Even the nicest CofS policies and HCOBs have ulterior motives, BUT...

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
The question is irrelevant. This is an open forum where everybody can state their opinion. Everybody is free to agree or disagree with mine. If Claire opens a thread here, I'm sure she doesn't expect everybody to give theta replies, as she knows this is ESMB and not Martworld. Those who post on pro-LRH forums are not interested in open discussions, so what would be the point telling them something they don't want to hear? Peace.

No, you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm talking about the relative validity of different viewpoints not whether or not discussion between them is profitable.

Let me put it another way?

1 / Do you believe, or do you not believe, that you can evaluate the Tech, and have evaluated the Tech, better and more definitively than they (John, Dexter, Ralph etc.) have?

2 / Have you formed an opinion of LRH which is more accurate than theirs?

If so, how would you demonstrate that to be the case?

I know it seems like I'm picking on you here, but shot through probably the vast bulk of the posts I read on here are these very two assumptions; that those who believe they're using the Tech to help themselves and others are just deluded fools whereas we've seen the Light concerning Hubbard and the Tech.

Not all positions are equally true, or we'd all still be going round thinking that the Earth is flat and the Universe was created 6000 years ago.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

I know it seems like I'm picking on you here, but shot through probably the vast bulk of the posts I read on here are these very two assumptions; that those who believe they're using the Tech to help themselves and others are just deluded fools whereas we've seen the Light concerning Hubbard and the Tech.

-snip-

If you don't mind me asking, how much auditing have you done?

I've audited - outside the CofS - everything from ARC S/W to Dianetics, to Lower Grades, to NOTs, to discontinued processes from the 1950s, and even experimental auditing on such things as addressing a (supposed) "ARC break" between the "higher" and "lower" self, plus a "Grand Tour"/exteriorization type process from before Scientology (1911), and other experimental exteriorization processes.

What have you done?

Have you - while outside the CofS - ever started a new "pc" and followed through with a program that took the person from scratch to Dianetics and Grade IV release, and even resulted in the "pc" originating that he was "Clear"? I have, and I did all my own C/Sing, except at the end when I sent the person to another auditor to have a quick review of all past auditing and to have his "Power Processes."

I've never said that Scientology was, "all a heap of toxic goo."

And it's odd that you assert that I said such a thing.

So, what auditing - outside the CofS - have you done?

P.S. I ask, since both you and Terril seem to have your panties in a knot over this "auditing" business but, as far as I can see, both of you have done very little auditing.
 
Last edited:

Captain Koolaid

Patron Meritorious
Originally posted by Veda

I've never said that Scientology was, "all a heap of toxic goo."

No, I said that.

Originally posted by Cat's Squirrel

1 / Do you believe, or do you not believe, that you can evaluate the Tech, and have evaluated the Tech, better and more definitively than they (John, Dexter, Ralph etc.) have?

2 / Have you formed an opinion of LRH which is more accurate than theirs?

1 / Comparing the promised results with actual results I'd say people who praise the tech are unable to do that (Comparing) Little bits do work, but they are either common sense or ripped off from other sources.

2 / Yes. They have been indoctrinated from the beginning, they never had an unbiased point of view to begin with. That means they are unable to form an unbiased opinion and view everything about Hubbard through a filter. I don't call that accuracy.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Well, I still think that some of the specific critiques, for example the good roads/good weather- just tend to be flawed.

When all's said and done, I'd rather not get too into identities, cults, labels. I did that for so long and it was ok for awhile, but I'm no longer doing that.

But, again, I think that calling good roads good weather "lying", which has been said, is unduly critical and harsh. What I mean to say is I think you can criticize something that is completely problematic and still indicate when the stopped clock really was right.

Not everyone agrees with me. They might venture to say that it's like observing that Mussolini got the trains to run on time... that it's a deflection or something. But me, I would rather get uber precise with critiques and mention times when I thought things went rather well.

I believe that people have an innate tendency to not want to look at negatives in re situations or people who they like, whom they believe to be mainly positive, and conversely, to not want to look at positives in situations or people who they consider to be mainly abusive or problematic. I just don't exactly see it that way, though.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
1 / Comparing the promied results with actual results I'd say people who praise the tech are unable to do that (Comparing) Little bits do work, but they are either common sense or ripped off from other sources..

I'd say it was more than "little bits", but apart from that I don't have a problem with what you call "rip-offs." I have a problem with copyrights where data concerning the mind and spirit is concerned.

I agree with Pilot (RIP) on this; once you've learnt something, it's yours. What you should pay for when you go for auditing (or counselling if you prefer) and training, is the time and effort of the person you're seeking help from, and also his or her experience in knowing which technique to use and how to do it effectively. The data itself ought to come free, just as knowledge of engineering comes free if you can find someone, or perhaps a library, to borrow an engineering textbook from. :)

If you can read, say, the Upanishads and gain enlightenment from that action, then great, and even better if you can work out a way of helping others with the data you've learned, and IMO the same should apply with anything in the Tech. The Church mightn't agree, but that's their problem not ours.

2 / Yes. They have been indoctrinated from the beginning, they never had an unbiased point of view to begin with. That means they are unable to form an unbiased opinion and view everything about Hubbard through a filter. I don't call that accuracy.

Nor would I, if it was a fair description of what happens. In practice though, the indoctrination (which I do agree exists) holds together, if it does, because it builds on at least a thin stratum of observed workability.

For example, I walked into Steve's kitchen one day and saw a woman (whom I didn't especially like btw) sitting on a sofa looking absolutely radiant - a look you pretty much never see in normal life. The next thing I saw was her auditor bringing a Clear Certainty pack into the room for her to look at.

I also recall the then girlfriend of one of Steve's housemates (an attractive and pleasant Greek girl) telling me she'd just finished her Life Repair, and how she hadn't slept that night because it would be "too boring" to go to sleep.

Just two examples, from my admittedly short time in the FZ.
 
Last edited:

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
If you don't mind me asking, how much auditing have you done?

I've audited - outside the CofS - everything from ARC S/W to Dianetics, to Lower Grades, to NOTs, to discontinued processes from the 1950s, and even experimental auditing on such things as addressing a (supposed) "ARC break" between the "higher" and "lower" self, plus a "Grand Tour"/exteriorization type process from before Scientology (1911), and other experimental exteriorization processes.

What have you done?

Have you - while outside the CofS - ever started a new "pc" and followed through with a program that took the person from scratch to Dianetics and Grade IV release, and even resulted in the "pc" originating that he was "Clear"? I have, and I did all my own C/Sing, except at the end when I sent the person to another auditor to have a quick review of all past auditing and to have his "Power Processes."

I've never said that Scientology was, "all a heap of toxic goo."

And it's odd that you assert that I said such a thing.

So, what auditing - outside the CofS - have you done?

P.S. I ask, since both you and Terril seem to have your panties in a knot over this "auditing" business but, as far as I can see, both of you have done very little auditing.

You win this one, but unfortunately it doesn't prove anything. I knew people in the FZ who bought into the OT III story lock, stock and barrel (whereas I'm convinced it 's a load of rubbish) whose Tech knowledge and experience far outstrips mine. I still maintain I have a right to hold a contrary opinion to theirs.

The same is true of NOTs; I have severe doubts about the validity of the NOTs theory and methodology, but I know people who believe in it and also have a considerable amount of auditing experience to buttress their faith in it. So surely I have the right to hold a contrary opinion when the flow goes the other way, i.e. when I think better of the Tech than someone with more hands-on experience of it than I have?

What needs to happen for these questions to be settled, but won't, is for the likes of Ralph and Dex to come here and duke it out with those who think less well of the Tech than they do. They won't or don't see the point, so it's up to minnows like me to attempt it if we want. Crazy really.

BTW, I apologise if I got your view of the Tech wrong but since you think it's odd that I should think you said such a thing (which I accept you didn't in so many words), I would appreciate it if you could point out posts of yours where you've spoken favourably of any actions on the Bridge and any ideas LRH got right. In my quick scan through your most recent posts, I couldn't find any.
 
Last edited:
Top