Hubbard on Xenu, Class 8 course

Veda

Sponsor
There can't be consenting adults without informed consent. Scientology's "upper levels" are secret, and even when exposed, Scientology will seek to mislead, or simply deny their content.

OT 3 was presented as removing the final barrier to full OT. It didn't do that. No matter how much Scientologists chant, "It's true for me! It's true for me!" OT 3, compared to the initial hype, flopped.

There are still some Scientologists, from the late 1960s/early 1970s, who reminisce about the good old days, when 'Advance!' magazine had those neat "OT Success Stories."

"Fancy free and perceiving all."

Years later, it was revealed that many of the most exciting accounts of OT abilities were fabricated by 'Apollo' PR.

That doesn't mean, necessarily, that extraordinary sensitivities, or abilities, or the "paranormal," are impossible; it does mean that Scientology, under its founder's direction, practiced fraud on its own membership, and sold a "Bridge to OT" that wasn't.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=112075&postcount=64
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, very definitely. I just don't ascribe to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" ONLY because of the mutual enemy status. I believe there is a coincidence of perception of truth - whatever that may be - and I don't want to see good men hurt themselves. My belief is that Hubbard if he knows of what's going on within the CoS would be rolling over in his grave (as the saying goes), or super-pissed, somewhere.

If Hubbard really was a super-OT as he claimed to be, then why hasn’t he stepped in and reformed the CoS?

I can’t imagine that any sane person could look at the facts and think that the CoS was really doing well and achieving the stated aims of Scientology. So, why has he not fixed the ‘church’? Perhaps because he can’t? Surely, if the Tech worked and what Hubbard said was true, then he is needed more today than ever before?

I asked the question “What is LRH doing now?”, when I was still tenuously clinging to the illusions created by Scientology. All I got was an instruction to listen to RJ38. This didn’t answer the question at all. It was inconceivable to me that he would just abandon Scientology when the job was only half-done.


If you think of what Scn MIGHT have been had everything gone along as it had been going up to the mid 1970's when everything started falling apart, when most Scns were pretty happy people and winning, then compare that to the travesty of Scn that the CoS has made it today, I think you may agree with my outrage and opposition to the CoS.

I don’t think that it could have continued in the same way. The CoS inherited Hubbard’s insanities and the disintegration was inevitable. Just as another cataclysm will happen again soon. Look at all the contradictions in the Tech and you will see that no organisation can hope to follow it to the letter and remain sane.

I agree with you that there is much in the subject of Scientology that is valuable. But how do we separate the good from the bad, the useful from the destructive? Well-intentioned people have tried to do this and been attacked by the CoS. Many have had lives ruined.

I’d be interested to hear your views on how the good parts can be salvaged.

Axiom142
 
A

Art

Guest
If Hubbard really was a super-OT as he claimed to be, then why hasn’t he stepped in and reformed the CoS?

I can’t imagine that any sane person could look at the facts and think that the CoS was really doing well and achieving the stated aims of Scientology. So, why has he not fixed the ‘church’? Perhaps because he can’t? Surely, if the Tech worked and what Hubbard said was true, then he is needed more today than ever before?

I asked the question “What is LRH doing now?”, when I was still tenuously clinging to the illusions created by Scientology. All I got was an instruction to listen to RJ38. This didn’t answer the question at all. It was inconceivable to me that he would just abandon Scientology when the job was only half-done.




I don’t think that it could have continued in the same way. The CoS inherited Hubbard’s insanities and the disintegration was inevitable. Just as another cataclysm will happen again soon. Look at all the contradictions in the Tech and you will see that no organisation can hope to follow it to the letter and remain sane.

I agree with you that there is much in the subject of Scientology that is valuable. But how do we separate the good from the bad, the useful from the destructive? Well-intentioned people have tried to do this and been attacked by the CoS. Many have had lives ruined.

I’d be interested to hear your views on how the good parts can be salvaged.

Axiom142

"Axiom 142. An organism is as healthy and sane as it is self-determined."

(Just to let you know your nick is appreciated.:) )

IMO, a lot of people are currently working on putting the line up back together again. In the meantime, I've heard some pretty sane references about reading books such as Creation of Human Ability, and the Tech Vols 1 - 3 which contain early materials stressing the philosophical side of Scn.

Best,
Art.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
There is no doubt that 'brainwashing" took place inside Scientology as a result of LRH's express intent. It is still happening there today - sickeningly so.

It is easily reciognised there and so one can easily shake it off.

However, the really insidious brainwashing is the one where one least expects it, where it masquerades as "free discussion". For example, who would suspect that this very discussion board indulages in the nefarious activity.

No? Consider the following quote from chapter two of the book "Rape of the Mind" that was offerred as recommended reading to us recently:

"Such is the Pavlovian device: repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity of communicating dissent and opposition. This is the simple formula for political conditioning of the masses. This is also the actual ideal of some of our public relation machines, who thus hope to manipulate the public into buying a special soap or voting for a special party.

"The Pavlovian strategy in public relations has people conditioned more and more to ask themselves, "What do other people think?" As a result, a common delusion is created: people are incited to think what other people think, and thus public opinion may mushroom out into a mass prejudice."


Now consider the oft repeated assertions of how evil Scientology is, consider Veda's (and others) ongoing refrain of how bad it all is, consider how opposing viewpoints get shunned and how it is suggested that those posters should not be on this board.

It fits the two paragraphs quoted.


I'm truly not posting this in order to criticise this board. Factually, brainwashing exists everywhere. All of life depends on it. We all learned language by being praised for correct imitation and told whenit is incorrect. Same with table manners, same with a myriad other conditioned habit patterns that life depends upon.

Even your perception of the physical universe and your unshakeable certainty that it constitutes "reality" is nothiing more than a conditioned brainwash.

This is not to condone it either.

The daily and persistent abuses that took place in the Sea Org and the way children were treated and so on ad nauseum is all beyond the pale of what is acceptable in any human group.

But brainwashing as such is ubiquitous and there''s no getting away from it.
 
You can eat believing that by so doing you are propitiating the god Mukluq, and if you fail to do that he will respond by making your stomach hurt, and the longer you don't propitiate him the more your stomach will hurt and you will eventually get emaciated and die as a punishment. The fact that those things happen doesn't mean the theory is correct.

Paul

Nor does it mean it isn't, Blasphemer!

May the Marvelous & Merciful Mukluq Masticate Your Emaciated Man-Form for Mega-Eons.


High Priest & Chief Cook to Mukluq
Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
There can't be consenting adults without informed consent. Scientology's "upper levels" are secret, and even when exposed, Scientology will seek to mislead, or simply deny their content.

In secrets-based faiths and societies, consent is given as each layer of the onion is peeled -- and after that has been peeled.

There's a great many secrets within many faiths (Catholicism being the canonical example), and one doesn't require knowing the inner vaults of the Vatican to consent to be Catholic.
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

Now consider the oft repeated assertions of how evil Scientology is, consider Veda's (and others) ongoing refrain of how bad it all is, consider how opposing viewpoints get shunned and how it is suggested that those posters should not be on this board.

-snip-

I have never written that it's ALL BAD, quite the contrary.

And it's telling that you can't see that, or that you choose to misrepresent what I've written, or what I've linked to.
 

Veda

Sponsor
In secrets-based faiths and societies, consent is given as each layer of the onion is peeled -- and after that has been peeled.

There's a great many secrets within many faiths (Catholicism being the canonical example), and one doesn't require knowing the inner vaults of the Vatican to consent to be Catholic.

Sorry, but lying to people about something, then handing them their secret materials just before they go into session with those materials, and have the opportunity to look at them for the first time, while in session, or preparing for session, is hardly informed consent - particularly in a cult/totalist environment.

There's no hidden booby-prize in Catholicism, such as Xenu in Scientology. It's a stretch to compare one with the other.

Also, Scientology is not really a religion, but a crooked business that uses religious cloaking (Hubbard's "religion angle").
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
There is no doubt that 'brainwashing" took place inside Scientology as a result of LRH's express intent. It is still happening there today - sickeningly so.

It is easily reciognised there and so one can easily shake it off.

However, the really insidious brainwashing is the one where one least expects it, where it masquerades as "free discussion". For example, who would suspect that this very discussion board indulages in the nefarious activity.

No? Consider the following quote from chapter two of the book "Rape of the Mind" that was offerred as recommended reading to us recently:

"Such is the Pavlovian device: repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity of communicating dissent and opposition. This is the simple formula for political conditioning of the masses. This is also the actual ideal of some of our public relation machines, who thus hope to manipulate the public into buying a special soap or voting for a special party.

"The Pavlovian strategy in public relations has people conditioned more and more to ask themselves, "What do other people think?" As a result, a common delusion is created: people are incited to think what other people think, and thus public opinion may mushroom out into a mass prejudice."


Now consider the oft repeated assertions of how evil Scientology is, consider Veda's (and others) ongoing refrain of how bad it all is, consider how opposing viewpoints get shunned and how it is suggested that those posters should not be on this board.

It fits the two paragraphs quoted.


I'm truly not posting this in order to criticise this board. Factually, brainwashing exists everywhere. All of life depends on it. We all learned language by being praised for correct imitation and told whenit is incorrect. Same with table manners, same with a myriad other conditioned habit patterns that life depends upon.

Even your perception of the physical universe and your unshakeable certainty that it constitutes "reality" is nothiing more than a conditioned brainwash.

This is not to condone it either.

The daily and persistent abuses that took place in the Sea Org and the way children were treated and so on ad nauseum is all beyond the pale of what is acceptable in any human group.

But brainwashing as such is ubiquitous and there''s no getting away from it.

This sort of conditioning, using repetition and the "human" compulsion to agree with others, is something I believe all people take part in.

People constantly and unawarely reinforce "information packages" or call them implants, or whatever...

I believe it is not something we are aware we do, thus a liability.

Ingo Swann writes well about this subject. Hubbard tried to develop an end run focused attack methodology on it, buddhists have tried for centuries to direct attention to singularity to escape it, drugs certainly work for a few moments to step out of it, but I believe education and experience of looking and seeing the mechanisms is the best route.

But a short exercise in making the opposing terminal true may key it out.

alex
 

Veda

Sponsor
Maybe he's confusing you with me :)

Zinj

That's possible.

He's going on about brainwashing, without using the quote function, so I'm not sure what inspired that.

Could have been a link that led to information on L. Ron Hubbard's 'Brainwashing Manual':

http://warrior.xenu.ca/Brainwashing-front.jpg

The issue is not so much what the word 'Brainwashing' means, the issue is that L. Ron Hubbard secretly wrote a booklet, that he called the 'Brainwashing Manual', and that he, then, systematically, over a span of thirty years, implemented on his own private fan club, the Scientologists.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
I do recall an instance somewhere where you said there had been some good things in Scientology.

Nothwithstanding that, I think the statement "ongoing refrain of how bad it all is" is a fair comment of your posts on this board, as it is for Zinji.

I have no problem at all with you continuing in this way. I was using you merely as an example, not in order to target or diminish you. I find many of the links you provide very useful, even though I think you do go on a bit.
 

Neo

Silver Meritorious Patron
I respect any intelligent thought and opinion. Please allow me to make it clear that I oppose the Cos in its current and probably any future form that is not based on an entirely free-market competitive model. I do not oppose Scn philosophy (I support it), but my intent is not to convert anyone or to interfere with anyone's activities as long as these do not threaten or injure my activities. In keeping with my perception and use of Scn I encourage anyone's independent thought and desires for a better life.

As for opposing the Co$ - thats good, from my perspective. But not relevant to the conversation. I don't recall asking you about your thoughts on the Co$.

Hubbard defined the ARC triangle I mentioned. Affinity, Reality, Communication. Everyone has a level of affinity, a reality, and is able to communicate. All three taken together constitute Understanding. That I know, neither psych nor media defined this.

Hubbard defined ARC, but does it work? As he described? So I can't understand something/someone unless I am in agreement (reality) with them?

If memory on steroids can cause emotional upsets in the present that are hard for an individual to control, wouldn't it be better to resolve that? Apparently, just wishing it away doesn't work, but reviewing an entire chain of unpleasant past events will discharge it.

Yes, resolving issues of the past, if affecting the present would be prudent, IMO. Hubbard didn't invent this technique either. As for the need to view an 'entire chain' - not in my experience.

I've seen other guys and girls who can use their intention, politely or not. It isn't an exclusive to Scns. But I'd never felt intention as strong as this one OT's. (It was a one-time one-second event, btw - I don't have ghosts following me around pushing me into walls. Your humor, even if pointed at me, is appreciated as funny.)

But this was purely a subjective experience. Passed onto us as an objective one. Can you see the difference?

I agree there are often more than one possible explanations, and finding the right ones are a big win. Past life recall probably isn't "provable". "Proof" can always be challenged. Leibnitz, for example, a "noted" German "philosopher" challenged that matter was merely a figment of imagination, and could not be "proven" to exist. (I almost took out my former college roommate over that one, to "prove" to him that matter existed.:angry: :melodramatic: ) A few years later, he was the guy that intro'ed me to Scn.

Sure, but if I walk into a wall, it will hurt. That counts as 'proof' in my book.

I didn't say past lives don't happen. I said ones recall of them doesn't prove it is as people say it is. There is a lot we probably don't know about our current reality. But lets be wise enough to say it as it is - we don't know, but we still search for answers.

Hubbard came along into that degredation of thought and affirmed that one's own rightness is senior. What a man knows to be true, is true.

You oppose the Co$ (as stated earlier) but seem to be quite keen on Hubbard. Hubbard created the Co$. It is Hubbard through and through. Hubbard was degraded himself. Your other post http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=133526&postcount=103 implied that this is all conspiracy theory, desite the links to documentation I provided. Hubbard is no saint, no knight in shining armour.


Neo, I agree with you. To me, your willigness to talk and even consider viewpoints you are highly skeptical about is responsible behavior. The idea is that an individual through the philosophy of Scn can further develop his innate responsibility. But with all due respect, responsibility is a darn big subject. One can argue that responsible men succeed more frequently, because others recognize and reward responsible qualities. But then you'll get someone saying that success is wealth and wealthy men are crooks.

I am more interested in truth, not someones (including mine) version of it. I have stated my thoughts on responsibility already http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=6749&highlight=responsibility


I hope I've succeeded in being polite and of some interest. The most responsible thing I can say is that you're a responsible man able to tell what is true and what is false on your own. (Like a past life, you are able to identify the notion of responsibility, but :unsure: can you "prove" responsibility exists? Is it merely a "belief" that man is basically good?)

Your opposition to the CoS coincides in many respects with my opposition to the CoS, and I don't want to blunt your opposition to the CoS. But I can't sit by comfortably and smile when I see anyone make a mistake - I just think the philosophy of Scn has some important truths and shouldn't be thrown entirely away.

Your manners are not in question. Besides I don't mind a person 'raising their voice' if it fits the 'discussion'! I don't know if it is merely a belief that man is basically good. I don't have data on any scientific experiments on this. But if I didn't believe it - would I be talking with you, LOL.

Any disagreements we may have is not necessarily on the Scn philosophy. It is predominately on your dedication to Hubbard. It is not based on fact. Thus it is not based on truth, and no I don't accept that because you say it is true, it is therefore true for you. Truth as actually documented, says what it says. The question is -can you accept that?

Neo
 
A

Art

Guest
[snip]Hubbard defined ARC, but does it work? As he described? So I can't understand something/someone unless I am in agreement (reality) with them?

Not at all - each has his or her own reality.

Yes, resolving issues of the past, if affecting the present would be prudent, IMO. Hubbard didn't invent this technique either. As for the need to view an 'entire chain' - not in my experience.

Personally, I think Freud provided the seminal work on the "traumatic incident". Apparently Korzybski made substantial contributions as well.

[have to quote myself here for context] Art: "I've seen other guys and girls who can use their intention, politely or not. It isn't an exclusive to Scns. But I'd never felt intention as strong as this one OT's." Then Neo wrote:

But this was purely a subjective experience. Passed onto us as an objective one. Can you see the difference?

Yeah, I can see the difference :) Logical fallacy - if a person is incapable of accurate perception, then he is also incapable of perception of objective experience. All objective experience has to be perceived by someone. That does not mean it does not exist. "Second-hand information" would be accurate, wouldn't it? A reporter for a newspaper gathers subjective information, and passes it along. But in this case, you can observe other peoples' intentions for yourself, and "see it for yourself." Affinity flows, for example, are easily observable. Intention is slightly different, but that is observable also, and one can experience another's intention.

Sure, but if I walk into a wall, it will hurt. That counts as 'proof' in my book.
That was MY point:).
[snip]

I am more interested in truth, not someones (including mine) version of it. I have stated my thoughts on responsibility already http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=6749&highlight=responsibility

Now you're talking!! I don't think the truth is something "agreed" upon. Truth exists independently of our own humble selves. You can see it, and point it out to me, and if I see it, that isn't an "agreement" I don't think. I think I'd rather view it as a coincidence of perception.

[The remainder of your post regretfully unanswered - I'm spending too much time on forums. The truth is common ground, and there's enough of it for everyone to stand on.]

Best,
Art.
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
(snip)

"Now you're talking!! I don't think the truth is something "agreed" upon. Truth exists independently of our own humble selves. You can see it, and point it out to me, and if I see it, that isn't an "agreement" I don't think. I think I'd rather view it as a coincidence of perception."

I don't see how truth can exist without us. Truth exists only in a space where something can happen to be attested to as true. Without us, no universe. However, I'd be happy to look at a proof. "Coincidence of perception" is a happy phrase, that means, to me, exactly agreement. One must take the same viewpoint to see the same thing!

I believe one reason Scientology was doomed to fail, as Axiom 142 noted earlier, is that there's simply too much validation of the physical stuff and too little validation of the being. Spirits succeed best with a very light touch. Succeed, that is, at being spirits. But the COS was designed to make money and robots can do that very well, as the machine age has proven.
 
A

Art

Guest
(snip)

Spirits succeed best with a very light touch. Succeed, that is, at being spirits.

Yes - it's amazing. The simplest basics get dropped out, and the whole thing falls apart. The idea was to succeed as spirits. Best, Art.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Now you're talking!! I don't think the truth is something "agreed" upon. Truth exists independently of our own humble selves. You can see it, and point it out to me, and if I see it, that isn't an "agreement" I don't think. I think I'd rather view it as a coincidence of perception.

Art.

Just looking back over this thread, something occurred to me. 'Truth' does exist in a non-relative absolute sense outside of ourselves, *but* it's not available to us as humans (it may be glimpsed in an epiphany, but, the actual realization can't be maintained.) What we do have is our *perception* of the 'Truth', which can approach the reality, but never actually attain it, in any permanent sense anyway.

We catch the glimpses; we attempt to align our daily consciousness to 'Truth' as closely as we can, but, it's always only approximate. Sometimes it's even wildly *misperceived* too :) Or, misinterpreted, which is one of the major problems with 'revelation'.

Zinj
 
Just looking back over this thread, something occurred to me. 'Truth' does exist in a non-relative absolute sense outside of ourselves, *but* it's not available to us as humans (it may be glimpsed in an epiphany, but, the actual realization can't be maintained.) What we do have is our *perception* of the 'Truth', which can approach the reality, but never actually attain it, in any permanent sense anyway.


Which is another way of saying that all we can know is our own relative truth.

Thus, "Truth" is ultimately both real and a matter of faith.


Mark A. Baker
 
Top