Is there ANY Hubbard tech we should keep and use????

[lkwdblds]

How about hand cream usage?

So is your windshield clear?

A note to op. I have never been in Scientology, but it takes great pain to admit you are wrong, especially about something you have so much invested in. You don't have to unravel it all at once!

Also, I suspect many of the gains came from YOU! I advocate you-tech.

I want to go on record that Hubbard's tech is not totally worthless. At one time I had very dry itchy hands and even started to develop athlete's foot in between my fingers. The "tech" or "scriptures" insisted I rub my hands with hand cream before each session. What a Godsend this piece of tech has been for me, sheer genius on Hubbard's part!

Even though I quit C of $ years ago, I still use hand cream daily and have now got smooth attractive hands with no trace of itch or skin disease. Hubbard is a genius. Don't let anyone tell you that there is not even one piece of workable tech in Scn!
Lakey

 

[Wisened One]

I can honestly say that at first I burned many of my original books. The roaring fire was a nice way to hit that EP dead on.

I also donated many of the works that I felt were now useless.

I have kept several books, that do contain some valid and workable solutions for me. Yet, I haven't reviewed them in the recent past.

For my purposes, some of the tech works. Most is the lower or introductory tech. I had good wins on that. Mainly those items that were "borrowed" from other religions or philosophies. Would I ever use them again? Yes, in due time when the correct situation comes along. Otherwise, I learned from my experience and am ready to see where the road leads at this time - albeit without Scn.

-PWC

btw!

 

[IMMORTAL]

The above is so disingenuous as to be awesome.

The list at the beginning of 'Science of Survival' was a vanity list, used to give Hubbard respectability and gravitas.

Hubbard taught that he was "Source," and viciously attacked those who disagreed. Old Timer Jack Horner broke with Hubbard over this issue, and he was Fair Gamed for it for many years: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/hate/pubs/hco-exec-ltr-1965-09-27-3.html

Who cares what the source is? Scientologists do. They think source is LRH, whom they revere. This is from the link you place on every one of your posts: http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs/missionstatement.htm

For IMMORTAL,

IMO, as a general rule, it's wise to avoid those parts of Scientology counseling tech that are hyped extensively, and those part of Scientology counseling tech that are confidential. The least hyped parts, and the non-confidential parts, from my observation, produce the most benefit, and contains the fewest psychological traps.

Here are some links that may be helpful.

'The Scientological Onion', with links to an examination of Scientology, including what is sometimes called 'White Scientology': http://exscn.net/content/view/178/105

'The Sole Source Myth' thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=387772&postcount=417

The 'Stably exterior with full perception' thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=263818&postcount=103

Hmmm. That's interesting. "The least hyped parts, and the non-confidential parts." I never looked at it like that. Would you say the Ls would fall into the hyped parts? What about the special Flag only rundowns?

Thanks for all the links. I have lots of reading to do!! White Scientology? Wow. I never heard of that. Just goes to show you how out of the knowledge loop I've been!! Thanks!

 

[lkwdblds]

Succinct and Perfectly Stated.

I find lots of things *covered* in the "tech" very useful, and still have them as tools I use in every day life. I won't negate nor discard these tools, just because I discovered them through Scientology or Scientologists.

In saying this though, I used to pick out the bits I liked, think about them, and mould them as I thought they should be moulded. At the same time as I was doing that, I was in denial about the bits I didn't like and used to justify why this or that within the tech was written the way it was, or I'd try and figure out a circumstance in which it might or could be justified.

The tech as a *package*, is not a good one in my books. It's one I'd advise anyone to discard or leave well alone. As I've said though, I believe there "is" stuff within that package which is of value......whether plaguerised, put there as a bait, pulled out of LRH's ass, part of a wicked body of mind twisting crap, or what the fuck ever, it is what it is, and it is so *despite* Scn. So, if it's good shit, I'm sticking with it and will continue to use it.

Oh, btw, if anyone's asking, NO, I'm NOT a Scientologist. LOL

In just a couple of short paragraphs, you have expressed exactly what I have been trying to convey in several posts, with not much success. I need to study your post and see how you condensed these thoughts down to just the essence of what needed to be said in so few words. Thank you!
Lakey

 

[IMMORTAL]

That IS me in a previous lifetime.

But seriously. I was so pissed off when I first became disaffected that I truly did burn many books. Now that I am done with that phase, it was time to move on and see what was worth keeping.

It truly boggles my mind when I review the materials I have left. I'm not quite ready to dive in and sort through it again. Maybe in due time. Otherwise, the boxes sit in my attic - waiting.

-PWC

EXACTLY, PWC! This is where I am on the tech. What is good, what is crap. Even a step further.... if it is good, can I identify the real source. Some of it is going to be common sense, some from various other sources. Anyway, it's good to have someone to ask!

 

[IMMORTAL]

Nice post.

To me, TR0 was alright. Stolen from Buddhist meditation + 2 folding metal chairs and someone across from you (bad idea).

Other than that, I've never seen anyone get results. Look at the goal, too. OT - cause over MEST is your destination, they tell you.

That's ... a wizard. Not to shabby of a goal, but impossible, of course.

Clear ... silly? Check!

Wow, we're going backward all the way to a simple meditation exercise.

I know other people who got out and felt they could never again be in any organized religion. Those who found faith before getting in have a better chance to return to their faith.

I guess all I can suggest is to look in your heart, remember the good, spirituality seeking person you once were and start again with discovering real spiritual faith.

Best wishes!

Thanks, Anonycat. I also got a lot out of the TRs. I actually got a lot out of different parts of the Bridge. It seems to me that people traveling the same road, got different things out of it one to the other, which I think is good.

 

[IMMORTAL]

Three videos from the confidential Class 8 course, with commentary by two students who were there:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=177122&postcount=41

Smilentology:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041c85aa17/smilentology-from-petercoffin

The OT levels:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=6528

Oh boy. I can't wait to have time to look at this.....later this day. Thx

 

[FinallyFree]

Wow. I can certainly appreciate everything you said there. Thanks for that!

I had the "Affirmations" on my list quite a bit further down, but when you said what you did (and someone thankfully posted them just below this!), I read them right away. Sheezes!!!! WTF! I'm sure glad I read that!

I'm glad you are here and on your road to recovery!

Thank you Immortal. I am also very glad that you are here and on your road to recovery. It's a haul, but we are the first to get out and if I have anything to say about it we won't be the last.

 

[IMMORTAL]

I find lots of things *covered* in the "tech" very useful, and still have them as tools I use in every day life. I won't negate nor discard these tools, just because I discovered them through Scientology or Scientologists.

In saying this though, I used to pick out the bits I liked, think about them, and mould them as I thought they should be moulded. At the same time as I was doing that, I was in denial about the bits I didn't like and used to justify why this or that within the tech was written the way it was, or I'd try and figure out a circumstance in which it might or could be justified.

The tech as a *package*, is not a good one in my books. It's one I'd advise anyone to discard or leave well alone. As I've said though, I believe there "is" stuff within that package which is of value......whether plaguerised, put there as a bait, pulled out of LRH's ass, part of a wicked body of mind twisting crap, or what the fuck ever, it is what it is, and it is so *despite* Scn. So, if it's good shit, I'm sticking with it and will continue to use it.

Oh, btw, if anyone's asking, NO, I'm NOT a Scientologist. LOL

Yeah, I can see how that makes sense. I guess that's kind of where I am as far as the looking through it and picking out the parts I agree with and wish to keep.

Looking at it, I can see how LRH did bring these pieces of workable tech to my attention through his organization of data. And having been exposed to Scientology I was, therefore, exposed to the workable tech. It's possible, I wouldn't have been exposed otherwise. So, that's a good thing.

 

[IMMORTAL]

I want to go on record that Hubbard's tech is not totally worthless. At one time I had very dry itchy hands and even started to develop athlete's foot in between my fingers. The "tech" or "scriptures" insisted I rub my hands with hand cream before each session. What a Godsend this piece of tech has been for me, sheer genius on Hubbard's part!

Even though I quit C of $ years ago, I still use hand cream daily and have now got smooth attractive hands with no trace of itch or skin disease. Hubbard is a genius. Don't let anyone tell you that there is not even one piece of workable tech in Scn!
Lakey

No, I agree Lakey, that there are pieces of workable tech there. Picking through it all to get the good bits is a task. But, it is made easier by my friends here on ESMB, who have walked this road before me and are now pointing the way, I'll tell you! Thanks!

 

[IMMORTAL]

So is your windshield clear?

A note to op. I have never been in Scientology, but it takes great pain to admit you are wrong, especially about something you have so much invested in. You don't have to unravel it all at once!

Also, I suspect many of the gains came from YOU! I advocate you-tech.

Isn't that true! Maybe I just needed to be pointed in the right direction!

 

[FinallyFree]

What I find so dangerous about people of your mind set is that if someone sees things a little differently than you do, your analytical powers tend to break down. and you resort to dub ins and manuufacturing a set of conditions which your opponent must be stuck in to explain his failure to agree with you.

The true fact is that people have different points of view and different past experiences and often do tend to see things differently from one another. You appear to fall into this catefory, correct me if I am wrong. When two people of good will .......

Your means of handling dissenters about things you feel strongly to be true have only one major fault that I can see. There is a lack of ability to be more Pan Determinied. Grant beingness that someone can have an opinion different than yours in an area which you feel strongly about and still not be a bad guy or an enemy. It is possible you know, We are all doing our best, looking at things from different points of view. Two people may hold different views on core values and still be fellow seekers on a road to truth. It is possible.
Lakey

Lakey, I really think you either do not know me or choose to not know me.

I have bolded sections of your post and cut it down a bit. Frankly I find your post condescending and a bit rude. But I will put that aside and just chalk it up to the fact that you are still hanging on to scientology theory and trying to apply it to this post (of course I have noticed, as a scientologist, you are doing quite a bit of evaluating and invalidating which is interesting to me personally if you truly do believe in the tech - why you would do this in your response to me - are trying to shut me up?).

Dangerous. That’s what you called me. I am dangerous. Why? Because I speak my mind? Why? Because I think the tech is wrong/evil/harmful? Aren't you accusing me of exactly what you are doing?

I have two main problems with your post:

1. You find it "dangerous" that I speak out. I will continue to speak my mind regardless of how scientologists feel about what I say. There is nothing you or any other scientologist can do to shut me up. Frankly the more I hear of this from scientologist I pledge to get LOUDER.

2. You really don't know me well enough to post this response telling me
what is wrong with my posts. My Mother is a scientologist in good standing. My Sister is out. I am friends with scientologists who find themselves amongst the rank of Rathbun's followers. I am friends with Marc Headley - knew him before S.O. and the book. I am friends with good-standing, currently on-lines scientologists. I am also friends with full fledge declared SP's and members of Anonymous - on a first and last name (with photos) basis.

Guess what: I still feel the way I do. I still hold these belief’s and
Guess what: I respect anyone's belief’s which do not harm others.

Do you know what makes me really dangerous Lakey? What makes me dangerous is I understand scientology. I even understand you. What makes me dangerous is I have freed my mind. And with this freedom I choose to help people who I personally think only a few people can.

That is what makes me dangerous. I am dangerous to those who would enslave mankind with their culty tech.


Your damn right I am dangerous.

 

[NonScio]

So is your windshield clear?

A note to op. I have never been in Scientology, but it takes great pain to admit you are wrong, especially about something you have so much invested in. You don't have to unravel it all at once!

Also, I suspect many of the gains came from YOU! I advocate you-tech.

Oh Yes! On a Clear day, you can see forever through my windshield.
This windshield clearing grade may deserve a spot on "The Bridge".
There's "Dianetic Clear", there's "Theta Clear", and there should be
(or may secretly be on the high level super secret materials) "Windshield Clear". I soloed on Windshield Clear. End phenomena is a spotless
windshield. When it rains and you turn on the wipers, their action is
so smooth, so noiseless, your passenger might be tempted to
comment "Your Wipers are Floating".

 

[lkwdblds]

Let's try and find some common ground

Lakey, I really think you either do not know me or choose to not know me.

I choose to know you but am having a problem finding common ground.

I have bolded sections of your post and cut it down a bit. Frankly I find your post condescending and a bit rude. But I will put that aside and just chalk it up to the fact that you are still hanging on to scientology theory and trying to apply it to this post (of course I have noticed, as a scientologist, you are doing quite a bit of evaluating and invalidating which is interesting to me personally if you truly do believe in the tech - why you would do this in your response to me - are trying to shut me up?).

The tech says not to evaluate or invalidate for your pc in session. We are not in session so I engage in a degree of evaluation but I try hard not to invalidate. I feel you are a seeker of truth and if I have invalidated you the being, I was wrong to do so and apologize. I am not a Scientologist any longer. I quit around late 2001 or early 2002. I agree 100% with Carmel's post. She stated my position better than I could say it.

If I said you were dangerous, I did not mean you as a being. I did mean that you are engaging in a potentially dangerous activity by dubbing in your take on what people who don't agree with you are all about. Just above, you came to the conclusion that I believe in the tech and that I am still a Scientologist. Both of those assumptions are false. You have dubbed in those datum, neither of which is correct. Like Carmel, I have found some pieces of the tech that have consistently worked for me. Overall, I feel the tech is destructive and leads to much greater harm to individuals then whatever good the valid parts of it do. I have said this over and over and over and guys such as yourself do not get it. Perhaps dangerous is a poor choice of words. It just gets frustrating to say the same thing over and over again clearly and succinctly and never have it duplicated.

Dangerous. That’s what you called me. I am dangerous. Why? Because I speak my mind? Why? Because I think the tech is wrong/evil/harmful? Aren't you accusing me of exactly what you are doing?

Nope. As I stated, the only danger is that your activity of dubbing in wrong conclusions presents is that it tends to create breaks in reality, thus making it harder than necessary to find common ground. Danger is not the right word.

I have two main problems with your post:

1. You find it "dangerous" that I speak out. I will continue to speak my mind regardless of how scientologists feel about what I say. There is nothing you or any other scientologist can do to shut me up. Frankly the more I hear of this from scientologist I pledge to get LOUDER.

Two errors: One, I am not a Scientologist and two, I do not find it dangerous that you speak out. I encourage you to speak out. I am just suggesting that when you do so, be careful about placeing me in certain boxes where you feel I belong. Don't make assumptions. I am trying to find common ground with you through dialogue and if you place me in the wrong box, it hinders both of us in finding common ground.

2. You really don't know me well enough to post this response telling me
what is wrong with my posts. My Mother is a scientologist in good standing. My Sister is out. I am friends with scientologists who find themselves amongst the rank of Rathbun's followers. I am friends with Marc Headley - knew him before S.O. and the book. I am friends with good-standing, currently on-lines scientologists. I am also friends with full fledge declared SP's and members of Anonymous - on a first and last name (with photos) basis.

I congratulate you for your achievements in knowing some good people and having a good Mom. I am friends with a lot of declared SP's as you are. I believe IMMORTAL was declared and I try and be friendly with her and dozens of others who have been declared. I am glad you are making a lot of high quality friendsl Well Done! I just do not think that has any bearing on our dispute.

Guess what: I still feel the way I do. I still hold these belief’s and
Guess what: I respect anyone's belief’s which do not harm others.

Do you know what makes me really dangerous Lakey? What makes me dangerous is I understand scientology. I even understand you. What makes me dangerous is I have freed my mind. And with this freedom I choose to help people who I personally think only a few people can.

No, you are not correct above, you say that you even understand me but you are way, way off base. You believe I am currently a Scientologist, that I don't want you to speak out and that I embrace Scientology tech wholeheartedly. All of these things are 180 degrees from the truth. I hope that I have cleared up where I am coming from in this post. I put everything I had into this post to rationally explain to you where I actually stand on the items under question.

That is what makes me dangerous. I am dangerous to those who would enslave mankind with their culty tech.


Your damn right I am dangerous.

Nah, I've already admitted several times that you were not dangerous and that was a bad choice of words I made. I am glad you are on duty to knock out those who would enslave mankind with their culty tech. See, here again you have dubbed in that I am in the opposite camp as you when I am trying just as hard as you are to achieve the same goal you are going for.

You are fighting a non existent enemy you have created out of me by coming to the wrong conclusions of where I stand. I called it dangerous. There must be a better choice of words, perhaps "unnecessarily devisive". Yes that is much better.

SUMMARY There is about 95% agreement between us. The one area where we disagree is that I believe, as does Carmel and IMMORTAL that there are some workable pieces of tech in Scientology, perhaps, touch assists, being on time for appointments, not evaluatiing for your pc in session, applying hand cream, to take the point to an absurdity. I believe you are saying that there are no valid points at all. If I am wrong here and you admit that a couple of pieces of tech work, than I am doing what I accuse you of doing and that is dubbing in something about you which is not true.

As Carmel pointed out, whatever good comes from those pieces of workable tech is totally drowned out by all the harm and destruction which Scientology does. If you agree with that last sentence then we are in 100% alignment and are kindred spirits.
Lakey

 

[FinallyFree]

Nah, I've already admitted several times that you were not dangerous and that was a bad choice of words I made. I am glad you are on duty to knock out those who would enslave mankind with their culty tech. See, here again you have dubbed in that I am in the opposite camp as you when I am trying just as hard as you are to achieve the same goal you are going for.

You are fighting a non existent enemy you have created out of me by coming to the wrong conclusions of where I stand. I called it dangerous. There must be a better choice of words, perhaps "unnecessarily devisive". Yes that is much better.

SUMMARY There is about 95% agreement between us. The one area where we disagree is that I believe, as does Carmel and IMMORTAL that there are some workable pieces of tech in Scientology, perhaps, touch assists, being on time for appointments, not evaluatiing for your pc in session, applying hand cream, to take the point to an absurdity. I believe you are saying that there are no valid points at all. If I am wrong here and you admit that a couple of pieces of tech work, than I am doing what I accuse you of doing and that is dubbing in something about you which is not true.

As Carmel pointed out, whatever good comes from those pieces of workable tech is totally drowned out by all the harm and destruction which Scientology does. If you agree with that last sentence then we are in 100% alignment and are kindred spirits.
Lakey

ahhhh.... I think I understand better. Thank you for taking the time in responding the way you did, it was easier to read than I had anticipated -lol. I can see what you are saying and I admit I come across strong and I am not always correct. I admit it. I did start a thread a few days ago explaining myself a little, and offered and apology (sort of )....

I can somewhat agree with your last sentence. I just have a hard time accepting it for myself. I have an easy time saying nothing in scientology is for me. Is there workable tech - I will be honest: I think scientology is too dangerous to find out. There I said it and that is how I feel. scientology is not something you just check on and see if it is something you are interested in. When you get to the point where understand scientology you are very much indoctrinated at that point and are part of the trap. My opinion.

Can you separate the tech out in a way that it can be viewed individually to determine its workability - not really. At least that is what you learn when *in* scientology. You either “do” scientology or you “don’t” do “scientology”. So what do you do? Do you take the off handed chance that you are wrong and the one piece of tech you find might be "good"? Or do you scratch the whole thing as parts of a whole which over all DO enslave people, DO harm them?

That was my conundrum with coming out to my family and telling them some of the truth I have learned. Do I tell them the truth that I have learned and disillusion them from their life long religion? Or do I leave them to their own devices? You know (and you all don’t laugh, it’s an analogy!) I felt like Morpheus: “Would you like the red pill or the blue pill?” But I also felt like: “who the hell am I to even tell them there is a choice?”

I ended up answering it with my heart.

Sorta like when I post here. Maybe I should be more responsible for the posts I put here – but I tell you, it is far more therapeutic to just post off the cuff and with the heart. I also, personally find these types of posts far more enjoyable. Even if I completely disagree.

Truce?

 

[Carmel]

Yeah, I can see how that makes sense. I guess that's kind of where I am as far as the looking through it and picking out the parts I agree with and wish to keep.

Just to clarify my position - I wasn't really referring to what I'm currently doing in regard to the "tech". I was referring to what I did at the time I was studying and working with the stuff, as an auditor and C/S.

There are "tools" I acquired in my time in Scn and because of it. Those tools are helpful in life and I use them. However, there are also *mindsets* I acquired during my time in Scn and because of it......With these, it's quite a different story.

These *mindsets* are a buggar. Not necessarily visible. These are like *automatic tools* which crept in on me without my noticing - A *very* different kind of tool to that which I was referring to. It's one that gives ya a mindset, rather than something that ya find handy to use.

This is the aspect of the "tech" that I've been looking at and trying to pull apart this last year and a half or so. I do something, I think something, I go on automatic kind of, then step back and think "fuck, is this right, or is this something which I took on board because I thought I needed it to survive, and something ingrained in me so damn hard that I think it is me and *naturally* part of life?".

Six/nine months ago, I felt like a toddler learning to walk. I discovered stuff like I've described, and kinda freaked at first. Lately it's more like I'm enjoying being a toddler......looking, un-doing, discovering, and just playing with or venturing into unknown territory without the barriers and "now I'm supposed to's". I do care for others and about any adverse affects my actions may have on others, but I'm also caring for myself and looking at other aspects of the "tech" which have had adverse affects on me and which have affected the way I view things.

I'm waffling here. My point is that there is a difference between bits of the "tech" that one may find useful, and bits of the tech that have been used on ya and given you a *mindset* which ya may not even see. I don't give a second thought to tools I have in life which come in handy. I spend a fair bit of time though, breaking down and discarding the "tech" which crept in on me without me noticing - It's good to differentiate between the two, IMO.

Looking at it, I can see how LRH did bring these pieces of workable tech to my attention through his organization of data. And having been exposed to Scientology I was, therefore, exposed to the workable tech. It's possible, I wouldn't have been exposed otherwise. So, that's a good thing.

Sure!

Same applies though to the "tech" which was used on ya (or ya used on yourself) to keep ya on track maybe, and that's NOT a good thing.........I think that this is what we as former Scientologists benefit from looking at, as opposed to the obvious stuff or other *bits* which we either agree or disagree with.

 

[lkwdblds]

ahhhh.... I think I understand better. Thank you for taking the time in responding the way you did, it was easier to read than I had anticipated -lol. I can see what you are saying and I admit I come across strong and I am not always correct. I admit it. I did start a thread a few days ago explaining myself a little, and offered and apology (sort of )....

I can somewhat agree with your last sentence. I just have a hard time accepting it for myself. I have an easy time saying nothing in scientology is for me. Is there workable tech - I will be honest: I think scientology is too dangerous to find out. There I said it and that is how I feel. scientology is not something you just check on and see if it is something you are interested in. When you get to the point where understand scientology you are very much indoctrinated at that point and are part of the trap. My opinion.

Can you separate the tech out in a way that it can be viewed individually to determine its workability - not really. At least that is what you learn when *in* scientology. You either “do” scientology or you “don’t” do “scientology”. So what do you do? Do you take the off handed chance that you are wrong and the one piece of tech you find might be "good"? Or do you scratch the whole thing as parts of a whole which over all DO enslave people, DO harm them?

This is a real good point which you make. Here on the board, I can just pull out say "touch assist" and say, well I have given and received some which worked. However, as you point out, once you are in C of S, the management there does not really allow this, it is all or nothing out in the real world. My arguments did not address that point at all and it is a very valid point!

That was my conundrum with coming out to my family and telling them some of the truth I have learned. Do I tell them the truth that I have learned and disillusion them from their life long religion? Or do I leave them to their own devices? You know (and you all don’t laugh, it’s an analogy!) I felt like Morpheus: “Would you like the red pill or the blue pill?” But I also felt like: “who the hell am I to even tell them there is a choice?”

I ended up answering it with my heart.

Sorta like when I post here. Maybe I should be more responsible for the posts I put here – but I tell you, it is far more therapeutic to just post off the cuff and with the heart. I also, personally find these types of posts far more enjoyable. Even if I completely disagree.

Truce?

The conundrum of whether or not to let your parents now about any perceived good points is also a sticky issue which I did not think of. Well I am very pleased that I was able to come to a meeting of the minds with you. It was worth all the writing we each did to finally close ranks!
Lakey

 

[Lee_from_phx]

There is no tech, therefore no tech to keep.

There are no new ideas in Scientology. Everything within it is either a lie, or something that was already known.

Well that may be a bit of an exaggeration. Hubbard stole ideas from the people he had conned into thinking he was God, and it is possible that they might have occasionally come up with something interesting. However trying to sort through piles of steaming shit to find random nuggets of negligible worth is a waste of time.

You'll do much better to leave the cult behind completely. If you're looking for answers, go to school. Contrary to the xenophobic nonsense the cult teaches, higher education is not bad for you.

I remember back when I was involved in the cult and the loopies would be making such a big deal out of the most mundane things, and claiming to me in all seriousness that these were novel concepts unknown to people in the real world.

Bullshit.

But I was young and naive and didn't understand just delusional people could be and still manage to avoid wandering into traffic.

I later realized that the people who were most enamored with the supposed secret wisdom contained within the cult's nonsense tended to be uneducated and not terribly bright.

 

[IMMORTAL]

Just to clarify my position - I wasn't really referring to what I'm currently doing in regard to the "tech". I was referring to what I did at the time I was studying and working with the stuff, as an auditor and C/S.

There are "tools" I acquired in my time in Scn and because of it. Those tools are helpful in life and I use them. However, there are also *mindsets* I acquired during my time in Scn and because of it......With these, it's quite a different story.

These *mindsets* are a buggar. Not necessarily visible. These are like *automatic tools* which crept in on me without my noticing - A *very* different kind of tool to that which I was referring to. It's one that gives ya a mindset, rather than something that ya find handy to use.

This is the aspect of the "tech" that I've been looking at and trying to pull apart this last year and a half or so. I do something, I think something, I go on automatic kind of, then step back and think "fuck, is this right, or is this something which I took on board because I thought I needed it to survive, and something ingrained in me so damn hard that I think it is me and *naturally* part of life?".

Six/nine months ago, I felt like a toddler learning to walk. I discovered stuff like I've described, and kinda freaked at first. Lately it's more like I'm enjoying being a toddler......looking, un-doing, discovering, and just playing with or venturing into unknown territory without the barriers and "now I'm supposed to's". I do care for others and about any adverse affects my actions may have on others, but I'm also caring for myself and looking at other aspects of the "tech" which have had adverse affects on me and which have affected the way I view things.

I'm waffling here. My point is that there is a difference between bits of the "tech" that one may find useful, and bits of the tech that have been used on ya and given you a *mindset* which ya may not even see. I don't give a second thought to tools I have in life which come in handy. I spend a fair bit of time though, breaking down and discarding the "tech" which crept in on me without me noticing - It's good to differentiate between the two, IMO.


Sure!

Same applies though to the "tech" which was used on ya (or ya used on yourself) to keep ya on track maybe, and that's NOT a good thing.........I think that this is what we as former Scientologists benefit from looking at, as opposed to the obvious stuff or other *bits* which we either agree or disagree with.

Ok. On the mindsets, can you give me an example so I know what you mean exactly? When you say that, I think along these lines: "We are the only ones on the planet who can do anything about the situation. Therefore, we must accomplish 'X' by any means necessary." Or, "That person is just a wog so wouldn't understand." These may cause a person to act in a way that maybe they wouldn't if they weren't indoctrinated in that way to think of themselves.

Is that what you mean by that?

On the tools used in life, I understand that to mean having possession of various pieces of tech to identify problems that manifest themselves and can be handled by the application of a specific tech. Such as: natter equals this situation, out comm equals this situation, fighting equals this situation, bad indicators equal this situation, with the specific tech to handle each scenario. Is that what you mean by that?

I'm not trying to be dense. I'm just trying to sort this out and want to make sure I understand what you mean.

When I was involved and studied to be an auditor whether for myself or others, I'd sort through what I was learning in a way that allowed me to agree with it and find a reality with it. If I didn't agree with it and I had to apply it anyway, it was on faith. I didn't like that. Sometimes it "worked". Sometimes I "said" it worked but I didn't think it did work that well if at all.

At this point, since I took in so much without inspection or evaluation, I'm turning over all the stones I run into that I feel need to be exposed. Not that easy or pleasant, but made easier and faster with the help of those here. So, I appreciate your responses. Thanks.

 

[Carmel]

Ok. On the mindsets, can you give me an example so I know what you mean exactly? When you say that, I think along these lines: "We are the only ones on the planet who can do anything about the situation. Therefore, we must accomplish 'X' by any means necessary." Or, "That person is just a wog so wouldn't understand." These may cause a person to act in a way that maybe they wouldn't if they weren't indoctrinated in that way to think of themselves.

Is that what you mean by that?

On the tools used in life, I understand that to mean having possession of various pieces of tech to identify problems that manifest themselves and can be handled by the application of a specific tech. Such as: natter equals this situation, out comm equals this situation, fighting equals this situation, bad indicators equal this situation, with the specific tech to handle each scenario. Is that what you mean by that?

I'm not trying to be dense. I'm just trying to sort this out and want to make sure I understand what you mean.

When I was involved and studied to be an auditor whether for myself or others, I'd sort through what I was learning in a way that allowed me to agree with it and find a reality with it. If I didn't agree with it and I had to apply it anyway, it was on faith. I didn't like that. Sometimes it "worked". Sometimes I "said" it worked but I didn't think it did work that well if at all.

At this point, since I took in so much without inspection or evaluation, I'm turning over all the stones I run into that I feel need to be exposed. Not that easy or pleasant, but made easier and faster with the help of those here. So, I appreciate your responses. Thanks.

Examples of "mindsets" that I've discovered, which I believe originated and existed thanks to that wonderful "body of knowledge" whistling :

- "I have to *handle* this".......rather than feeling I have a choice, and that the decision is mine as to whether or not I *want* to handle it.

- "I know about it, I can maybe have influence, so I *have* to take responsibility".......which produces feelings of guilt if I don't act.

- "Why do I pull this shit in all the time, where am I going wrong?".........as opposed to having understanding that if you're out there playing with fire, you'll get burnt on occasion.

- "I'm being selfish"..........as opposed to feeling ok about taking care of myself.

- "I can't show how I really feel, I have to maintain a strong front".........instead of trusting and reaching out for help and support when I need it.


Examples of "tools" I use:

- Get to the source of the problem rather than find some band aid type solution which will only cause another problem.

- General principal of third party.........Pull the strings and get the truth on the table.

- Basic auditing series ( first get in comm, then ya can do something for the pc).....Before ya can help anyone, you've got to get "in comm", look at and understand their perspective, otherwise you won't discover what could or would be actual help for *them*.

- Pan determinsm.......Step back and look at all perspectives, otherwise there'll be valid aspects that ya won't see, and you're likely to make the wrong decision.


The above is only a snippet, but hopefully it'll help ya understand what I mean. Good luck with sorting it all out.........I've been working pretty hard at this for months and months now, and geez, there's still a ways to go.