Greetings from colorado

[TG1]

Kremnari,

If I understood your last post adequately (and I'm not certain I did), you seem to think that Jason and I and others here are "haters" who are trying to thwart your dreams. Right?

You also seem hell-bent on doing Dianetics and Scientology (at least up through some version of clear), and that you aren't seeking advice. Right?

If so, then perhaps I should have stopped posting on your thread several comments ago. But I'll make one final post. And if I completely misunderstood your earlier post -- the rest of this may not make much sense and I'll apologize later.

Jason's not a hater. He doesn't have it in him to be a hater. If you thought that about him, I'm sorry you couldn't see his tremendous compassion in that video (including the first five minutes of the video, which I didn't urge you to watch, but which is worthwhile for that reason alone).

As far as me being a hater. No, not really. Not about you and not about this subject. Nobody who reaches out to you to try to help is a hater. You're the one who came here to the EX-Scientologist Message Board and sought us out. We're honestly, lovingly trying to help.

And in case you think I'm your random low-life Scientology hater, please know this: before I left the Church of Scientology in 1988 (long before the Miscavige nastiness started leaking out and long before his Golden Age of Crap began), I was an interned Class IV, OT4 who had also completed the Philadelphia Doctorate Course.

In other words, you should actually consider that I know what I'm talking about and not being negative out of ignorance. If I've understood you correctly, you haven't committed nearly enough of your life, funds, nights, weekends, years (15 years in my case) to Scientology. So show me some respect, please, purely on the basis of my experience in an area you don't have that much experience with yet.

Finally, it seems you are a fan of discovery learning -- that you want to discover your truth for yourself. That you're going to do this no matter what advice to the contrary you receive. OK. Then go, do what you want to do. Find out for yourself. Experience what we've already experienced.

But do not expect that if you hang around here you're going to get a lot of enthusiastic back-slaps. I and many others here had wins in Scientology, too. For many, many years. And now we look back on those wins and see how much energy, time, opportunities, and relationships we wasted. Some of us here have had shattering losses, too. Only now do we understand what the actual cost to us was of those "wins."

I don't hate you at all. If I did I would not waste my time sharing what I've learned with you.

TG1

 

[Free Being Me]

Sounds like Cyrus wants to go back into the Matrix.


RANT (aimed at the public in general)

First off, if you're having migraines after 1D clear, then YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. I have learned that dianetics/scientology has much of it's roots in other works, possibly including the entirety of dianetics. Big whoop! History is full of people picking up anothers' trash/treasure and selling it as their own. People are doing it today!

So let's consider the basics of the reactive mind and engrams and chains and all that dianetics stuff as valid. Let's just assume for a tiny moment. I'll even let you assume that past lives are complete mumbo jumbo (and who cares either way if you can pull useful skills out of your ass from them!)

To define clear, I have pulled out my copy of DMSMH. CLEAR: The optimum individual; no longer possessed of any engrams. A clear is an individual who, as a result of dianetic therapy, has neither active nor potential psycho-somatic illness or aberration. Dictionary: Bright; unclouded, hence, serene; clean; audible; discriminating; understanding; free from doubt; sure; innocent; net, as profit over expenses; free from debt; free from any entanglement. V.t. To make clear, as of dirt or obstruction; to enlighten; to free from guilt, blame, etc.; to open for passage; to disentangle. V.i. To become clear and bright. N. A clear space or part.

No longer possessed of any engram, which granted at the time was impossible because they didn't have the tech to fully erase the engrams. But they could easily produce an individual who had them all "keyed-out," and wouldn't further react to them this life.

So first question, how the hell can anyone but you know for sure that you are clear? If you want to delude yourself, it should be pretty easy for anyone to piss you off and prove your lie. And if you are clear why the fuck would you care if people believed you or not? Unless you have a need to be right (SerFacs), then you would just ignore them (or say whatever to get them to leave) and just keep walking.

Second question, even if you yourself were clear, what makes you think that you would immediately recognize another clear walking next to you on the street? The definition above only speaks about your own reactive mind; it doesn't mean you can recognize when other people aren't dramatizing their own mixed up crap. Next time someone says’s their clear, how would you really know?

Third, I would put forth that being "clear" isn't really a new concept. I'm sure everyone has, at least once in their life, been walking down the street and felt no worry, no pain, no "low-toned" behavior. People are probably often clear for a few moments every day (assuming they don't have any chronic mental or physical conditions). A "Clear" would be someone who can exist in that state continuously. Many non-scientology practices claim to produce similar individuals (Buddhism), but they take longer; even meditation can eventually produce someone who can perform the same way.

What is it people expect a Clear to do? Leap tall buildings in a single bound? What makes you think a Clear would give a damn about your low-toned skepticism? We all know that people will believe what they want, and if a person wants to believe they are clear and act like it, even if the face of...opposition, then more power to them. We need more people like that. If everyone acted it an "up-tone" manner and quit whining about others, then the world would be better, with or without Scientology. And if Scientology as a whole (instead of just the top) is a problem group, then if everyone assumed the behavior of a Clear then the group would cease needing to exist.

Haters keep hating,
Believers keep believing,
And we all still die in the end.


Kremnari
/RANT

Ahh, I see, the indoctrination is strong in you before you arrived. Until you see for yourself that hubbard's fabrications are psychological slavery, no one can convince you otherwise. There's no reactive mind, clear, and ot, just empty promises to lure people into obedience. People are reaching out to you, genuinely concerned for your welfare and now we're supposedly haters.. ironic.

 

[Infinite]

Do you mean engrams as defined in Dianetics? If so, is this based on personal experience in Scientology or a reference to other research?

L Ron Hubbard never defined Engrams as events. Simple fact, is all.

 

[Kremnari]

TG1

My rant was because I'm tired of seeing people criticize the tech or it's results without offering much in the way of whys or experience. Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you in the response, I didn't intend for it to be seen as an attack. I didn't mean to belittle you or your experiences. What I knew about you up until your last post was, you welcomed me and directed me to a book and a video; and you got on my case about my use of generalities in a different thread, I thought the "in my experience" would've been implied.

Now that I know a bit more about you and your time with the church, tell me what of your wins? That is what I want to know from people is their experiences with what was a win and what wasn't. I've already stated that I'm not going to work with the church. I do believe it's focuses are wrong, but what about the tech? If you had a circle of friends that were into it, and the material (tech volumes, courses, whatever), what would be useful to run, what not?

Jason mentioned in the video that some of the tech works (like 'come to present time'), but that's not the only thing that does, right?

The reason I said 'haters keep hating' is because it seems that people simply speak out against scientology but won't share their own experiences. Most of the posts point to other peoples' works, but have so little of their own experience. It's easy to point a finger and say "because he said it's bad." Or they say it because someone they know (loved?) entered the church and fell victim, but they still don't say that, only "it's bad."

And maybe I simply haven't seen enough of the forum yet. I joined because I saw someone on here I respected and thought that this forum was to help people continue on after they left the church.

But again, and to all, what are your personal experiences? What gave you wins, what didn't? I don't want to just hear "the church/lrh/tech is bad." There is truth in every cult, that's what makes them enticing. If you think a "clear" is really an unreachable or unworthy (waste of time) goal, why?


Kremmy

 

[Mick Wenlock]

My rant was because I'm tired of seeing people criticize the tech or it's results without offering much in the way of whys or experience. Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you in the response, I didn't intend for it to be seen as an attack. I didn't mean to belittle you or your experiences. What I knew about you up until your last post was, you welcomed me and directed me to a book and a video; and you got on my case about my use of generalities in a different thread, I thought the "in my experience" would've been implied.

Now that I know a bit more about you and your time with the church, tell me what of your wins? That is what I want to know from people is their experiences with what was a win and what wasn't. I've already stated that I'm not going to work with the church. I do believe it's focuses are wrong, but what about the tech? If you had a circle of friends that were into it, and the material (tech volumes, courses, whatever), what would be useful to run, what not?

Jason mentioned in the video that some of the tech works (like 'come to present time'), but that's not the only thing that does, right?

The reason I said 'haters keep hating' is because it seems that people simply speak out against scientology but won't share their own experiences. Most of the posts point to other peoples' works, but have so little of their own experience. It's easy to point a finger and say "because he said it's bad." Or they say it because someone they know (loved?) entered the church and fell victim, but they still don't say that, only "it's bad."

And maybe I simply haven't seen enough of the forum yet. I joined because I saw someone on here I respected and thought that this forum was to help people continue on after they left the church.

But again, and to all, what are your personal experiences? What gave you wins, what didn't? I don't want to just hear "the church/lrh/tech is bad." There is truth in every cult, that's what makes them enticing. If you think a "clear" is really an unreachable or unworthy (waste of time) goal, why?


Kremmy

You don't dictate what the answers of others will be. You may want to hear only about "wins" but this is a public thread on a public board.

I have had "wins" drinking beer with my friends. I have had "wins" going to great concerts.

What I have never had from Scientology and the application of "tech" is the result stated by the subject.

I have seen many "OTs" who cannot communicate freely on any subject at all.

I have seen clears who get sick.

I have seen clears who are stupid and couldn't recall worth a damn.

I have seen plenty of good people in Scientology and I have yet to see any of them exhibit anything gained from being a scientologist, though I have seen them achieve things in their own right.

I have seen what scientology tech produces. It produces cowards. It produces people who stand around and allow people to die because they are afraid of losing their "access" or afraid of being seen to do something "wrong" like calling an ambulance.

I have seen people drive themselves and their families into bankruptcy rather than take a stand against rapacious registrars and greedy organizations.

Scientology technology produces self-centered cowards. At it's best it produces self-centered cowards who will work hard. At its worst it produces self-centered cowards who end up destroying themselves.

I worked for 13 years in the Sea Organization and ran an Advanced Organization.

Forgive me if I do not wax enthusiastic about this pile of dog droppings.

 

[SpecialFrog]

The idea that "there is truth in every cult" is kind of ridiculous. People believe in lots of things that are completely untrue.

 

[TG1]

My rant was because I'm tired of seeing people criticize the tech or it's results without offering much in the way of whys or experience. Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you in the response, I didn't intend for it to be seen as an attack. I didn't mean to belittle you or your experiences. What I knew about you up until your last post was, you welcomed me and directed me to a book and a video; and you got on my case about my use of generalities in a different thread, I thought the "in my experience" would've been implied.

Now that I know a bit more about you and your time with the church, tell me what of your wins? That is what I want to know from people is their experiences with what was a win and what wasn't. I've already stated that I'm not going to work with the church. I do believe it's focuses are wrong, but what about the tech? If you had a circle of friends that were into it, and the material (tech volumes, courses, whatever), what would be useful to run, what not?

Jason mentioned in the video that some of the tech works (like 'come to present time'), but that's not the only thing that does, right?

The reason I said 'haters keep hating' is because it seems that people simply speak out against scientology but won't share their own experiences. Most of the posts point to other peoples' works, but have so little of their own experience. It's easy to point a finger and say "because he said it's bad." Or they say it because someone they know (loved?) entered the church and fell victim, but they still don't say that, only "it's bad."

And maybe I simply haven't seen enough of the forum yet. I joined because I saw someone on here I respected and thought that this forum was to help people continue on after they left the church.

But again, and to all, what are your personal experiences? What gave you wins, what didn't? I don't want to just hear "the church/lrh/tech is bad." There is truth in every cult, that's what makes them enticing. If you think a "clear" is really an unreachable or unworthy (waste of time) goal, why?


Kremmy

Kremmy,

Some more advice. You've been here 2-3 days, posted 8 times. You need to lurk moar. You know what that means, right? There are thousands and thousands of threads here at ESMB with hundreds of thousands of posts on them. You are free to make tremendous use of the Search function and to explore the various forums to which topics like the ones you're interested in (including the FREE ZONE forum where you'll find success stories) are located.

Now, on to my wins.

1. I had wins from doing TRs, especially TR0 and TR0 bullbait. They helped me not be afraid when others try to scare or intimidate you. I appreciate that "buttons" of all kinds are things that can be flattened. It's also called "practicing" and "faking it 'til you make it."

But where else is brilliant advice and critical information and cognitions galore available on the same topic? Off the top of my head ... TED talks! For example, you could listen to the 18 minute talk at http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html. Do the 2-minute solo drills it describes. Your life could be changed forever.

Here's another source of the same kinds of wins -- mindful meditation. With or without a mantra. Just breathing deeply and relaxing and gently pushing away thoughts that invade your mind while you do nothing but sit there and be.

2. Another win I had was from all my many cognitions. "I just realized that ....!" VVVGIs, F/N, etc. I can cognite 'til the cows come home. If I were tied to a stake and set on fire, I would manage somehow to have some cognitions. Cognitions are my particular addiction.

And where else are the same cognitions available? Well, for starters -- try keeping a morning journal. Every morning, write for 15 minutes -- just "itsa" (if you know what that means), free-associate, say whatever pops into your head. Change your mind. Then change it again, writing down all your mind changes. Then close the journal. Then take your dog and go out for a 30 minute brisk walk. Every morning. That's 45 minutes a day right there that'll change your life. FOREVER! The more you walk and the more you journal, the more you'll cognite. And if cognitions are your heroin, there they are -- for free every morning for the rest of your life.

3. OK, here's the biggest win and the greatest cog I EVER had from Scientology. It was via the Philadelphia Doctorate Course, which I spent about 8 or 9 months on every weeknight, listening to tapes, studying all sorts of nonsensical axioms and factors and whatnot, and reading Science of Survival, etc.

You know what the big cog of that course is (and it's not confidential or a secret, so listen up) ... LRH says a thetan has the undeniable ability to DISAGREE! He says it's tremendously valuable and his basic right and that it's incredibly therapeutic to disagree, to go out of agreement with everything and everybody who's forcing him to conform.

And you can guess what I was under tremendous pressure at that time to agree with -- to continue on in Scientology, to keep on the bridge, to get on "the levels" -- OT5 and then OT7, at which point my life would not have been my own. In fact, my big cog on OT4 had been that there was no way in hell I was going to continue on that stupid continuation of OT3-style auditing bullshit. I had also had absolutely ZERO interest in auditing BTs when I was on OT3, and I hated it when OT4 turned out to be more about BTs, since on OT3 they lie to you and tell you that's the end of that BT bullshit. But it's not. It goes on for fucking ever, apparently. Until, of course, they tell you on OT 8 that the BTs were all bullshit, too. Can you imagine how people feel when they go through 5-10-15-20 years of "being on the levels" and then discover at the end that the BTs were supposedly just bullshit they were mocking up? Smartest thing I ever did was not to go any farther down that path.

Anyway, while I was on the PDC I decided to DISAGREE and not to do any more Scientology. I decided I was done with Scientology. I was extremely VGIs about that cog, and quite sincerely so. I LOVED the PDC!

BTW, I don't know if you know this yet, but the reason that people blow is NOT because of overts or missed withholds -- but because of ARC breaks.

And then even after you "leave Scientology," you eventually collect enough data at ESMB and other places online from those who are willing to share their stories with you. And you gradually gather back your common sense and start discarding all that magical thinking and have the big final Aha! Cog! You realize you were had by a sophisticated ideology that dripped out "wins" in exchange for intellectual servitude. Those sunk costs require great humility to walk away from.

So, those were some of my Scientology wins.

I hope you find them helpful.

TG1

 

[TG1]

P.S. There is no clear that's permanent. You know why? Because nothing about life is permanent -- it's full of continuing challenges. Life lifts you up. It knocks you down. Human beings who do well in life (if they're very, very lucky) do well because they were born with some advantages, have courage, good luck, and good friends. And nobody gets all of those -- even the luckiest. You will never have something happen to you or be done to you that makes you feel permanently good. Drugs won't do it. Jesus won't do it. Auditing won't do it. A diet won't do it. You have to get up every single morning of your life and decide to live or, if that's all you can manage some days, just muddle through until bedtime and hope tomorrow is better. And that takes tremendous courage. And it doesn't always work. And eventually, as you said earlier, we all die. And what's so wrong with that?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

P.S. There is no clear that's permanent. You know why? Because nothing about life is permanent -- it's full of continuing challenges. Life lifts you up. It knocks you down. Human beings who do well in life (if they're very, very lucky) do well because they were born with some advantages, have courage, good luck, and good friends. And nobody gets all of those -- even the luckiest. You will never have something happen to you or be done to you that makes you feel permanently good. Drugs won't do it. Jesus won't do it. Auditing won't do it. A diet won't do it. You have to get up every single morning of your life and decide to live or, if that's all you can manage some days, just muddle through until bedtime and hope tomorrow is better. And that takes tremendous courage. And it doesn't always work. And eventually, as you said earlier, we all die. And what's so wrong with that?

In discussions of the "state of clear" it's always useful to consider David Mayo's earlier comments on the subject. However David's views may have evolved these earlier remarks reflect a great deal of wisdom and insight on the topic.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Commander Birdsong]

My rant was because I'm tired of seeing people criticize the tech or it's results without offering much in the way of whys or experience. Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted you in the response, I didn't intend for it to be seen as an attack. I didn't mean to belittle you or your experiences. What I knew about you up until your last post was, you welcomed me and directed me to a book and a video; and you got on my case about my use of generalities in a different thread, I thought the "in my experience" would've been implied.

Now that I know a bit more about you and your time with the church, tell me what of your wins? That is what I want to know from people is their experiences with what was a win and what wasn't. I've already stated that I'm not going to work with the church. I do believe it's focuses are wrong, but what about the tech? If you had a circle of friends that were into it, and the material (tech volumes, courses, whatever), what would be useful to run, what not?

Jason mentioned in the video that some of the tech works (like 'come to present time'), but that's not the only thing that does, right?

The reason I said 'haters keep hating' is because it seems that people simply speak out against scientology but won't share their own experiences. Most of the posts point to other peoples' works, but have so little of their own experience. It's easy to point a finger and say "because he said it's bad." Or they say it because someone they know (loved?) entered the church and fell victim, but they still don't say that, only "it's bad."

And maybe I simply haven't seen enough of the forum yet. I joined because I saw someone on here I respected and thought that this forum was to help people continue on after they left the church.

But again, and to all, what are your personal experiences? What gave you wins, what didn't? I don't want to just hear "the church/lrh/tech is bad." There is truth in every cult, that's what makes them enticing. If you think a "clear" is really an unreachable or unworthy (waste of time) goal, why?


Kremmy

may the farce be with you

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

My rant was because I'm tired of seeing people criticize the tech or it's results without offering much in the way of whys or experience. <snip>

Strangely, that reminds me eeriely of why I got fed up with Hubbard and his racket, called Scientology! - See, I got tired of Hubbard's, and scientologist's, wild and enthusiastic claims about the tech, without offering a damned thing like tangible evidence, research or discernible results.

And then, there's the political agenda of Scientology. That bit about the orgs saying what's legal or not.. Specifically R2-45.. And most illuminating: Hubbards affectionate acclaim of a Venezuelan dictator who killed off all the beggars to 'clear' the country of leprosy. A perfectly good medicine to cure leprosy was available at the time Hubbard made this inglorious slipup.. Scientology's political agenda makes the 'tech' a moot point. Or put another way, if we need a stinking shit society like Hubbard suggest in his 'ethics' ramblings.. Well.. Humanity needs Scientology like tits on a canary!

 

[Panda Termint]

... or a penis in a hat?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Well.. Humanity needs Scientology like tits on a canary!

Mark A. Baker

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

... or a penis in a hat?

The subject is scientology, not your opinion of another members contents of his hat!

Besides, it's practical. See, where other less 'endowed' go poking their noses in places they shouldn't.. I.. Never mind..

 

[Free Being Me]

In Ron's own words, one of the little nuggets no one need concern themselves with.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?29363-Ron-The-Criminal/page10

"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them."

L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952, excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418

"Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal.’ By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."

- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"

"In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints."

- L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, 1989 Ed., p. 145 [The "Tone Scale" is Scientology’s measure of mental and spiritual health.]

"There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow."

- L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170

"When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe - never permit an ‘open-minded’ approach... If they enrolled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us - win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half minded about being Scientologists... When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare… The proper instruction attitude is, ‘We'd rather have you dead than incapable.’"

- L. Ron Hubbard, KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING, 7 February 1965, reissued 27 August 1980

 

[programmer_guy]

In the book 'The Mneme' published in 1923, Richard Semon used the term "engram" which he defined as a "stimulus impression" that could be reactivated by the recurrence of "the energetic conditions which ruled at the generation of the engram."

Alfred Korzybski used the term "hurts," and wrote in 1935:

"...We begin to check this... process of piling up 'hurts' on 'hurts'... new 'hurts', in practice, are usually related or similar to the old ones; they would revive the older 'hurts'. Accordingly, he [the person undergoing abreaction would] not only 'live through' the older experiences but at once revive them, and after re-evaluation, eliminate the harmful effects."

<snip>

1. Did Richard Semon mean exactly the same thing as Hubbard regarding "engram"? :confused2:

2. Did Alfred Korzybski mean exactly the same thing as Hubbard re: "engram"? :confused2:

Other parts of the brain (aside from "conscious") might form some type of crude memories which later could cause reactions in a stimulus/response sort of way. But does one really form ANY memories during periods of unconsciousness that can later be recalled by the conscious parts of the brain (what we think of as "ourselves") as in Dianetic processing? I think not.

 

[Veda]

1. Did Richard Semon mean exactly the same thing as Hubbard regarding "engram"? :confused2:

2. Did Alfred Korzybski mean exactly the same thing as Hubbard re: "engram"? :confused2:

Other parts of the brain (aside from "conscious") might form some type of crude memories which later could cause reactions in a stimulus/response sort of way. But does one really form ANY memories during periods of unconsciousness that can later be recalled by the conscious parts of the brain (what we think of as "ourselves") as in Dianetic processing? I think not.

Yes, I know what you're saying, but engrams are also defined as occurring during partial unconsciousness (which means partial consciousness), so that's the escape clause.

Mainly, I wanted to convey to Kremnari that, yes, there are things vaguely like "engrams," and that stored "hurts" and their effects have been observed, analyzed, and discussed by others long before Dianetics or Scientology existed; and, I wanted to convey that I'm not saying that everything Kremnari believes is BS, and that, maybe, he should take a look at the information I've taken the time to provide to him so as to help him.

Predictably, Kremnari ignored most of the information I provided, and even invoked the "hater" word.

But I tried.

I don't want to argue about engrams, just making a brief attempt to reach someone before he has his mind groped, by the ghost of L. Ron Hubbard, as he walks the Bridge to Xenu.

That's all.

 

[Infinite]

In 1970, Hubbard had written of Dianetic Clear:

"Only about 2 percent actually go clear on Dianetics. A Dianetic Clear as any other Dianetic PC now goes up through the Grades of Scientology and on to the proper Clearing Course. The Dianetic Clear of Book 1 was clear of somatics. The Book 1 definition is correct. This is the end phenomena of Dianetics as per the Classification Chart and Book 1." . . . <snip snip snippety snip> . . .

Reference, please.

 

[Veda]

Reference, please.

HCOB 25 June 1970, C/S Series 12, Glossary of C/S Terms