Ex-member of the CoS- Brian Cox

[Gadfly]

Three days ago Brian wrote this:

".....And as a matter of opinion, yeah I've met people definitely seem to represent Clear and OT phenomenon to me".


And I replied the same day with this...

"In your opinion, how does someone seem to represent Clear and OT phenomenon?

This is a sincere question. I'm not going to invalidate whatever your answer is. I truly want to know. If you are hesitant to answer in the open then feel free to PM me".

He has posted quite a bit over the past three days, but he hasn't answered the question. No Scientologist has ever answered this question that I know of, whether an active CoSer, Freezoner, or Independent. That's because there is no "Clear phenomenon" and there is certainly no "OT phenomenon". So why do they still at times suggest that there is when even they know it's BS? I have to assume Brian knows it's BS because he won't answer.

Delusional. Just plain delusional.

Carry on....

Sure, there are Clear and OT Phenomena.

The PC sits down at the Examiner, the little index card is placed on the E-meter stand, and the Examiner asks the PC, "Do you want to attest to the State of Clear?" The PC says "yes", and the needle floats.

There was phenomena there.

E-meter phenomena!

The Church of Scientology, the auditor, the Examiner, the Qual Division, the "cert", and all those who clapped at the announcement of attaining the State of Clear validated this "State of Clear". That reinforces the idea that "it must be true". There is a great deal of "reinforcement" in Scientology, both positive and negative. Desired behaviors get loads of validation and acknowledgement, while the undesirable behaviors get invalidated, attacked, and criticized heavily. Threats of heavy ethics and disconnection are severe forms of negative reinforcement.

An interesting study of Scientology can be done from this aspect of behavioral conditioning, and both positive and negative reinforcement. Hubbard institutionalized such things through his organzation, and the policies and orders the Scientology organization is built upon.

This is just another of many contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard talks on and on about how bad "behaviorism" is, but then incorporates a very detailed and complex behavioral control system into his subject and organization. A doctoral student in psychology could easily write a dissertation on how Scientology uses various methods found in behaviorism.

It is so very ironic, because many of the very ideas and practices that Hubbard (pretends) to criticize (i.e. psychology, behaviorism) exist all throughout Scientology. In Scientology, there is no end to the hypocrisy.

 

[Jquepublic]

Trufax: the other day, I was standing in line at the checkout and I realized I had forgotten to get ziplock bags. I really needed them, but the line was long and I didn't want to get out of it and stand there for another half hour to check out, so I kept thinking how great it would be if someone took some out of their cart and left them on the counter. I got to the front of the line and don't you know, there was a box of ziplock bags sitting there. They were a different brand and a little larger size than I wanted, but beggers/choosers - I snapped them up.

In Scientology, I would have considered that an OT win or a demonstration of OT phenomena - I mocked up the ziplock bags that I needed. Now, I chalk it up to good, old fashioned luck of the Irish!

 

[Lone Star]

Trufax: the other day, I was standing in line at the checkout and I realized I had forgotten to get ziplock bags. I really needed them, but the line was long and I didn't want to get out of it and stand there for another half hour to check out, so I kept thinking how great it would be if someone took some out of their cart and left them on the counter. I got to the front of the line and don't you know, there was a box of ziplock bags sitting there. They were a different brand and a little larger size than I wanted, but beggers/choosers - I snapped them up.

In Scientology, I would have considered that an OT win or a demonstration of OT phenomena - I mocked up the ziplock bags that I needed. Now, I chalk it up to good, old fashioned luck of the Irish!

Yes, I've read similar accounts written up in Source Magazine. You know the ones, making traffic lights turn green at the right time, running late but still getting there just in time, causing a co-worker who's always hated you to smile one day, etc....

I guess I've had the answer to my questions all along. I've just been too damn woggy to get it.

 

[Gadfly]

Re: Love and the Tone Scale and other Scn "tech"

I disagree that Hubbard doesn't mention love or compassion. He does mention it in his writings, often very movingly.

Well, being the extreme blowhard that he was, Hubbard mentioned just about anything within his painfully excessive writings and lectures. If you want to find an LRH reference on just about any subject, you probably can. Just because he mentions something doesn't mean that it has much or anything to do with the general philosophy or practices of Scientology.

Love and compassion are insignificant and meaningless footnotes to the subject and practices of Scientology.

While some other New Age subjects spend a great deal of time with these concepts, and consider them very important and KEY to spiritual growth, that is NOT at all true with Hubbard and Scientology.

At best, his "What is Greatness" essay is posted on walls and pointed to as a PR GIMMICK, and it ONLY functions as BAIT for the unsuspecting sucker. Hubbard might mention love, but it is most likely mentioned as part of the ruse to attract. I can guarantee that you will NEVER see anybody crammed on that reference or sitting in a courseroom doing drills to improve his or her ability to love unconditionally.

That being said, though, he did not practice what he preached. And, IMO, any time there is a cultic structure, it doesn't matter how nice the written words (and drills, word clearing, auditing) are - because cults are usually (maybe always) very messed up places which prey on individual members and on other people.

First, he didn't PREACH it. He didn't even pretend to stress love or compassion as admirable or desirable traits. But yes, no doubt, Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists rarely practice love and compassion. They are too busy attacking the SPs and clearing the planet.

I always thought that love was interwoven through the tone scale but that Hubbard did not perceive it as its own emotion that would have its own wavelength. I always felt that he thought it was expressed throughout and would be part of and pursuant to emotions which he did quantify. So I have never ever been down with the "there's no love in the tone scale" crowd. I think it's an incorrect view.

You can think that. I see this is a perfect example of "dub-in", and seeing what is not at all there in the first place. Now, I wouldn't feel bad, because the entire scam is pout together to bring about dub-in. I dubbed-in a great many things when involved. But, I saw through those mistakes with time.

But I also believe that those who say that are looking at Hubbard's deeds and treatment of others in the past, the way the cult is now, and contradictory PLs about fair gaming critics, treatment of staff, ex Sea Org members being "DBs", R-45, and so on.

At best, Hubbard was contradictory and irresponsible. At worst, he was extremely cruel to those around him. Not only that, but he set up a structure that would ensure that this cruelty continued. No wonder people think there's no love or compassion in Scn. Because, the only love or compassion in Scn is that which comes from individuals who are being that way despite Hubbard's example.

I just don't think it's correct to say that he never mentioned compassion or anything like that. Yeah, he did, but does it matter? Where was his compassion? Sometimes, maybe, he had a good day and would write something high flown and lovely, but when push came to shove, he was a mean motherfucker.

Mine above in BOLD.

It's a technicality. The exact truth is that he mentioned it, but his having done so is meaningless. It was never a part of the practices of Scientology. And, he surely never intended it to be. It is just another of many statements that a decent person can agree with and like, and thus begin being reeled-in by the Scientology manipulative ARC machinery. It is BAIT. And, the full understanding involves grasping how such "decent statements" were strewn throughout the subject of Scientology to grease the line of agreement.

Also, about the Tone Scale and Love. The Tone Scale is about emotional responses to events out in the world. All these emotions are the result of INFLOWS. Events out there "trigger" responses in the person. Emotions are feelings that happen to a person. They are "effect".

True unconditional love, of the kind Hubbard slightly mentioned in his fluff-piece on greatness, is NOT a "reaction". Also, it is an OUTFLOW. There is no relationship between love and the Tone Scale, other than what any person chooses to imagine. Sure, it might be true for you, but sorry, it ain't so. Now sure, yes, there might very well be a relationship between "desire-based love" and the Tone Scale, but that sort of love is NOT what Hubbard was talking about in his essay, "What is Greatness".

"What is Greatness" is a wonderful essay. Sadly, it has NOTHING to do with Scientology.

 

[2briancox]

Sure, there are Clear and OT Phenomena.

The PC sits down at the Examiner, the little index card is placed on the E-meter stand, and the Examiner asks the PC, "Do you want to attest to the State of Clear?" The PC says "yes", and the needle floats.

There was phenomena there.

E-meter phenomena!

The Church of Scientology, the auditor, the Examiner, the Qual Division, the "cert", and all those who clapped at the announcement of attaining the State of Clear validated this "State of Clear". That reinforces the idea that "it must be true". There is a great deal of "reinforcement" in Scientology, both positive and negative. Desired behaviors get loads of validation and acknowledgement, while the undesirable behaviors get invalidated, attacked, and criticized heavily. Threats of heavy ethics and disconnection are severe forms of negative reinforcement.

An interesting study of Scientology can be done from this aspect of behavioral conditioning, and both positive and negative reinforcement. Hubbard institutionalized such things through his organzation, and the policies and orders the Scientology organization is built upon.

This is just another of many contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard talks on and on about how bad "behaviorism" is, but then incorporates a very detailed and complex behavioral control system into his subject and organization. A doctoral student in psychology could easily write a dissertation on how Scientology uses various methods found in behaviorism.

It is so very ironic, because many of the very ideas and practices that Hubbard (pretends) to criticize (i.e. psychology, behaviorism) exist all throughout Scientology. In Scientology, there is no end to the hypocrisy.

If you had an understanding of Scientology that disagreed with everything about it and you were truly knowing that... I think you'd be at peace with it and be able to let others have their own understanding.

But I get the sense that you are so insecure in your own understanding that you can't feel comfortable enough with it until, with invalidation and mockery, you have crushed another's understanding. It doesn't really work of course. It just makes you look very unfriendly.

There are people I've met in life that I am very comfortable with and feel close to enough to really share my understanding of life with. The snide, condescending push from those in this room to replace my understanding with theirs does nothing to really change hearts and minds and never allows anything close to a condition of friendship which causes me to want to share those parts of myself.

Earlier someone mentioned that there used to be more FreeZone people on here. I suspect they've all found less hostile terrain and moved on, based on what I've seen.

 

[Lone Star]

If you had an understanding of Scientology that disagreed with everything about it and you were truly knowing that... I think you'd be at peace with it and be able to let others have their own understanding.

But I get the sense that you are so insecure in your own understanding that you can't feel comfortable enough with it until, with invalidation and mockery, you have crushed another's understanding. It doesn't really work of course. It just makes you look very unfriendly.

There are people I've met in life that I am very comfortable with and feel close to enough to really share my understanding of life with. The snide, condescending push from those in this room to replace my understanding with theirs does nothing to really change hearts and minds and never allows anything close to a condition of friendship which causes me to want to share those parts of myself.

Earlier someone mentioned that there used to be more FreeZone people on here. I suspect they've all found less hostile terrain and moved on, based on what I've seen.

Oh that's a classic scientological reply! Gadfly insecure in his understanding? Oh pleeeeeeze!

 

[MissWog]

If you had an understanding of Scientology that disagreed with everything about it and you were truly knowing that... I think you'd be at peace with it and be able to let others have their own understanding.

But I get the sense that you are so insecure in your own understanding that you can't feel comfortable enough with it until, with invalidation and mockery, you have crushed another's understanding. It doesn't really work of course. It just makes you look very unfriendly.

There are people I've met in life that I am very comfortable with and feel close to enough to really share my understanding of life with. The snide, condescending push from those in this room to replace my understanding with theirs does nothing to really change hearts and minds and never allows anything close to a condition of friendship which causes me to want to share those parts of myself.

Earlier someone mentioned that there used to be more FreeZone people on here. I suspect they've all found less hostile terrain and moved on, based on what I've seen.

Or maybe there are just less people in the FreeZone? I would love to see the list of Indies and a follow up list a year later of where they are now.. I find those who came here Indy stay here and leave it all behind, ymmv.

Im starting to think we need to leave Brian alone and hope he reads more threads than just his here. His impression of Gaddie is way off base!

Scientology is selfish. It is a solo practice with almost zero fellowship and true discussion. I find most Indies to be completely self absorbed in their own case and Hubbard set it up that way. It's a you, you, you "religion" and for Xenu sake, the ego stroking a Scion demands clearly unhealthy.

The shit we are talking about here is so different from a fellowship church so maybe if Brian takes a walk over to the My Story section he might see himself in some of these stories.

 

[2briancox]

Oh that's a classic scientological reply! Gadfly insecure in his understanding? Oh pleeeeeeze!

Is not exclusive to my view of how you treat Scientologist. It also applies to a consistent anti-religious neurosis prevalent in society at large.

There is a general intolerant attitude that says "My opinion or belief is so important and true that I should make sure anyone who disagrees with it must have my opinion put in their face forcefully."

It's one of the major sources of disagreement and strife in the world. It causes wars and upsets everywhere.

I've never copped that attitude with you. But for some reason seeing value in Scientology is so intolerable to you, that you DEMAND that I immediately hand over my reality for your evaluation.

It's very ugly.

 

[Gadfly]

But I get the sense that you are so insecure in your own understanding that you can't feel comfortable enough with it until, with invalidation and mockery, you have crushed another's understanding. It doesn't really work of course. It just makes you look very unfriendly.

I am unfriendly - towards:

ignorance
lying
institutionalized deceptions
manipulative control
excessive PR
justified harm to others
fanaticism
people with fixed ideas
groups that demand the acceptance of fixed ideas
extreme pressure
coercion
mind control
behavioral control
PR instead of products
delusions

and so on and so forth for a great many traits that exist within the subject and practices of Scientology.

There are far more negatives to be found within the subject and practices of Scientology than positives.

And, too often what a person sees as positive in Scientology has MORE to do with how he or she is looking and interpreting than with what is actually there in the subject itself.

I am unfriendly . . . . . towards oppression, and especially to ignorance parading itself around as "truth".

 

[Veda]

Brian, most of the people here are trying to help you, including Gadfly.

I gave you a lot of information, that would be helpful to you, if you would read it.

It's understood that it's unlikely that you will.

However, at some point in your involvement you may have second thoughts, and return to this thread, and review some of the information that I, and others, have provided.

The deeper you go into the psychological system of Scientology, the harder it will be for you to get out, psychologically.

Right now, you're doing the good part of Scientology. This will build your confidence in Scientology and its tech. This sets you up for the rest of Scientology.

As the nature of auditing changes - from, essentially, abreaction, to, essentially, hypnosis, roughly around the time that you move from the non-confidential part of Scientology to the confidential part - if you are properly set up, you won't mind or notice the change.

The rate of people on Scientology's OT levels becoming mentally and/or physically ill is a source of concern for anyone who cares about the well being of others.

And, no, people becoming mentally ill or physically sick on the OT levels is not proof that the tech works, or that the tech is powerful.

Below is a video of Tory "Magoo" Christman that briefly addresses this topic while discussing Scientology's NOTs levels. It's mentioned at 4:37 - 6:15. The video, in that section, does not mention any details of any confidential information, so it's alright to listen to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUm4AdffJA0

Peace out.

 

[Lone Star]

Is not exclusive to my view of how you treat Scientologist. It also applies to a consistent anti-religious neurosis prevalent in society at large.

There is a general intolerant attitude that says "My opinion or belief is so important and true that I should make sure anyone who disagrees with it must have my opinion put in their face forcefully."

It's one of the major sources of disagreement and strife in the world. It causes wars and upsets everywhere.

I've never copped that attitude with you. But for some reason seeing value in Scientology is so intolerable to you, that you DEMAND that I immediately hand over my reality for your evaluation.

It's very ugly.

I didn't demand anything. You made a statement 3 days ago and I respectfully asked for clarification. You declined to answer. So be truthful. It's hard I know.

Agreed, the cult mindset is very ugly.

 

[MissWog]

There are both phenomenon. Just not to the extent or consistency that Ron advertised.
....
Whether you decide I am fully reaching the metrics stated by Ron has no importance to me. It's a spiritual journey. That means not all roads look the same or even have the same endpoint.

One last thing.. Then IT'S NOT SCIENTOLOGY.. Maybe BIRANOLOGY.. And what I object too is you spreading the word that SCIENTOLOGY is healthy but cherry picking and calling it what it is not.

 

[Claire Swazey]

One last thing.. Then IT'S NOT SCIENTOLOGY.. Maybe BIRANOLOGY.. And what I object too is you spreading the word that SCIENTOLOGY is healthy but cherry picking and calling it what it is not.

I don't think that's a bad thing. A Scientologist, per the tech dictionary, is someone who practices Scientology. Doesn't DM cherry pick? There's tons of policies he disregards, tons of stuff he invented and called Scientology. I mean, cuts both ways.

But I have always felt that a Brianology/ Janeology/Whomeverology appelation is not a bad one and were someone to use it, I'd applaud this. But if they want to be a cherrypicking Scn'ist, well, there's oodles o' precedent.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Is not exclusive to my view of how you treat Scientologist. It also applies to a consistent anti-religious neurosis prevalent in society at large.

There is a general intolerant attitude that says "My opinion or belief is so important and true that I should make sure anyone who disagrees with it must have my opinion put in their face forcefully."

It's one of the major sources of disagreement and strife in the world. It causes wars and upsets everywhere.

I've never copped that attitude with you. But for some reason seeing value in Scientology is so intolerable to you, that you DEMAND that I immediately hand over my reality for your evaluation.

It's very ugly.

Hon, you got off lightly. Believe me.

 

[Lone Star]

Hon, you got off lightly. Believe me.

I just love it when Claire sez "Hon".

 

[Claire Swazey]

I just love it when Claire sez "Hon".

What's that you were sayin', hon?

 

[TG1]

Brian,

Very, very best wishes to you. I do wish you the best.

For the record, I didn't feel snide and condescending when I said you were a Scientology noob. FTR, I'm an OT4, Class IV, PDC grad, etc. I've been there / done Scientology a bit.

I sincerely do wish you the very, very best.

TG1

 

[OhMG]

I didn't demand anything. You made a statement 3 days ago and I respectfully asked for clarification. You declined to answer. So be truthful. It's hard I know.

It takes a bit of 'decompression' for some until this axiom is overcome:

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

 

[Claire Swazey]

It takes a bit of 'decompression' for some until this axiom is overcome:

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

Everyone has their own perspective. Not like Brian's in CofS. Shouldn't be a problem about his being thus convinced.

 

[Infinite]

I don't think that's a bad thing. A Scientologist, per the tech dictionary, is someone who practices Scientology. Doesn't DM cherry pick? There's tons of policies he disregards, tons of stuff he invented and called Scientology. I mean, cuts both ways.

But I have always felt that a Brianology/ Janeology/Whomeverology appelation is not a bad one and were someone to use it, I'd applaud this. But if they want to be a cherrypicking Scn'ist, well, there's oodles o' precedent.

Not quite, but close enough. Concomitant with that definition, of course, and as per L Ron Hubbard, anyone who practises Scientology outside the organisation is a squirrel. Thus, Scientology outside of the cult is not, by Scientology's own definition, Scientology. It needs a new name. Hubbardism, or something, but, yeah, Whomeverology is probably the most accurate.