Manual of Justice' thread, which addresses Hubbard's view that his enemies just happen to end up dead.
 
The problem can be cured if the Scientologists would simply admit that they are talking about mysticism, but that is a line I've yet to see one cross.


Principle reason they won't cross that line is that scientology isn't mysticism.

It is true that sometimes as a result of a particularly interesting auditing session an individual may have a mystical experience over and beyond the "normal" sort of cognition or epiphany. These are uncommon although certainly not unknown.

Philosophically scientology falls under the aegis of metaphysics. It deals with matters of existence which transcends the physical. That is not the same thing as mysticism, although they are commonly mistaken for each other.

Your cavil about "science" however is a perfectly legitimate beef. I don't use the term when discussing scientology either. Hubbard's calling it a science and appropriating a cognate term was at best a deliberate attempt to promote by misleading.

To some extent we are stuck with the word scientology when discussing the subject. But that is no reason to continue to maintain as true statements about the subject which are not true.

Also it is perfectly appropriate to refer to scientology as a technology of the spirit. It evolved and was deliberately structured as a technology, and the subject deals with matters of the spirit. Technologies are not the same thing as sciences, although often inspired by them. This usage therefore is not in anyway illegitimate.


Mark A. Baker
 

Mojo

Silver Meritorious Patron
Philosophically scientology falls under the aegis of metaphysics. It deals with matters of existence which transcends the physical. That is not the same thing as mysticism, although they are commonly mistaken for each other.

Can you articulate their differences?

To some extent we are stuck with the word scientology when discussing the subject [of scientology]

That my friend is the only statement I have ever read that rivals Hubbard's claims of the characteristics of a 'clear'. To wit: Unfrigginbelievable. Let me quote you once again " To some extent we are stuck with the word scientology when discussing the subject [of scientology]"

That's it. I can't even pen another line in light of your comment above. And to think you penned it with a straight face.

Lol.

God help us all.

Mojo
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
That my friend is the only statement I have ever read that rivals Hubbard's claims of the characteristics of a 'clear'. To wit: Unfrigginbelievable. Let me quote you once again " To some extent we are stuck with the word scientology when discussing the subject [of scientology]"

That's it. I can't even pen another line in light of your comment above. And to think you penned it with a straight face.

Lol.

God help us all.

Mojo

:hysterical: :hysterical:
 

Neo

Silver Meritorious Patron
Can you articulate their differences?



That my friend is the only statement I have ever read that rivals Hubbard's claims of the characteristics of a 'clear'. To wit: Unfrigginbelievable. Let me quote you once again " To some extent we are stuck with the word scientology when discussing the subject [of scientology]"

That's it. I can't even pen another line in light of your comment above. And to think you penned it with a straight face.

Lol.

God help us all.

Mojo

:hattip: :hifive:
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Principle reason they won't cross that line is that scientology isn't mysticism.

That is exactly what $cn is: Mysticism. "We have knowledge that you don't, and it will cost you to find out. It will cost you even more to find out that it is of no value."

The same thing can be said of Medicine, Law Practitioners and most of the "Professional GUILDS". They dole out little bits of information to a public who can't see through the sham.

There is a new group out there called "NeoTech", and they preach against such mysticism, but then practice it themselves when it comes to the pricing of their own materials. Both my mother and my father (separated) have parted with $200 for one book (they've each bought the same book unbeknownst to the other). It makes bold new-age promises like $cn. It asks you to spend more money on more information like $cn.

The unknown is a mystery--the selling of intangibles that allegedly explain such mystery is mysticism.

If you've had a Spiritual experience, then be game enough to call it that.
 

Escalus

Patron Meritorious
Principle reason they won't cross that line is that scientology isn't mysticism.

Mark A. Baker

You are hereby ordered to be routed to qual for a complete word clear of the following to a full f/n.

"Understand, "mysticism" can be defined as "the basing of conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation". And so long as the person making the claims to personal insights remains out of the field of science he is technically unassailable and on his own turf, rightfully.

"And if "science" is "a set of mental and behavioral methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomenon, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation", then it would help the claimants cause if he would firstly ALLOW the tests to occur.

"But he doesn't. Instead he bristles at the suggestion of the test, explains that it can't be measured, that something is happening and therefore this is all we need to know. And he does all this with no regard for the fact that, the minute he says this, people sometimes tend to think they are smelling a fraud."
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
You are hereby ordered to be routed to qual for a complete word clear of the following to a full f/n.

"Understand, "mysticism" can be defined as "the basing of conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation". And so long as the person making the claims to personal insights remains out of the field of science he is technically unassailable and on his own turf, rightfully.

"And if "science" is "a set of mental and behavioral methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomenon, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation", then it would help the claimants cause if he would firstly ALLOW the tests to occur.

"But he doesn't. Instead he bristles at the suggestion of the test, explains that it can't be measured, that something is happening and therefore this is all we need to know. And he does all this with no regard for the fact that, the minute he says this, people sometimes tend to think they are smelling a fraud."

You also overlook the fact that most science is also mysticism.
 

Escalus

Patron Meritorious
"mysticism" can be defined as "the basing of conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation".

And "science" is "a set of mental and behavioral methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomenon, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation".

You also overlook the fact that most science is also mysticism.

Neither of these two, mysticism or science, is superior to or transcendent of the other. They are two separate considerations. I am making no value judgment here.

Mysticism isn't science until there is external validation, and science isn't mysticism until the understanding involved resides in the realm of personal insight alone.

That mysticism may become science or that science may become mysticism is possible and obvious, but until it becomes science, mysticism is mysticism - and until it becomes mysticism, science is science.

I think what you mean... because you can't possibly actually mean that most science is also mysticism... is that before there can be a body of observable evidence there is sometimes personal insight, which is very true.

But the scientific process is similar to this...
1. Observation: Gathering data through the senses or sensory enhancing technologies.
2. Induction: Drawing general conclusions from the data. Forming hypothesis.
3. Deduction: Making specific predictions from the general conclusions.
4. Verification: Checking the predictions against further observations.

(reference: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html)

You can say 1 and 2 are somewhat in the realm of mysticism, but it grows out of mysticism once it expands toward the other, following, steps.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
What is internal and what is external?

It is a matter of viewpoint. Most people are stuck with the body's viewpoint.

.
 
Can you articulate their differences?


Metaphysics is that area of general philosophy which deals with questions relating to the non-tangible or non-phenomenal existence. Questions relating to the truth of ideas and the nature of existence in other than a physical sense are matters that lie within the realm of metaphysics.

Questions relating to those matters traditionally ascribed as "spiritual" lie within the philosophical discipline of metaphysics, but, and this is KEY, the discipline of metaphysics is NOT LIMITED to matters "spiritual" as is mysticism.

Mysticism refers to an experiential spiritual path. The term mysticism is also commonly applied to the esoteric teachings of "revelatory schools" of spirituality. There is little in mysticism itself which is derived from strictly philosophic pursuits.

The topic of scientology lies within the realm of metaphysics not mysticism. It is a practical working philosophy dealing with the existence of intangible ideas and their subsequent expression as a spiritual technology.

Some, especially those who over emphasize the importance of the "advanced levels" and minimize the foundation teachings of scientology, regard it as "yet another mystical religion". But this is a mistaken conception as it discounts the philosophic aspects of the the system & over-emphasizes secondary features of the subject.

Scientology is MUCH more like Mahayana Buddhism, a philosophic metaphysical religious practice, than it is like christianity, a mystic & revelatory religion.


Mark A. Baker
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
"mysticism" can be defined as "the basing of conclusions on personal insights that lack external validation".

And "science" is "a set of mental and behavioral methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomenon, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation".



Neither of these two, mysticism or science, is superior to or transcendent of the other. They are two separate considerations. I am making no value judgment here.

Mysticism isn't science until there is external validation, and science isn't mysticism until the understanding involved resides in the realm of personal insight alone.

That mysticism may become science or that science may become mysticism is possible and obvious, but until it becomes science, mysticism is mysticism - and until it becomes mysticism, science is science.

I think what you mean... because you can't possibly actually mean that most science is also mysticism... is that before there can be a body of observable evidence there is sometimes personal insight, which is very true.

But the scientific process is similar to this...
1. Observation: Gathering data through the senses or sensory enhancing technologies.
2. Induction: Drawing general conclusions from the data. Forming hypothesis.
3. Deduction: Making specific predictions from the general conclusions.
4. Verification: Checking the predictions against further observations.

(reference: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html)

You can say 1 and 2 are somewhat in the realm of mysticism, but it grows out of mysticism once it expands toward the other, following, steps.

In my "scientific experience" items 3 and 4 are usually achieved by juggling the figures. It worked for Newton, and is still used to this day.
 
Top