does as-ising actually work?

[strativarius]

Mimsey, about the lady with no episodic memory - fascinating, btw -

Why assume that supposed past life memories are a) autobiographical or b) episodic?

Why assume that there are autobiographical episodic records/memories of periods of unconsciousness?

Why assume these are episodic memories at all?

When I was in scn, there were the actual episodic memories I ran in true life, then the 'others' of supposed past lives that were different, kind of surreal, and I don't believe any of them were actual autobiographical episodic memories. As mentioned, I never had episodic memories of the actual moments of unconsciousness in my life, ever, but my memory is wonderful for conscious events.

How I envy you and your 'wonderful' memory JS.

Yes, I agree, there's a lot of assumptions being made here. As far as I know, science has not satisfactorily answered the question of where and how 'memories' are stored - or if they are 'stored' at all in the usual sense of the word. It's a fascinating subject IMO.

An image of a scene from my childhood popped unbidden into my consciousness the other day. Where has this memory been all this time? I had forgotten all about this experience for over 60 years, and that's what started me off thinking about this subject again recently.

 

[JustSheila]

How I envy you and your 'wonderful' memory JS.

Yes, I agree, there's a lot of assumptions being made here. As far as I know, science has not satisfactorily answered the question of where and how 'memories' are stored - or if they are 'stored' at all in the usual sense of the word. It's a fascinating subject IMO.

An image of a scene from my childhood popped unbidden into my consciousness the other day. Where has this memory been all this time? I had forgotten all about this experience for over 60 years, and that's what started me off thinking about this subject again recently.

Yeh, memory is incredibly fascinating to me, too. When I took psychology classes, I dug everything up I could on it, but there just wasn't enough. Far more questions than answers.

My memory is weak in a lot of areas, too, just like anyone. Like you, some things I hadn't thought of for decades and then FLASH! something IRL triggers the memory and there it is! That's usually how mine works.

I've seen that in those with early Alzheimer's too. One lady in her 90s who couldn't even remember if she ate lunch an hour ago suddenly remembered when she went to Australia from the UK and told me in precise detail her memories of the London bombings in WWII and vivid memories of her mother. The next day, she didn't even remember telling me and the details weren't nearly as clear. Alzheimers folks can often remember very old incidents clearly, but not the more recent things. It is believed their ability to access or form more recent memories is impaired, but that's not quite proven, either. Everything is fragile in the elderly, so IMO, nerve impulses to and from the brain may be, as well. So maybe a trigger gets that impulse jumping between nerves to make the memory accessible and the everyday, mundane things just don't provide enough 'oomph'. Just my guess.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Seriously, Mimsy (and you too, Terril, I know you're going to read this), and the rest of you True Believers: Do you STILL believe that there was ANY substance to LRH's Dianetics & Scientology literature? Do you REALLY believe that His Holy Hubbardness actually DID any research? Do you REALLY STILL believe LRH had any foundation in actual science or scientific method?

Oh god. I am so not a Scientologist of any form any more. I guess you haven't read a bunch of my previous posts - that would be obvious. That said, there are some things I still believe, such as man is a spiritual being, past lives etc. that I picked up from Scientology that make sense, but for different reasons. A) I have been exterior a few times, including prior to scientology B) I have had a whole track recall prior to Scientology, or any exposure to the concept or reincarnation etc.

So I take them as sign posts that a portion of Scientology is for real. I have had some permanent wins from auditing.

So why in hell did I post this thread on as-ising or the one it sprung from, what if it doesn't die?

I feel these are areas that need to be examined, discussed, especially for the newly out, those flying under the radar, or those that are trying to understand what Scientology is about. As-ising is a key that virtually all auditing depends on.

When I first posted here, I was put through the wringer about the definition of reality. Later I came to realize Hubbard's law of the ARC=U triangle doesn't work as he described - something can be very real and you sure understand it, but you don't like it and aren't talking. Like when you find out your spouse cheated on you.

Another was realizing that the term entheta meant simply: Oh oh - bad news. Better not look at that. It has nothing to do with the veracity of the news.

My fishing with a drone thread - I seriously hope people start flying drones over int and drop phones there.

And what if a David Mayo type, who believed in the workability of scientology, but wasn't a sociopath, and took over after COB developed a fear of bending over to pick up soap? What if that person was also a good marketer, like Jeff Hawkins, and pulled the church up by it's boot straps? Ditched the IAS, the RPF and Disconnection, etc. and made going to the orgs happy, not stressful? It's possible it would evolve and survive, much like any god fearing life form on this planet.

It is all part of the process of waking up from living in the bubble.

Mimsey

 

[Gizmo]

This is so very very nicely said by OutToe83.

This is such a wonderful summation of the pointlessness of talking to anyone still mired in mindless cult think. And reminds me that I ought to move on to other pastures & stop trying to have a conversation with those who still want to believe in the infallibility of their guru the Good Doctor Hubbard.

When I first saw this thread earlier, I had my hopes up that some intelligent discussion might be underway. Imagine my disappointment to find that it was just a still-lost soul wandering in the wilderness, trying to find his way out using LRH's roadmap with imaginary signposts.

I don't mean to disparage the very intelligent contributions to the thread, but...honestly, people, trying to portray reality in the context of Rabid Ron's fantasies is like...I dunno, maybe like trying to explain natural phenomena like wind and rain to someone who will only hear it in the context of the will and/or voice of the appropriate gods. Those who still give any credence to Ron's wrongings (as opposed to writings) after ample opportunity to figure out what a complete charlatan Ron was, are not going to hear any explanation except through El Ron's filter.

Seriously, Mimsy (and you too, Terril, I know you're going to read this), and the rest of you True Believers: Do you STILL believe that there was ANY substance to LRH's Dianetics & Scientology literature? Do you REALLY believe that His Holy Hubbardness actually DID any research? Do you REALLY STILL believe LRH had any foundation in actual science or scientific method?
Do you ACTUALLY think there were 275 Clears, cleared before Book 1 was published, that never got sick and had perfect recall on their Whole Track? SERIOUSLY!?

I mean, HONESTLY, WTF!!?? What does it TAKE for you to let go of the blatant fantasy of LRH actually researching and mapping the human mind and spirit and discovering the History of Man, and all the rest!? Good GRIEF, people, his freakin' lies and scams have been documented from here to the moon--no, I mean, from here to Venus! Or do you believe freight trains run on Venus too?

Those aren't rhetorical questions. I actually want to know if you credit Ron's writings with ANY plausibility, so I can know whether it's even worth my time to TRY to talk to you. I've long since given up on trying to talk to people who are trapped in dogma so thoroughly that reality doesn't intrude--can't get past their filters. I grew up with that syndrome, although I don't pretend to understand it. In the time and place I grew up, it wasn't unusual to meet respectable people (not homeless crazies) who still believed the Earth (and Universe) is ~6,000 years old. Different dogma, same syndrome. Can't get past the filter. ( I still suspect some of them believed the Earth is flat.)

I actually had something I wanted to say in relation to the OP--not an answer, per se, because it's a nonsense question, but it brought up a different point I think is worthwhile taking about. After reading this thread and all the Scientologese bandied about, I decided that anything I bring up is going to be cached in context of As-Ising and totally lost. This thread, imho, has muddied up the water, stirred up the mud, and fogged the air on reality so thoroughly that reality can be hard to see now.
So I'm going to bide my time and see if I can find an opportunity to bring it up in a different thread that can at least start out unpolluted.

 

[Churchill]

Mimsey, FWIW here's what I think:

If by as-ising, you mean to ask, "Is it possible to fully examine a traumatic event from the past, and thus experience a therapeutic relief...I would say definitely YES.
This is the most basic therapeutic model, and I think it accounts for 100% of whatever gains we experienced in lower level auditing.
It explains the FZ's continued allegiance to "the tek" and is one of the "endless loops" one encounters when trying to deconstruct the Scientology mindfuck.

Hubbard's language of "is-ness, alter-isness, as-isness, and not-isness is an utter intellectual and rhetorical trap designed to foster acceptance of his ideas. Nothing more.

But his Machiavellian brilliance was really on display at the "upper levels" where false memories are created, then "erased".

At a cost of tens of thousands of dollars. It is, as they say, a helluvahoax!

The "erasure" of non-existent events and entities (BT's) is a central feature of the Scientology Mindfuck.

It is False Memory Syndrome, and imo, all Scientologists suffer from it.

Take a look at www.fmsfonline.org/index.php

'The only way to distinguish between true and false memories is by external corroboration"

Will someone, anyone...please tell me the name of just one Scientologist who dug up the gold that was buried in a past life?

Hey, I really hope this helps.

 

[strativarius]

<snip>

And what if a David Mayo type, who believed in the workability of scientology, but wasn't a sociopath, and took over after COB developed a fear of bending over to pick up soap? What if that person was also a good marketer, like Jeff Hawkins, and pulled the church up by it's boot straps? Ditched the IAS, the RPF and Disconnection, etc. and made going to the orgs happy, not stressful? It's possible it would evolve and survive, much like any god fearing life form on this planet.

Mimsey

You said pretty much the same thing a few days ago to which I responded, and I say the same thing again. What is the point? Even if Mother Teresa (sorry trubs) took over the CofS it wouldn't make it any more viable, effective or ethical. It started out as a scam and it still is one.

Tell me this. Why would anyone want to go to an org and stare at another person as they sat 'a comfortable distance apart', or shout at ashtrays, or talk to non-existent space-cooties supposedly stuck to their bodies and pay a high price for the privilege knowing (thanks to the Internet) what they know now?

I don't know Mimsey, sometimes you sound very much like a scientologist to me.

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

Mimsey, FWIW here's what I think:

If by as-ising, you mean to ask, "Is it possible to fully examine a traumatic event from the past, and thus experience a therapeutic relief...I would say definitely YES.
This is the most basic therapeutic model, and I think it accounts for 100% of whatever gains we experienced in lower level auditing.
It explains the FZ's continued allegiance to "the tek" and is one of the "endless loops" one encounters when trying to deconstruct the Scientology mindfuck.

Hubbard's language of "is-ness, alter-isness, as-isness, and not-isness is an utter intellectual and rhetorical trap designed to foster acceptance of his ideas. Nothing more.

But his Machiavellian brilliance was really on display at the "upper levels" where false memories are created, then "erased".

At a cost of tens of thousands of dollars. It is, as they say, a helluvahoax!

The "erasure" of non-existent events and entities (BT's) is a central feature of the Scientology Mindfuck.

It is False Memory Syndrome, and imo, all Scientologists suffer from it.

Take a look at www.fmsfonline.org/index.php

'The only way to distinguish between true and false memories is by external corroboration"

Will someone, anyone...please tell me the name of just one Scientologist who dug up the gold that was buried in a past life?

Hey, I really hope this helps.

well said

Hubbard constructed a reactive mind, transferred that idea to other minds through his book Dianetics
then proceeded to sell the solutions on how to rid yourself of this construct.

There is level cleverness to the con and yet a cynical and sinister one that becomes more
easily seen as the bedrock of the subject which is "the engram" with its proposed chain of
incidents, it's just more construct and eventually like a house of cards falls under it's own
weight of assumptions that are false but yet support each other.

That gives rise to the importance of agreement that is proposed as the underlying principle
of actuality, aRc.

The most dangerous thing there is to any such construct is disagreement and or criticism
showing the weakness of scientology in its utter fear and massive power and strength
of the so called SP and the ability with simple connection and proximity to a few words
can destroy the so called wins and gains of years and years and thousands of dollars and
time spent and dedicated.

Anything so vulnerable, so subject to simple utterances or attitudes by another person
can hardly have any true value.

Castles in the Sand melts into the Sea Eventually..Jimi Hendrix

ps.. to answer the original question a simple "no" as it is simply one
card in the house of cards constructed by The WhoBird

 

[I told you I was trouble]

It's good to discuss these things on occasion especially for the newbies and lurkers but what always seems to happen has already happened on this thread ... an over zealous indie will leap at the opportunity to jump into his pulpit and start to preach his brand ... true discussion dies (or doesn't even begin) and it becomes a battle of wills yet again.

On this thread both Mimsey and Paul were being "pulled back into the tekky fold" (by an indie) with the use of "acknowledgement and validation" and an insulting comment (aimed at true exes) that was meant to be divisive and continue to create an "us and them" vibe (Mimsey ignored it which was really good to see) because indies want company in their madness and can sense (as many of us can) when someone is losing faith in the tek.

One of the absolute joys of being on ESMB is watching people ridding themselves of the indoctrination, especially when the person has been deeply entrenched ... but having to also watch indies attempting to re-indoctrinate is soul destroying and is why I wish people would be more careful about allowing indies to "befriend" them especially in the early stages of joining ESMB because they will impede progress out of cultic thinking and make it so much harder to get clean.

 

[JustSheila]

Gestalt brought up visual illusions caused by our brains trying to create an 'entire picture' out of seeing a few odd things. Our minds tend to group similar things as 'belonging together' and a visual illusion is created when our brains fill in the blanks of what 'should be there.'http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~willia55/120/Gestalt%20Perception-Spr2010.pdf

This is what I believe happens with 'past life memories' and 'unconscious memories.' There may be some true physical perceptions, but IMO, the mind then fills in the blanks to try to make a sensible, autobiographic memory of an incident, rather than leave some stray perceptions or nonsensical thoughts lying about.

I think something similar occurs when successive generations of rats learn what their parents learned far more quickly.http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/blog/rat-learning-and-morphic-resonance

They can't remember what they've never seen or personally experienced. LaMarck Inheritance Theory is ruled out. One theory is Rupert Sheldrake's 'Morphic Resonance Theory':

Sheldrake's A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance (1981) proposed that through "morphic resonance", various perceived phenomena, particularly biological ones, become more probable the more often they occur, and that biological growth and behaviour thus become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events. As a result, he suggested, newly-acquired behaviours can be passed down to future generations − a biological proposition akin to the Lamarckian inheritance theory. He generalised this approach to assert that it explains many aspects of science, from evolution to the laws of nature which, in Sheldrake's formulation, are merely mutable habits that have been evolving and changing since the Big Bang.[SUP][47][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake


This idea is popular in the New Age community and promoted by Deepak Chopra, but it is not considered scientific and has little acceptance in the scientific community. It is considered psuedoscience or magical thinking. Richard Dawkins, author of 'The God Delusion,' was one of Sheldrake's biggest critics. Steven Rose, a neuroscientist, discredited Sheldrake's statements that there was any neuroscientific basis for Sheldrake's statements of the survival of memories. In his response, Rose tells Sheldrake to "get his facts straight", explaining the research and concluding that "there is no way that this straightforward and impressive body of evidence can be taken to imply that memories are not in the brain, still less that the brain is tuning into some indeterminate, undefined, resonating and extra-corporeal field" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

For a great discussion of Sheldrake's theory, see http://www.integralworld.net/smith45.html

Udarnik offered a far more practical line of reasoning, the turning on and shutting off of traits already present in the genes, which actually does occur. He has a post on this, which I'll try to find and re-post. As an example, an animal can temporarily increase its ability to run while temporarily shutting down unnecessary extra sex drive. So how does this relate to memories of unconscious moments or past lives?

Maybe genes for some perceptions can be 'turned on' and enhanced while depressing others. And maybe having some perceptions enhanced while others are depressed might mean a distorted, partial concept with which the human brain grapples to fill in the gaps to make into a valid, sensible memory acceptable to a thinking, rational mind.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

You said pretty much the same thing a few days ago to which I responded, and I say the same thing again. What is the point? Even if Mother Theresa (sorry trubs) took over the CofS it wouldn't make it any more viable, effective or ethical. It started out as a scam and it still is one.

Tell me this. Why would anyone want to go to an org and stare at another person as they sat 'a comfortable distance apart', or shout at ashtrays, or talk to non-existent space-cooties supposedly stuck to their bodies and pay a high price for the privilege knowing (thanks to the Internet) what they know now?

I don't know Mimsey, sometimes you sound very much like a scientologist to me.

I can well imagine I do sound like one - I was on lines since 1966, and I did the briefing course, the ot levels up to ot 7, and donoed over $120 K to the IAS, which I am still paying interest on the loans I got to give them that kinda dough. I am over the betrayal, and if my posting can help anyone avoid falling in the trap, I'm happy to use my experience to guide them.

The problem with Scientology is that people keep on joining despite horrible PR on the net. Many people think it will die off. I am not so certain it will. I don't want it to live, but to believe it will die, and the cash it stole will be returned, Misacavage will have his day in court, is a bubble no different than the scientologists live in, waiting for Ron to return from Target 2 and save the day.

I did those things - putting intention in ash trays, auditing from the most basic stuff up to the running of BT's, and I did it because I was having wins, and I thought Ron was right. Time and places like ESMB have disabused me of that.

But that's why were are here - to help people avoid the trap.

Mimsey

 

[George Layton]

All these years later & after looking at so much more in other things, I'd say this :
there may be a better way of saying it : scientology "auditing" largely {{ if not completely ! }} depends on the belief in it by the person involved in it - period.
I tend to suspect that at least 85% of any system working IS the belief of the person in whatever is being done.

Voodoo ? People fall over & die, right ? or fall in love, right ? Or are cued of some malady, right ?

Prayer ? Some people have miracle cures of cancer, right ? Some people get a job, right ? Or a home? Right !

Meditation ? Some people feel cured of illnesses or achieve calmness or whatever right ?

Faith Healing ? Some claim to walk again after laying of the hands by a faith healer - or be cured of cancer, right ?

And so on down the list of nutrition or medical or whatever one uses to heal themselves. All works - for some people.

All that & more " happens ". People with cancer come back to the doctor with NO signs of cancer anymore & their whatever they believed in , uh, cured it - right ?

Now scientology ? Yeah, same deal, some people got " cured " of this that or the other, but, like all the other ways IT WAS NOT REPEATABLE with any prediction of this will fix that each & every time, period.

Now R3R, NED or whatever erase NOTHING. Run a broken arm, over & over & " erase " it. Oh, can you still remember you broke your arm ? Yep. WTF got erased ? Nothing !

I guess it is OK to " believe " scientology / dianetics / bts & clusters & whatever else one wants to cover will be
" erased ", but that " erasure "- in the real world outside the delusion of the cult - just is not true.

Some will come argue in favor of the tech that oh scientology on " keys out " things & they can be pulled " back in " - OK, where in the " tek " is the way to achieve stability & not get right back to where one started in the first place ? Hello ? A glass of wine will do that 'key out' too...

While I'm on that, The good Doctor Hubbard said the " thetan " leaving the body on death weighted 1/2 an ounce ( nevermind he flat STOLE that from other real doctors work ).

So answer me this ; As a thetan leaves the body and 1/2 ounce weight change PROVES there is a thetan ( according to the good Dr. Hubbard ) on the OT levels when people are blowing off THOUSANDS of BTs & CLUSTERS how come they are not losing MASSIVE amounts of weight ?

3 or 4 thousand BTs & clusters ( these ARE thetans, remember ) blow & there is no visible weight loss ? audit 5 years, 10 years, 15 years or longer on OT 7 & no visible weight loss !

How can that be?

The other thing is on R3R or NED one did not run pleasure moments " because they would not erase ". Stop & think, please ! If this will " run out " how come that will not " run out " ?

Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! ' splain that please ?

And, again, who really ever recalled a damn thing from a time when they were truly unconscious ? Not imagined made up BS, but, honest-to-God remember what happened while they were unconscious.
According to dianetics, that always happens in auditing, but, really, does it ?

So, bottom line, anything somebody believe in will work. Once again, anything you believe in will work for you, period.

Oh , You always had the power? Yes.

Oh , You never needed a guru ? Yes.

Oh , your spiritual path is your spiritual path ( if you choose to pursue it ) & there is no " one path " for everyone ? Yes !

But, are some people going to follow Dr Hubbard & walk his path instead of their own ? Oh hell yes - and they are entitled to do that !

Oh! I know the answer to this one. You see an IQ point weighs exactly 1/2 ounce (I know this to be fact because there have been plenty of documented tests and they can be found with hubbard's documents of his work on dianetics) and every time a BT is blown the PC (this stands for Post Clear in this documented case) gains one IQ point. It's really all part of the self balancing thetsverse.

 

[strativarius]

I can well imagine I do sound like one - I was on lines since 1966, and I did the briefing course, the ot levels up to ot 7, and donoed over $120 K to the IAS, which I am still paying interest on the loans I got to give them that kinda dough. I am over the betrayal, and if my posting can help anyone avoid falling in the trap, I'm happy to use my experience to guide them.

The problem with Scientology is that people keep on joining despite horrible PR on the net. Many people think it will die off. I am not so certain it will. I don't want it to live, but to believe it will die, and the cash it stole will be returned, Misacavage will have his day in court, is a bubble no different than the scientologists live in, waiting for Ron to return from Target 2 and save the day.

I did those things - putting intention in ash trays, auditing from the most basic stuff up to the running of BT's, and I did it because I was having wins, and I thought Ron was right. Time and places like ESMB have disabused me of that.

But that's why were are here - to help people avoid the trap.

Mimsey

Anyone who forked out those huge sums of money for training and processing has my commiserations. I was 'fortunate' in that I managed to get to OTI and train as a Class IV auditor without it costing me a penny - leaving aside the fact that I was working full-time in an org and being paid a pittance, and lucky to get even that on occasion. The sense of hurt and betrayal must be much worse for people who handed over large amounts after being blatantly lied to.

I first got involved in scientology in 1963 or thereabouts, but I had from 1975 until I signed on here in 2014 to detoxify myself, and I did that by just living a 'normal' life among 'normal' people (if you can call croupiers 'normal' people ).

 

[George Layton]

Oh god. I am so not a Scientologist of any form any more. I guess you haven't read a bunch of my previous posts - that would be obvious. That said, there are some things I still believe, such as man is a spiritual being, past lives etc. that I picked up from Scientology that make sense, but for different reasons. A) I have been exterior a few times, including prior to scientology B) I have had a whole track recall prior to Scientology, or any exposure to the concept or reincarnation etc.

So I take them as sign posts that a portion of Scientology is for real. I have had some permanent wins from auditing.

So why in hell did I post this thread on as-ising or the one it sprung from, what if it doesn't die?

I feel these are areas that need to be examined, discussed, especially for the newly out, those flying under the radar, or those that are trying to understand what Scientology is about. As-ising is a key that virtually all auditing depends on.

When I first posted here, I was put through the wringer about the definition of reality. Later I came to realize Hubbard's law of the ARC=U triangle doesn't work as he described - something can be very real and you sure understand it, but you don't like it and aren't talking. Like when you find out your spouse cheated on you.

Another was realizing that the term entheta meant simply: Oh oh - bad news. Better not look at that. It has nothing to do with the veracity of the news.

My fishing with a drone thread - I seriously hope people start flying drones over int and drop phones there.

And what if a David Mayo type, who believed in the workability of scientology, but wasn't a sociopath, and took over after COB developed a fear of bending over to pick up soap? What if that person was also a good marketer, like Jeff Hawkins, and pulled the church up by it's boot straps? Ditched the IAS, the RPF and Disconnection, etc. and made going to the orgs happy, not stressful? It's possible it would evolve and survive, much like any god fearing life form on this planet.

It is all part of the process of waking up from living in the bubble.

Mimsey

Here is something you can try out. Each time you read "hubbard said..." or hear "hubbard said...", believe that it's bullshit. scientology is the redefinition of what hubbard stole to make it look like his own ideas. All of the experiences you mention above have been described elsewhere, before hubbard was even born. Why try to relate them to scientology rather than read some history on them?

I have seen a few people state that they are no longer scientologists in these threads but I don't believe they realize how deep it has dug in.

 

[Elronius of Marcabia]

It's good to discuss these things on occasion especially for the newbies and lurkers but what always seems to happen has already happened on this thread ... an over zealous indie will leap at the opportunity to jump into his pulpit and start to preach his brand ... true discussion dies (or doesn't even begin) and it becomes a battle of wills yet again.

On this thread both Mimsey and Paul were being "pulled back into the tekky fold" (by an indie) with the use of "acknowledgement and validation" and an insulting comment (aimed at true exes) that was meant to be divisive and continue to create an "us and them" vibe (Mimsey ignored it which was really good to see) because indies want company in their madness and can sense (as many of us can) when someone is losing faith in the tek.

One of the absolute joys of being on ESMB is watching people ridding themselves of the indoctrination, especially when the person has been deeply entrenched ... but having to also watch indies attempting to re-indoctrinate is soul destroying and is why I wish people would be more careful about allowing indies to "befriend" them especially in the early stages of joining ESMB because they will impede progress out of cultic thinking and make it so much harder to get clean.

Yes and so...
The discussion quickly leaves Scientology of which there is only one true brand,.. what Hubbard wrote
and whether it's Leonism or Mimseyism or a thousand other brands in this so called "Freezone".

It is ironic and I would suppose frustrating to the free enterprisers to be told to think for
themselves and when they begin to do that, the choich calls them squirrels SP's and worse.

And the rest of us tell them they can't call that Scientology .

All can say is how fortunate I feel not to have to construct or deconstruct or defend or attack
or get in or out of Scentology or be an EX or Indie.

I simply have a take and anyone can do with it what they will, use it lose it or abuse it
I speak from no point of authority or expertise other than my own experience and
conclusions after a little bit more than 6 decades of living and learning hopefully growing
and maturing and gaining whatever small portion of wisdom may be mine to claim.

Thats the beauty of being , shall we say advanced in years little left to lose
and even less to prove

 

[Gizmo]

Ah, and as we get into old age & start NOT remembering things ? Sometimes a younger person was there with us & says " Oh, yes, so & so was there & you met them. We all ate roast chicken, etc etc etc ".

And we don't remember that happening ! Will auditing " recover " that memory ? oh, just ask ANY auditor who had older PC's for how it was to audit them & " find " things !

Not made us BS, real this LT events - you know - REAL things.

This thing scientology calls auditing holds up to NO scrutiny whatsoever - just doesn't.

Please folks, put down that fucking cult KoolAid & live, for once, try living your own life . . . . . ( for real a change !)

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Yes and so...
The discussion quickly leaves Scientology of which there is only one true brand,.. what Hubbard wrote
and whether it's Leonism or Mimseyism or a thousand other brands in this so called "Freezone".

Mimseyism - the world's smallest cult, consisting of one guru/adherent. Love it!!!

 

[Leon-2]

You said pretty much the same thing a few days ago to which I responded, and I say the same thing again. What is the point? Even if Mother Theresa (sorry trubs) took over the CofS it wouldn't make it any more viable, effective or ethical. It started out as a scam and it still is one.

This is the funniest one from you yet, Stratty. Oh my goodness

fact is Mother Theresa was a bitch from hell. Read and hear the reports of nuns who left her order.

First of all: Her goodness and kindness extended only to women in Calcutta, never to men.

Second, those women were compelled to leave their religions and adopt Catholicism.

Thirdly, the nuns in her order worked like slaves and were totally mistreated all the way.

Fourthly, when the pope and his henchman recognized the money potential of this "saint" they (a) turned on the PR machine and got her promoted all over the world as a modern day saint; and (b) she obligingly turned on the money taps by touring all over the place pretending to be whatever degraded image inspired dupes to hand over huge sums of money. NONE of that money went to the welfare of the the nuns who were doing the work.

Put her in charge of CofS??? The dwarf would LOVE IT. It's exactly the kind of money-raking reg that he wants more of.

 

[RogerB]

Snipped . . .

I think something similar occurs when successive generations of rats learn what their parents learned far more quickly.http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/blog/rat-learning-and-morphic-resonance

They can't remember what they've never seen or personally experienced. LaMarck Inheritance Theory is ruled out. One theory is Rupert Sheldrake's 'Morphic Resonance Theory':



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake


This idea is popular in the New Age community and promoted by Deepak Chopra, but it is not considered scientific and has little acceptance in the scientific community. It is considered psuedoscience or magical thinking. Richard Dawkins, author of 'The God Delusion,' was one of Sheldrake's biggest critics. Steven Rose, a neuroscientist, discredited Sheldrake's statements that there was any neuroscientific basis for Sheldrake's statements of the survival of memories. In his response, Rose tells Sheldrake to "get his facts straight", explaining the research and concluding that "there is no way that this straightforward and impressive body of evidence can be taken to imply that memories are not in the brain, still less that the brain is tuning into some indeterminate, undefined, resonating and extra-corporeal field" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

For a great discussion of Sheldrake's theory, see http://www.integralworld.net/smith45.html

Udarnik offered a far more practical line of reasoning, the turning on and shutting off of traits already present in the genes, which actually does occur. He has a post on this, which I'll try to find and re-post. As an example, an animal can temporarily increase its ability to run while temporarily shutting down unnecessary extra sex drive. So how does this relate to memories of unconscious moments or past lives?

Maybe genes for some perceptions can be 'turned on' and enhanced while depressing others. And maybe having some perceptions enhanced while others are depressed might mean a distorted, partial concept with which the human brain grapples to fill in the gaps to make into a valid, sensible memory acceptable to a thinking, rational mind.

On Rupert Sheldrake's quality as a scientist . . . he is far more qualified, credible and honest than those who blindly follow the dogma line and criticize him based on nothing more than that his, a) actual discoveries of real facts of nature and, b) his hypotheses, are in conflict with held dogma that has never been proved. Both of these published points by Sheldrake are outside the box of their limited beliefs.

He actually has a brilliant record of proven discoveries . . . better than any of the theoreticians who run round spouting conventional wisdom, dogma and their competing-with-each-other theories.

I first ran in to him when he appeared in . . .

www.sheldrake.org › videos

Rupert Sheldrake

In this 1993 documentary on PBS, Journalist Wim Kayzer interviewed Oliver Sacks, Daniel C. Dennett, Stephen Jay Gould, Rupert Sheldrake, Freeman Dyson, ...

I became a fan and have followed him since . . . if you want to see how idiotic, and buffoonishly rude, his critics are watch the above show and see Stephen Jay Gould's arrogance . . . and that from a bum who, while he may have been the professorial expert at Harvard on Charles Darwin and Darwin's writings on evolution . . . the bum was only that. He discovered nothing in his career that advanced real science or our knowledge . . . his claim to fame is a theory purported to explain why there are periods of apparent stability in the evolution of species . . . heh!?

Sheldrake's brilliant exposure that materialistic science's emperor has no clothes, and his handling of his critics is here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/tedx-whitechapel-the-banned-talk

To get to grips with the magnitude of his actual scientific work and contributions to knowledge and its advancement, I do recommend his book in the USA:
Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery
In the UK and EU: The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry
Same book . . . just that the publishers wanted different titles for each market.

Sheldrake has actually made several major discoveries that have advanced the science of biology, the working of plant structures, developed new edible crop species that grow in arid areas, and more importantly has discovered why and how human cells divide and die to pass on survival to the "daughter cells" . . . and this last trick is a major discovery that is now being developed for the benefit of the healing arts in medicine.

Rog

 

[strativarius]

This is the funniest one from you yet, Stratty. Oh my goodness

fact is Mother Theresa was a bitch from hell. Read and hear the reports of nuns who left her order.

Yes, I know Leon, I got a kicking from ITYIWT the other day for using her as an example of a morally spotless person despite the fact that I knew full-well she wasn't one.

Christopher Hitchens wrote a book about her. The Missionary Position. Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.

 

[DagwoodGum]

It only works upon monies on account and church related "case gain".