What's new
By:
Filters

Ex-member of the CoS- Brian Cox

I think that having a minority viewpoint and trying to talk to people who feel quite differently can be challenging and that it would not be possible to please all the people all the time.

The favorite and hoped for response from someone like that would be along the lines of "you're right, I was wrong." WADR, obviously, this is extremely unlikely, right?

I mean, you know... (backs away slowly muttering incoherently)
 
2briancox said:
What are you trying to say? That people on this board are disillusioned, jaded and upset with red-on-white? No, that people on this board have been negatively impacted by red on white and they are trying to explain there stories to you. So certain opinions shouldn't be discussed?
I think that's what we HAVE been doing!! Let's word clear discussion:
dis·cus·sion
[dih-skuhsh-uh
thinsp.png
thinsp.png
n]

noun an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.




Fine. It would have been nice if people could have been understanding enough to recognize, not everyone has been as harmed by the cult as the rest. It would be nice if you would recognize the harm these folks have endured and asked yourself if maybe there was something you could learn from it. But if they can't discuss it respectfully, I'll go. Oh please! Everyone here as been respectful to you, respectfully disagreeing. I'm not joining the group of those living in protest of their former lives. This is just about as shitty as it gets..condescending and mean spirited.

The last couple days have been fruitless ranting, disagreements without any understanding and HE&R. So I'll leave this thread for now. I'll be around if anyone wants to talk. Just not in this room. It's not my room any longer. It never was YOUR room..this is a FORUM you don't get to decide who can play in a thread even if you started it.. Stick with Marty if you want moderation.
Click to expand...

I don't even know if it is worth submitting this reply.. but I am so disgusted by his attitude and his absolutely cruel intentions toward those who have suffered.

Stay over the rainbow Brian..eat a lollipop and go play with the munchkins..follow the red on white road.

Cheers.
 
degraded being said:
What do you end up with when you reassess everything that comes under the term "oversold". You have mentioned needing glasses and having colds, so there must be many many things claimed in DMSMH that might be expected by a person going Clear that are not realistic, or even obtainable at all. So how long is that piece of string and when you have finished pulling it, what exactly are you left with for the precise case qualifications? You have used the word "precise", and I think it's good to be precise. What exactly has been attained, reached, or lost when one decides or someone else decides that one is "Clear".
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,

Do you have any thoughts on this question , which I posted earlier?

It is a simple and worthwhile question, in my opinion.
(Note: It is not a rhetorical question. It does not presuppose that you do not get anything out of "Going Clear" or the auditing which is prescribed for reaching that goal. It is just asking what exactly is gained or achieved when all of Hubbards "overselling" claims are removed from what HE claimed the state of Clear would be.
 
Cognitive Dissonance is the root of hubbard's scientology, an indoctrination of mind control that can take years to peel through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance (Fair Use Quote)
In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.[1] The phrase was coined by Leon Festinger in his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled the followers of a UFO cult as reality clashed with their fervent belief in an impending apocalypse.[2][3] Festinger subsequently (1957) published a book called A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance in which he outlines the theory. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold." [4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.[1]

Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors.[6] This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.
 
2briancox said:
What are you trying to say? That people on this board are disillusioned, jaded and upset with red-on-white? So certain opinions shouldn't be discussed?

Fine. It would have been nice if people could have been understanding enough to recognize, not everyone has been as harmed by the cult as the rest. But if they can't discuss it respectfully, I'll go. I'm not joining the group of those living in protest of their former lives.

The last couple days have been fruitless ranting, disagreements without any understanding and HE&R. So I'll leave this thread for now. I'll be around if anyone wants to talk. Just not in this room. It's not my room any longer.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with human emotion? What is wrong with human reaction? I am so glad I no longer have to feel like it's somehow superior not to feel or react like a human being.
 
Purple Rain said:
What is wrong with human emotion? What is wrong with human reaction? I am so glad I no longer have to feel like it's somehow superior not to feel or react like a human being.
Click to expand...

Wait a sec...there's a difference between HE&R and just plain emotion.

I know that if I were trying to talk to someone about a theory or an idea or a procedure or just hash something out in general, I would not want a bunch of hysteria. It would get in the way of the discussion.

Like, when I go home tonight and review the events of the day (husband home all day, kitchen torn up pursuant to an EXTENSIVE renovation) and ask him, hey, how'd it go, how much progress, etc- I don't want to hear "I really hate that you're late. You always want to know about the damn kitchen. You look like shit in that dress." That would be HE&R. It would get in the way of our discussion.

There have been a few posts here roundly scolding Brian. I don't know of anyone who would enjoy that. So, frankly, I think his comment about HE&R, etc, is applicable to an extent.
 
Lone Star said:
You really need to calm down and quit being so thin skinned. As Claire said earlier you've had it pretty easy here. Maybe you need to go up the Bridge further to quit acting like a little child who gets his feelings hurt easily and then wants to take his ball home.

Fine, take your ball and go home. I've been very respectful towards you, until you yourself became disrespectful, and even then I was very measured in my responses.

Whatever....
Click to expand...

I agree that Brian's had it fairly easy here because I know it can get far rougher than this. But maybe Brian does not know this. From his perspective it could be like, whoa! WTF!

Why not just have a mutual cease fire and a new beginning for all, just start over?

Given the innate decency and niceness of most of the people here and the fact that they really do care, I think it could be the best approach. There'd have to be an aspect of "let's agree to disagree", too.

Just a thought.
 
MissWog said:
Brian said he was all about the red & whites.. I'm just wondering if that red & white is true for him. And if the answer is yes, why or no, why?
Click to expand...

Well, red on white are the technical volumes. That's mostly stuff about auditing, c/sing, drills, etc.
 
Anger and upset may well disrupt a conversation, but the use of the term HE & R in Scientology is designed to make a person wrong for feeling it and to imply that it's invalid as an emotional reaction to whatever is being discussed.

I haven't read this whole thread and don't plan on it, so I'm not commenting either way on whether some posters acted like assholes. But I'm with Purple Rain - I'm so glad I no longer feel the need to suppress my natural reactions to life events because I believe some of them are "bad" or "wrong".
 
Jquepublic said:
Anger and upset may well disrupt a conversation, but the use of the term HE & R in Scientology is designed to make a person wrong for feeling it and to imply that it's invalid as an emotional reaction to whatever is being discussed.

I haven't read this whole thread and don't plan on it, so I'm not commenting either way on whether some posters acted like assholes. But I'm with Purple Rain - I'm so glad I no longer feel the need to suppress my natural reactions to life events because I believe some of them are "bad" or "wrong".
Click to expand...

I think that if someone has been made wrong (or thinks that they have been) , it would not be unusual for that person to dish out a little in return.
 
Claire Swazey said:
I think that if someone has been made wrong (or thinks that they have been) , it would not be unusual for that person to dish out a little in return.
Click to expand...

My comment was directed to you, not Brian. I commented to refute your comment that there is a difference between emotion from HE & R. That difference exists only in Scientology and other, similar cults where there are "approved" emotions and emotions that are frowned upon.

I understand Brian being upset and I understand his use of the term. I hope he will regroup and return.
 
Jquepublic said:
My comment was directed to you, not Brian. I commented to refute your comment that there is a difference between emotion from HE & R. That difference exists only in Scientology and other, similar cults where there are "approved" emotions and emotions that are frowned upon.

I understand Brian being upset and I understand his use of the term. I hope he will regroup and return.
Click to expand...


Brian may not post on this thread again, but he's not leaving ESMB. I would tell you how I know that, but it's highly classified. :coolwink:
 
Jquepublic said:
My comment was directed to you, not Brian. I commented to refute your comment that there is a difference between emotion from HE & R. That difference exists only in Scientology and other, similar cults where there are "approved" emotions and emotions that are frowned upon.

I understand Brian being upset and I understand his use of the term. I hope he will regroup and return.
Click to expand...

I thought your comment was probably directed at me. Then I responded to the best of my ability with such thoughts as occurred to me upon reading your reply.
 
I don't want Brian to feel upset, but nor do I want to have to pretend that I'm not upset when I talk about things such as how the "acceptable truth" doctrine has impacted my life or even the whole idea of "no case on post" - "no HE&R". I would so much rather be with someone who said "Aaargh, I've had a shit of a day!!" than someone who reacted to life like it was a bull-baiting drill.

Suppressing natural emotions and reactions is one of the most destructive things one can do to his or her own physical body IMHO, let alone psyche.

If what somebody feels towards me is anger - I damn well want to know it, see it, feel that from them. Anything else is just creepy.

That is not at all the same thing as attacking me personally. Somebody can be angry about something I've said and done without hating me as a person, and many are, and I'd so much rather that - so much rather keep it real.

I like Brian, and I know it's hard emotionally to have your ideas challenged, but I seriously think that's most of what this thread has been about - challenging ideas not attacking a person.

Edit: And further to that - I wish I had given all my managers from org level to cont level to int level SERIOUS flashback and HE&R for the stupid, imbecilic, IMPOSSIBLE things they were ordering and the god-awful unnecessary stress it caused to me personally and the huge casualty my kids suffered as a result of me actually trying to DO this moronic shit.

"I know you are facing eviction because you can't pay the rent, and the staff haven't slept or eaten for days, but have a fully equipped film room established by the end of the week. Respond to this telex by the end of the day telling me how you are going to do this. Do not even think of saying you can't as you will feel the wrath of my ethics cycle upon you! Also that is backflash. Also, don't give me your HE&R. Just do it. By the way, I am sitting in an office in California and have no idea what your org situation is really like. Also, I don't give a shit. Have a nice day and "much love" and all that. Your teenaged village idiot Int Executive."

Edit to the edit: And then people wonder why they are often not successful as managers in the real world - or even employees.
 
Last edited:
Purple Rain said:
I don't want Brian to feel upset, but nor do I want to have to pretend that I'm not upset when I talk about things such as how the "acceptable truth" doctrine has impacted my life or even the whole idea of "no case on post" - "no HE&R". I would so much rather be with someone who said "Aaargh, I've had a shit of a day!!" than someone who reacted to life like it was a bull-baiting drill.

Suppressing natural emotions and reactions is one of the most destructive things one can do to his or her own physical body IMHO, let alone psyche.

If what somebody feels towards me is anger - I damn well want to know it, see it, feel that from them. Anything else is just creepy.

That is not at all the same thing as attacking me personally. Somebody can be angry about something I've said and done without hating me as a person, and many are, and I'd so much rather that - so much rather keep it real.

I like Brian, and I know it's hard emotionally to have your ideas challenged, but I seriously think that's most of what this thread has been about - challenging ideas not attacking a person.

Edit: And further to that - I wish I had given all my managers from org level to cont level to int level SERIOUS flashback and HE&R for the stupid, imbecilic, IMPOSSIBLE things they were ordering and the god-awful unnecessary stress it caused to me personally and the huge casualty my kids suffered as a result of me actually trying to DO this moronic shit.

"I know you are facing eviction because you can't pay the rent, and the staff haven't slept or eaten for days, but have a fully equipped film room established by the end of the week. Respond to this telex by the end of the day telling me how you are going to do this. Do not even think of saying you can't as you will feel the wrath of my ethics cycle upon you! Also that is backflash. Also, don't give me your HE&R. Just do it. By the way, I am sitting in an office in California and have no idea what your org situation is really like. Also, I don't give a shit. Have a nice day and "much love" and all that. Your teenaged village idiot Int Executive."

Edit to the edit: And then people wonder why they are often not successful as managers in the real world - or even employees.
Click to expand...

Sure. But, IIRC and AFAIK (it's acronym day, everybody!)- you've been polite to Brian. There's a difference between confiding/discussing how sad or angry one may be about something that's being talked about and unloading on the person. I personally think you're doing the former, rather than the latter. You are generally very easy and pleasant to talk to.

I definitely think people should feel free to tell Brian or anyone else if they feel a certain way about the subject.
 
Emotion vs HE&R

Of course there's a difference between emotion and HE&R. Aside and apart from the fact that HE&R is Scn'ese and should probably not be used when talking with non or ex Scn'ists (unless discussing the concept as we are doing here)- the terms are not mutually inclusive.

As a businesswoman, if I were to use Scn'ese in my workplace (which I would not and never do, but hypothetically) it would be the difference between telling my boss that the project I was assigned is challenging and I need more time and training to do it- and telling him it sucks and I hate it.

That's all that Hubbard was coming from on that.

In a more social/cyber context like this one, I feel the difference would be more like this:

Scenario A:

I was deeply hurt by my time in the church. This and that happened. The subject is upsetting. I do question your interest, etc, etc.

and

Scenario B:

You fucking idiot. You think you can cherry pick. You're a dumb rondroid.

(or whatever the insult du jour is on critical fora that week. For instance, "Derail" "Troll" and "Disingenuous" have, over the years, also been extremely popular- LOL.)

Scenario A would be getting emotional about this and Scenario B would be giving the guy HE&R about this.

The storal of the mory is- one can indicate disagreement and even deep upset and pain without unloading a can o' whuppass on the delighted recipient. :wink2:
 
Re: Emotion vs HE&R

Claire Swazey said:
Of course there's a difference between emotion and HE&R. Aside and apart from the fact that HE&R is Scn'ese and should probably not be used when talking with non or ex Scn'ists (unless discussing the concept as we are doing here)- the terms are not mutually inclusive.

As a businesswoman, if I were to use Scn'ese in my workplace (which I would not and never do, but hypothetically) it would be the difference between telling my boss that the project I was assigned is challenging and I need more time and training to do it- and telling him it sucks and I hate it.

That's all that Hubbard was coming from on that.

In a more social/cyber context like this one, I feel the difference would be more like this:

Scenario A:

I was deeply hurt by my time in the church. This and that happened. The subject is upsetting. I do question your interest, etc, etc.

and

Scenario B:

You fucking idiot. You think you can cherry pick. You're a dumb rondroid.

(or whatever the insult du jour is on critical fora that week. For instance, "Derail" "Troll" and "Disingenuous" have, over the years, also been extremely popular- LOL.)

Scenario A would be getting emotional about this and Scenario B would be giving the guy HE&R about this.

The storal of the mory is- one can indicate disagreement and even deep upset and pain without unloading a can o' whuppass on the delighted recipient. :wink2:
Click to expand...

Human Emotion and Reaction, the counter emotions and reations which aberrated human beings express when they are guided toward survival objectives. They are usually below 2.0 on the Tone Scale. (LRH Def. Notes) Abbr. HE & R.

— L. Ron Hubbard
Modern Management Technology Defined

I understand what you're describing, but that's not HE & R, it's unprofessionalism in the workplace example and plain old rudeness in the second, specifically scenario B. :coolwink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top