I expect you'll find the anons there too! The pub visit always seems to be a highlight of "activism"!
It's time to get off the fence
- Thread starter Emma
- Start date
I expect you'll find the anons there too! The pub visit always seems to be a highlight of "activism"!
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Carmel
Crusader
Damn, I was dreamin' 'bout the day when I could rub shoulders with you Zinj.
Mind you, meeting ya down at the pub would prolly be just as much fun. 
SchwimmelPuckel
Genuine Meatball
Yes, Fluffy.. I'm aware that 'ARC' can be genuine..Wanting to control one's life isn't the same as trying to control others ala slavemaster, cult, etc, though.WUT!!? They ain't gnashing their teeth over me? - Are you telling me I'm a failure!!??
Ok, joking aside.. I'd expect feezoners and indies to use 'nice' scientology.. ARC an all that.. A litlle flattery.. Affinity.. Responding to posts at .5 above my tone level. Shifting topic to my perceived interests..
It's still a 'valiant' attempt at control!
I don't mind.. Usually.. It's heaps better than the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology.
Sometimes I ignore the ARC handling.. When I think the point of debate is more important... Or I'm just in a foul mood..
And you know, Schimmy, sometimes people display "ARC" because they actually like you. Really.
My comment was about scientologists/freezoners/indies handling 'me' with 'nice' scientology. Not about controlling one's life..
I wanted to illuminate a certain aspect of betrayal by scientology and it's tech.. That even 'nice' usage might still be manipulation.
I don't think I'm alone in being very suspicious of any 'application' of the tech. I never experienced 'honest' affinity or friendship inside the cult. All that was turned on and off as a manipulation tool. Friends turned out to be 'regges' in the final analysis.
Right.. All that was/is in the cult. We're not in it anymore..
So.. Even as I am 'sensitive' to manipulation by 'tech'.. I'm pretty much recovered.. I like everybody.. Even You Fluffy!
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Damn, I was dreamin' 'bout the day when I could rub shoulders with you Zinj.
She just likes your post count.
Carmel
Crusader
More than the post count, Alanzo - it's "charisma" - and it comes with age
.
uniquemand
Unbeliever
I thought charisma came with pheromones.
Veda
Sponsor
One of the ploys used by Scientology is to (in particular instances) cooperate with those dissenters or critics who - somewhat naively - present Scientology as always being "in your face" angry ("1.5") toward anyone who is "anti." Then, when a Scientologist comes along who is "nice," the dissenter, etc., is usually completely caught off guard.
The idea that there's no "handling" in Scientology other than "attack" is understandable, perhaps, as Hubbard did write "always attack never defend"!, yet Hubbard elaborated upon those instructions with additional instructions such as contained in his 'PR Series' (with its devious layers of PR) , including confidential 'PR Series' issues, and other confidential PR and PR-related writings.
The confidential issue, 'Targets, Defense', in its title, sums up the basic pattern. The "targets" (objectives, things wanted) are to be kept private, while the "defense" - in this context - is to be displayed. In this, and some other confidential writings, the word "defense" is used to mean "PR," as in manipulative protective layer (smoke screen). "Our best *defence* is that we commit no crimes," etc., with "defense" meaning "PR line."
Scientology Tech's "handlings" of the "low toned" and "not so bright" have always involved more than overt "attack."
This would be in accordance with the idea of "winning" by using both "overt" and "covert," using "multiple channels," or multiple avenues of influence, simultaneously or in succession, using "ARC," using "Affinity," using "Reality" (finding the "reality level" on a particular topic and [seeming to be] agreeing with it.), using the "Tone Scale" to manipulate toward some desired Scientological end, even using "help" in a manipulative fashion, etc.
It actually gets to be pretty creepy.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Given the fact that skeptics and detractors often are wont to comment that nothing or very little in Scn is original, then, anyone's consideration that someone is "using Scientology" or "handling (them) with Scientology" would be inconsistent.
What a nice change of pace considering our earlier history. Perhaps you've finally figured out that I'm a living person with feelings.
lkwdblds
Crusader
What well known History of Man tape?
Dulloldfart:
You need to rethink your screen name. You are about 10 years younger than me and you are not dull. All your comments are quite perceptive and interesting. Ha, ha, I am just kidding about the name. I do like your postings.
When I re read my posting the next day, I realized I had made an error. I am actually referring to a key tape in the "State of Man" Congress given in Washington D.C.inthe early 50's. The individual tape was being sold in the bookstores or sometimes just mailed to Scientologists for free, perhaps as a recruiting tool. Now, of course the tapes are gone and it is in CD form. If you still do not know which lecture I am talking about, I own most of the Congress sets including that one. They are in boxes in my garage and I can find the "State of Man" congress lectures and e-mail you the date and number of the CD. I figured most ex-scios would know what I meant so did not bother to correct things until now..........lkwdblds
Dulloldfart:
You need to rethink your screen name. You are about 10 years younger than me and you are not dull. All your comments are quite perceptive and interesting. Ha, ha, I am just kidding about the name. I do like your postings.
When I re read my posting the next day, I realized I had made an error. I am actually referring to a key tape in the "State of Man" Congress given in Washington D.C.inthe early 50's. The individual tape was being sold in the bookstores or sometimes just mailed to Scientologists for free, perhaps as a recruiting tool. Now, of course the tapes are gone and it is in CD form. If you still do not know which lecture I am talking about, I own most of the Congress sets including that one. They are in boxes in my garage and I can find the "State of Man" congress lectures and e-mail you the date and number of the CD. I figured most ex-scios would know what I meant so did not bother to correct things until now..........lkwdblds
SchwimmelPuckel
Genuine Meatball
I don't see how this would apply to me in any way.. I am consistent be default.. Unerringly! - Even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
As opposed to a 'phenomenon' with no wavelength and no position in time and space? (Joke!
)
lkwdblds
Crusader
The natural growth of a support system
This post is a response to Zinjifar's comment on my post. He says, "Microsoft needs that stuff because they sell their product. If something is for free and enough people care about it the support structure evolves naturally".
This is an excellent and thought provoking comment. Scientology is sold and sold HARD. LRH's stated reason for this is urgency due to atomic weapons, etc.. I think Hubbard says something to the effect that "The Catholic Church took 700 years to gain power in Europe and we neither have nor need 700 years." If LRH is debunked as being a crackpot, the justification for urgency
is thrown out and Scientology is just a money making business using the hard sell to make money. I am not to the point where I am willing to toss out LRH as a crackpot and Zinjifar is. Let's assume Zinjifar's viewpoint is the correct one and look further at how other religions grew with and sans organizations.
Buddhism - Spread throughout large parts of Asia over a couple of hundred
years and brought civilization to a Barbarism. It seemed to
peak, after its initial growth phase, at about1 billion adherents.
Hinduism - I am not an expert on this but I believe it grew fast and stabilized
at a little over 1 billion adherents. NOTE: Both Buddhism and
Hinduism were local religions in the big Asian population centers
for millinea but are now key elements in New Age religions in the
West and are enjoying more growth and popularity as a result.
Christianity - I mentioned the growth phase above. It seems to be in decline
in the USA and Europe now with a new powerful rival in the form
of secular atheism trying to beat it back.
Islam - Was a local religion in one or two parts of the world which grew
fast and took over in its area and is now spreading to Europe.
It has many factions and one or more factions are
driven to spread its influence worldwide at any cost.
Judaism - There is an organization but no proselitizing. It never grew in
numbers the way the above religions grew. Its growth has turned
to a slow decline in numbers partly due to secular atheism.
SUMMARY - Christianity, Judaism and Islam all are organized although each
of them has many factions often not in harmony with other
factions. None of them have a strong central worldwide Org.
The Catholic faction of Christianity does have this. Two of the
religions have grown to huge numbers, one never grows so for
some reason, according to Zinjifar'seasoning,
not enough people care about Judaism to cause growth.
Buddhism and Hinduism and their derivatives grew to very large
numbers of people in their local areas and then their growth and
influence leveled out. Only after 2 thousand years did the
concepts of their religions spread to the West and grow
and become springboards for New Age Religions and even
Scientology itself. I would say that Zinjifar is correct that
the needed Organizations evolve naturally but the evolution
takes hundreds or even thousands of years. If you want to
see something happen within your own lifetime you have to
put an organization there with promotion and sales componenets
lkwdblds
This post is a response to Zinjifar's comment on my post. He says, "Microsoft needs that stuff because they sell their product. If something is for free and enough people care about it the support structure evolves naturally".
This is an excellent and thought provoking comment. Scientology is sold and sold HARD. LRH's stated reason for this is urgency due to atomic weapons, etc.. I think Hubbard says something to the effect that "The Catholic Church took 700 years to gain power in Europe and we neither have nor need 700 years." If LRH is debunked as being a crackpot, the justification for urgency
is thrown out and Scientology is just a money making business using the hard sell to make money. I am not to the point where I am willing to toss out LRH as a crackpot and Zinjifar is. Let's assume Zinjifar's viewpoint is the correct one and look further at how other religions grew with and sans organizations.
Buddhism - Spread throughout large parts of Asia over a couple of hundred
years and brought civilization to a Barbarism. It seemed to
peak, after its initial growth phase, at about1 billion adherents.
Hinduism - I am not an expert on this but I believe it grew fast and stabilized
at a little over 1 billion adherents. NOTE: Both Buddhism and
Hinduism were local religions in the big Asian population centers
for millinea but are now key elements in New Age religions in the
West and are enjoying more growth and popularity as a result.
Christianity - I mentioned the growth phase above. It seems to be in decline
in the USA and Europe now with a new powerful rival in the form
of secular atheism trying to beat it back.
Islam - Was a local religion in one or two parts of the world which grew
fast and took over in its area and is now spreading to Europe.
It has many factions and one or more factions are
driven to spread its influence worldwide at any cost.
Judaism - There is an organization but no proselitizing. It never grew in
numbers the way the above religions grew. Its growth has turned
to a slow decline in numbers partly due to secular atheism.
SUMMARY - Christianity, Judaism and Islam all are organized although each
of them has many factions often not in harmony with other
factions. None of them have a strong central worldwide Org.
The Catholic faction of Christianity does have this. Two of the
religions have grown to huge numbers, one never grows so for
some reason, according to Zinjifar'seasoning,
not enough people care about Judaism to cause growth.
Buddhism and Hinduism and their derivatives grew to very large
numbers of people in their local areas and then their growth and
influence leveled out. Only after 2 thousand years did the
concepts of their religions spread to the West and grow
and become springboards for New Age Religions and even
Scientology itself. I would say that Zinjifar is correct that
the needed Organizations evolve naturally but the evolution
takes hundreds or even thousands of years. If you want to
see something happen within your own lifetime you have to
put an organization there with promotion and sales componenets
lkwdblds
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
And as with Christianity & Islam, both Buddhism & Hinduism owe much of their early expansion to adoption as state religions with an attendant period of mandatory conversion. In the case of Buddhism this period was a mercifully short one although influential on its later history.
Mark A. Baker
lkwdblds, there seems to be some confusion here, at least as far as what 'my' position is.
I am *not* saying that what I described as 'support structures' equates to 'growth'. In fact, 'growth' is of no particular interest to me and a 'mandate to grow' is something I would see as a definite liability; one that almost inevitably translates to all the worst features of 'groups'.
Take buddhism, for example. Very broadly, there is a schism between 'Mahayana' and 'Hinayana' schools of thought; 'Big Boat' and 'Small Boat', with the 'Big Boat' Buddhists *striving* to achieve enlightenment for *all* and, therefore, generating numerous competing 'groups' up to and including some cults that could easily compete with Scientology for abusiveness.
Removing some kind of 'social mandate' towards evangelism, competition and even *conquest*, however, does not suggest that lack of 'growth' equals 'lack of support'.
There are numerous niche interests in the world, which do *not* wish to 'take over the world' or even 'grow'. They need no hierarchy, no buildings (although, they may have them), no lawyers, thugs, PIs, PR Flaks, lobbyists or salesmen.
Scientology needs all of the above because of its *mandate* to 'take over the world'. In the unlikely event that Scientology lost its megalomania, the 'Church' would be superfluous. Anyone could print the books and, there would be competing editions even. Anyone could function as a C/S or auditor. There's no need for a 'Church' to 'certify' them, but, no doubt competing 'schools' or (heh) Professional Bodies that could compete in 'certs' even.
Back to Microsoft; If the Corporation ceased *today*, along with all its 'intellectual property', the 'source code' could be available to all; different competing groups could alter and evolve it; looseknit bands of variously competent 'experts' could hold forth on the merits and offer advice.
In short, it could become something like Linux, which has no shortage of 'support structure'.
Same for Scientology; except for one thing; Linux *works*.
Zinj
I am *not* saying that what I described as 'support structures' equates to 'growth'. In fact, 'growth' is of no particular interest to me and a 'mandate to grow' is something I would see as a definite liability; one that almost inevitably translates to all the worst features of 'groups'.
Take buddhism, for example. Very broadly, there is a schism between 'Mahayana' and 'Hinayana' schools of thought; 'Big Boat' and 'Small Boat', with the 'Big Boat' Buddhists *striving* to achieve enlightenment for *all* and, therefore, generating numerous competing 'groups' up to and including some cults that could easily compete with Scientology for abusiveness.
Removing some kind of 'social mandate' towards evangelism, competition and even *conquest*, however, does not suggest that lack of 'growth' equals 'lack of support'.
There are numerous niche interests in the world, which do *not* wish to 'take over the world' or even 'grow'. They need no hierarchy, no buildings (although, they may have them), no lawyers, thugs, PIs, PR Flaks, lobbyists or salesmen.
Scientology needs all of the above because of its *mandate* to 'take over the world'. In the unlikely event that Scientology lost its megalomania, the 'Church' would be superfluous. Anyone could print the books and, there would be competing editions even. Anyone could function as a C/S or auditor. There's no need for a 'Church' to 'certify' them, but, no doubt competing 'schools' or (heh) Professional Bodies that could compete in 'certs' even.
Back to Microsoft; If the Corporation ceased *today*, along with all its 'intellectual property', the 'source code' could be available to all; different competing groups could alter and evolve it; looseknit bands of variously competent 'experts' could hold forth on the merits and offer advice.
In short, it could become something like Linux, which has no shortage of 'support structure'.
Same for Scientology; except for one thing; Linux *works*.
Zinj
lkwdblds
Crusader
Acks for Mark Baker and Zinjifar.
Mark - Your point that some of the religions were state sponsored and that obviously accelerated their growth is excellent. I think that in the very early days, LRH was hoping for state sponsorship for Dianetics. Do you agree?
Zinjihar - Sorry for misinterpreting what you said. Thank you for clarifying what you meant. You make some very good points! I have one question for you. Hubbard claimed that all new branches of knowledge tend to get watered down and altered over time and that is why he insisted his writings be left in tact with no alterations allowed. I bought in to this. Do you think there is any merit in Hubbard's point of view on this one specific point?
lkwdblds
Mark - Your point that some of the religions were state sponsored and that obviously accelerated their growth is excellent. I think that in the very early days, LRH was hoping for state sponsorship for Dianetics. Do you agree?
Zinjihar - Sorry for misinterpreting what you said. Thank you for clarifying what you meant. You make some very good points! I have one question for you. Hubbard claimed that all new branches of knowledge tend to get watered down and altered over time and that is why he insisted his writings be left in tact with no alterations allowed. I bought in to this. Do you think there is any merit in Hubbard's point of view on this one specific point?
lkwdblds
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
I don't know. He certainly had a lot of attention on the role of government and it's activities regarding individual freedom. But then at that time such considerations were rife. Cold War paranoia didn't reduce them either.
I notice that you are in OC. Were you ever on lines at SOC? I was on staff there briefly in the early '80s. I live in LA county at present.
Mark A. Baker
Veda
Sponsor
Hubbard's concerns had to do with how government activities affected him only. There was zero concern for others. Read his early correspondence, including to the FBI, with the FBI letters earning him the distinction of being labelled "appears mental."
His use of what later became his formalized Propaganda tech, where he sought to identify others with the Communist party, had nothing to do with patriotism or social conscience. It was pure expediency designed to serve his needs, or his desire to destroy others.
Scientology's "Siberia Bill" assertions are mostly false, and used to serve its own propaganda purposes. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=213&highlight=siberia
The evidence is there for those who want to do some searching.
'Messiah or Madman?' has some FBI letters, and other correspondence (third edition has Index); or just use "find" on key words for the on-line (crude) copy of the 1st edition; or look through the chapters, 'The Kidnapping', and 'Scientology in the Fifties'. 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels' also has some letters, and analysis of these, in the 'Addendum' section. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=3036&postcount=1
And some FBI letters can be found on line, but not all.
Hubbard appears to have been willing to make deals with the government, always to his advantage, and it seems, thought he could use a combination of charm and deceit to obtain whatever he wanted from them. When his combination of charm and deceit didn't achieve the desired result, his resentment and paranoia would grow. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=220821&postcount=22
His use of what later became his formalized Propaganda tech, where he sought to identify others with the Communist party, had nothing to do with patriotism or social conscience. It was pure expediency designed to serve his needs, or his desire to destroy others.
Scientology's "Siberia Bill" assertions are mostly false, and used to serve its own propaganda purposes. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=213&highlight=siberia
The evidence is there for those who want to do some searching.
'Messiah or Madman?' has some FBI letters, and other correspondence (third edition has Index); or just use "find" on key words for the on-line (crude) copy of the 1st edition; or look through the chapters, 'The Kidnapping', and 'Scientology in the Fifties'. 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels' also has some letters, and analysis of these, in the 'Addendum' section. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=3036&postcount=1
And some FBI letters can be found on line, but not all.
Hubbard appears to have been willing to make deals with the government, always to his advantage, and it seems, thought he could use a combination of charm and deceit to obtain whatever he wanted from them. When his combination of charm and deceit didn't achieve the desired result, his resentment and paranoia would grow. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=220821&postcount=22
I know you asked Zinj as regards point 2, but here's my opinion.
Both points are efforts to achieve his affirmations "Men are your slaves" "Material things are yours for the asking".
State sponsorship did appear to be an early aim - if successful he would have asked for considerable material gain.
The no alterations (by others) policy was designed to keep him in complete control of his slave cult. For his part he altered the body of knowledge called Dianetics and Scientology all the time. Some exes believe it got watered down by this process. But one thing appears to be the case and that is Hubbard remained in control of the subject to the end, keeping scientologists his slaves to do whatever was his bidding. The absolute control also achieved material things for him.
Ironically the constant altering of the tech by Hubbard in itself helped him to maintain his dominion over his slaves as it put him as "Source".
So whatever the relative merits of altering or preserving a body of knowledge, Hubbard used the KSW PR line of not altering combined with his own constant altering to cement his affirmation "Men are your slaves".
Not a problem. But:
to #1) Obviously Ron wanted 'state sponsorship' for Dianetics/Scientology, however, always with an eye towards *supplanting* the State. He said as much from the earliest days.
to #2) I agree with LH on the deliberately manipulative reasoning behind the 'No Alterations of Source', but, there's more to it than that.
Currently, most modern cultures run on a scientifically accumulated body of knowledge. Not exclusively, and, not completely, but, it's a kind of 'default system' that tends to persist and expand because it *does* work, and, that system is inherently evolving, changing, mutating, adding and being pruned as necessary. It's the beauty of the system.
However, it's not the *only* system.
Backtracking a bit; there is no reason that actual information/data/philosophies *must* be 'diluted' (a deliberately loaded term implying that 'change' *is* less good.) We still have much 'original' material from the founders of various philosophies. Anybody who wants to adopt 'pure, undiluted Platonism' can. How much good it will do him being the only question. One can still repeat Galileo's experiments and receive the same results, although, there will be differences due to the 'state of the art' that are addressed in the evolution of the theory. Newton's calculations are still valid, within his framework, and are available to anybody who wants to find his PHILOSOPHI NATURALIS PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.
So, 'dilution' does *not* inevitably mean corruption of the original; just alteration, expansion or evolution. Nowdays, there is no reason that all versions of any theory, philosophy or even 'revealed knowledge' couldn't be simultaneously available. (Something the 'Church' hates, since it exposes how they are 'changing' Ron's 'immutable truth' all the time, as He Himself did.)
So, so much for *that* excuse, which would tend to suggest the manipulative aspects (ignoring for the moment the narcissistic aspects.)
But wait! There's more!
I have some other thoughts on this. Let's distinguish between 'Magical' thinking and 'Scientific' thinking; they're really much more similar than we usually assume. Both start from a 'observation'; both derive a 'reason' for that observation; both posit a 'worldview' based on that understanding of the observed and what 'caused' it. 'Science', however, takes it a step further and retests that worldview against *predicted* results, and, if no confirmation is forthcoming, dumps the 'theory'.
And, 'observation' isn't necessarily the *first* step for either. Both can be kick-started by a 'Divine Inspiration', 'Direct Knowledge', 'Ascension Experience', 'a priori knowledge' etc. Then it goes on to the 'observation' etc.
The 'holy grail' of both, however, is arriving at a 'unified field theory', some comprehension of the universe that explains *everything*, even if the explaination is 'Some things are meant to be mysteries'.
So, some dood early on notices that when the tribe meets other tribes, sometimes people start getting sick and lots die off. A divine inspiration may flash that 'there are spirits' coming from those other guys! Lacking microscopes or any comprehension of micro-biology, this is a pretty reasonable theory. And, so, it's not insane to jump to the conclusion that 'Those guys are Witches!' and generally do whatever 'process' seems to work to handle witches. Clubs and fire etc.
Anyway, Science goes a step further and begins testing the hypothesis, and, it may take a few thousand years, but, eventually the nature of those 'spirits' carried by the witches may get clearer and some less socially obnoxious process than genocide may turn up to handle the problem.
And, it continuously *retests* the whole theory too, because it *could* turn out that 'germs' actually *are* evil spirits
It could happen. Of course, being less than absolute, continuously doubtful Science may be less than satisfactory to the human desire for 'certainty', but hey, that's why they're competing systems.Somewhere in here between the two is Alchemy, which often gets seen as the 'father of Science', but, is probably more something like the 'father of engineering', since an alchemist will operate off of any going 'theory', but, is more interested in the results and workability than supporting or disproving the theory itself. Still, their observations are hugely important to Science, since they may suggest flaws in the 'theory' which may require a complete or not-so-complete revamping. Less so for 'magic' (or religion) which operates on the basis of 'Our knowledge good; no need fixum'.
Now, if anybody's still reading this, we come to one of the aspects of 'magic' that I find fascinating; Superstition. Ignore for the moment the negative connotations of the word, please; let's just pull it apart and see what it 'means'.
Super - on top of; stition - placing on. So, superstition is something 'placed upon' something else. One of the tenets of Science and logic is that 'The Map is not the Territory'. The fetish is not the referent. The talisman is not the object. This is the *opposite* of 'magical' thought, where, by 'associative magic' the voodoo doll *is* the person it symbolizes. The map *is* the territory.
I'm not criticizing magical thought here, but merely pointing out the difference. Personally, I find it 'attractive'
But, it's not science.Anyway, the reason I bring up 'superstition' is that in magical thought, a *ritual* is an engineering concept. Science would tear the whole thing apart into its component parts and try to find out how it works, then generate a theory of *why* it works and try some other things consistent with the 'theory' to support the theory.
Magic on the other hands is full of dire warnings for those so intemperate and prideful as to try to do any such thing. The damn ritual works! Fiddle with it and you be dead meat! Remember the sorcerers apprentice and do things *exactly* as per the cookbook. Or else.
So, rituals evolve to the point where the actual reason for the 'working' of the ritual may be lost. The connection between the 'theory' and its application is torn. The ritual is *superstitiously* superimposed on the reason for the ritual.
So, many schools of 'western' magic *still* use latin in incantations and spells, even for people who don't speak latin, and, even if the words themselves are meaningless. Same for other schools, but, then it's not 'latin'
Why the latin is used or what its function is is less than important. The *ritual* is a superstion on something tha might even make perfect sense, but, it's so dangerous to 'change what works' that experimentation is strictly forbidden.
I suspect that Ron was quite aware of this practice and for His own purposes, both occult *and* purely manipulative, infused Scientoloty 'Tech' with ritual superstition.
Bear in mind, anything can be 'superstition'; somebody who changes the channels on his TV by clicking the remote is operating 'superstitiously', in that he may not know what's actually happening. He knows that, if he pushes buttons XYZ, he gets the channel he wants. Maybe
Zinj
lkwdblds
Crusader
Lionheart and Zinjifar speak wisdom
I read Lionheart's answer to my post and Zinjifar discertation and learned something from each. In Zinjifar's case, I did only a cursory reading of the highlights and plan to take some serious time to restudy the document which is quite a scholarly discertation. The answers each of you gave to my 2 questionS to Mark Baker and Zinjifar are very very interesting to me and I hope others as well.
I had one further comment/question to bring up about Ron's way of doing research on which I would like to hear your opinions and those other readers.
THE AREA IS ON THE SUBJECT OF PAST LIVES .
I was recently listening to a CD from a 1952 Congress in which LRH states that the existence of past lives is "PROVED" by the following phenomena:
When an auditor runs only this life incidents using the E-Meter, there seem to be wins available but they are usually relatively minor wins and the TA movement and needle behavior is positive but relatively small. Long term phobias, inablities to do things and medical conditions seem only to lessen but not vanish. Only when the auditor goes "back track" do the big blowdowns, dial wide F/N's and floating TA's occur and phobias and illnesses disappear. LRH does not require a very large sample size either, perhaps just himself and a handful of other pc's. To LRH's way of research, this constituted a PROOF. Characteristic of his P.T. Barnum style, he summed the situation up with a clever play on words, "When we run only the incidents that we are absolutely sure occurred we get only small gains but only when we run the incidents that we are not sure actually occurred do we get enormous case gains and vanishment of disabilities." Then he starts laughing
and the audience breaks up laughing with him. They buy his "proof" with enthusiasm and he is viewed as almost a God.
Now, what LRH presented is not a Scientific proof, the sample size is too small and there is no guarantee that the phenomena will continue to happen as more people are run. There is no double blind testing, no placebo testing or any of that. Still it seems to be stronger than simply a faith based conclusion. His entire tech is based on "proofs" such as this done only on himself, usually solo audited, plus him auditing a handful of other people.
Though not an actualy proof, if a person tries it on himself and it seems to work, he accepts it as a scientific proof. Of course if it does not work on the person then the person needs to be "handled". The tech can never be wrong.
My question is then, do you see any merit or validity in LRH's way of conducting his research? If not, how do you explain the much better results when backtrack incidents are run?
lkwdblds
I read Lionheart's answer to my post and Zinjifar discertation and learned something from each. In Zinjifar's case, I did only a cursory reading of the highlights and plan to take some serious time to restudy the document which is quite a scholarly discertation. The answers each of you gave to my 2 questionS to Mark Baker and Zinjifar are very very interesting to me and I hope others as well.
I had one further comment/question to bring up about Ron's way of doing research on which I would like to hear your opinions and those other readers.
THE AREA IS ON THE SUBJECT OF PAST LIVES .
I was recently listening to a CD from a 1952 Congress in which LRH states that the existence of past lives is "PROVED" by the following phenomena:
When an auditor runs only this life incidents using the E-Meter, there seem to be wins available but they are usually relatively minor wins and the TA movement and needle behavior is positive but relatively small. Long term phobias, inablities to do things and medical conditions seem only to lessen but not vanish. Only when the auditor goes "back track" do the big blowdowns, dial wide F/N's and floating TA's occur and phobias and illnesses disappear. LRH does not require a very large sample size either, perhaps just himself and a handful of other pc's. To LRH's way of research, this constituted a PROOF. Characteristic of his P.T. Barnum style, he summed the situation up with a clever play on words, "When we run only the incidents that we are absolutely sure occurred we get only small gains but only when we run the incidents that we are not sure actually occurred do we get enormous case gains and vanishment of disabilities." Then he starts laughing
and the audience breaks up laughing with him. They buy his "proof" with enthusiasm and he is viewed as almost a God.
Now, what LRH presented is not a Scientific proof, the sample size is too small and there is no guarantee that the phenomena will continue to happen as more people are run. There is no double blind testing, no placebo testing or any of that. Still it seems to be stronger than simply a faith based conclusion. His entire tech is based on "proofs" such as this done only on himself, usually solo audited, plus him auditing a handful of other people.
Though not an actualy proof, if a person tries it on himself and it seems to work, he accepts it as a scientific proof. Of course if it does not work on the person then the person needs to be "handled". The tech can never be wrong.
My question is then, do you see any merit or validity in LRH's way of conducting his research? If not, how do you explain the much better results when backtrack incidents are run?
lkwdblds
Similar threads
