My Dinner With Terril
- Thread starter Escalus
- Start date
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
I'll offer a comment or two, speaking for myself. The link referenced talked about a test in 1950 where a volunteer was rendered unconscious with a drug, and had 35 words from a physics text read to him, the last 18 when pain was additionally being administered. Subsequent auditing showed the person was unable to recover the word content.
We know Hubbard lied about the extent of his research, and his statements re the abilities of a "Clear" (no colds, perfect recall etc.) are patently false. One experiment showed no recall of word content, in conflict with a statement Hubbard made. I'm not going to make a big deal about there only being one experiment and no details of the methodology etc., as from experience pc recall of word content is not very reliable at all.
Does this mean that every single facet of Dianetics is wrong? Logic would say no, quite apart from personal experience. My experience, not purely as a pc, is that the pc discharges hurt in terms of physical pain and painful emotions, grief, anger, and so forth. Whether or not Hubbard stole the idea of abreactive therapy from others and did nothing original of value is irrelevant. With Dianetic auditing, sometimes (!), people discharge crap of various kinds and feel better. The verbal content of incidents is not usually very important, despite Hubbard's statements in DMSMH of how aberrative "puns" are to "the reactive mind".
In a couple of words, my comments on that UCLA experiment, are "so what?"
I don't think of Dianetics as a particularly useful therapy, there being far better therapies around. But I don't think it is completely useless either, even if done "by the book" (certainly not the best way to use it!).
Paul
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
No, dollink, but they DO call themselves CHRISTIANS. And prior to the Reformation, there only was ONE way to BE a Christian. There was only one Christian Church.
And of course I know my history on that. I know it quite well. And this is evident.
Fact is, there is no definition in the technical dictionary that says one has to be a member of any organization to be a Scn'ist. But even if there were- it would not bother me. There was a time when if a person did not toe the line, if they differed at all from the mainstream, they were called heretics, they were killed, they weren't recognized. The only changes and interpretatations (and there were many over the years. Some of the VERY early Christians believed in group marriage. Try making that one fly a few hundred or so years later!) allowed were those of church authorities, no matter how little sense it made.
Frankly, because CofS changes all kinds of stuff nowadays- stuff Hubbard never heard of or sanctioned-one could say THOSE people weren't Scn'ists, either. But I don't see you saying that. Why is that, I wonder?
Sammy Hagar was wrong. There ain't just one way to rock. So let's rock on!
Veda
Sponsor
I can't think of one person - outside of official organized $cientology - who, once he/she knows the full content of Scientology doctrine, and understands what the secretive subject of Scientology really is about, still wants to be called a "Scientologist."
IMO, those who think that looking up a word in the dictionary makes them a "Scientologist" are just being silly.
P.S. Perhaps it might be useful to - at some point - have a thread where those who still do "auditing" or "processing" or "counseling" in some form, yet no longer use the terms "Scientology" or "Scientologist," explain why that is so.
Probably would belong in the "Independent Field" section.
Last edited:
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
you can maintain all you wish - it aint my definition. You aint a member of the Church of Scientology ergo you aint a Scientologist. You deciding to call yourself one isn't a definition, it is a self chosen label, you may as well call yourself a lemon rind (Just to be clear I am not saying you ARE a lemon rind !) because the definitions are, according to you, not important.
And you need to go off and brush up on the definition of a straw man argument. You apparently do not understand that either.
Terril park
Sponsor
If this thread is indicative of what happens after having dinner with Terril, then I'll be sticking to just tea and biscuits, no offence Terril.
This is a total black PR op! I havn't HAD dinner with E unless he went incognito to the restaurant in chinatown. Not to mention the pub.
Anyway next protest if you want to come, myself and the usual suspects and
who knows however many others will likely have dinner again.
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
roflmao - you got it wrong, it was pointed out and you still can't admit it. Oh well, Fluffs adly I guess that is par for the course.
And you still have it wrong now - the first split was the schism between east and west which took place 500 years, near enough, before Luther.
Boy fluffs you are not batting very well on this. In 1100 there were TWO - count em - two major forms of Christianity - three if you count the Chaldean Church.
well not really - you seem to miss the basic point I made. When the protestants came to split off from the Catholics they called themselves Protestants. Not Catholics.
So if you wish to compare this time in the CofS with that time then you should call yourself Freezoner or Ronsorger and we would lump you all together as Hubbardites. So there would be Freezoners, Ronsorgers and Scientologists.
I guess this makes some kind of sense to you...
Frankly, because CofS changes all kinds of stuff nowadays- stuff Hubbard never heard of or sanctioned-one could say THOSE people weren't Scn'ists, either. But I don't see you saying that. Why is that, I wonder?
Sammy Hagar was wrong. There ain't just one way to rock. So let's rock on!
You seem to be laboring under some vast misapprehension Fluffs. I do not care what you call yourself, what I object to is you calling yourself a scientologist and then trying to argue that because you hold views opposed to the Church that this somehow proves a 'scientologist" can criticize the Church.
No it doesn't and I think you are being disingenuous in trying to argue it that way.
If your position was correct you would still be a member - is that not the case? Didn't you get on ARS in the first place to show that a 'scientologist" could, indeed publicly argue debate and even criticize? And didn't you get the boot for doing it? I admired you for your stance and your willingness to go through with it all. You were honest then - why the dissimulation now?
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
This is a total black PR op! I havn't HAD dinner with E unless he went incognito to the restaurant in chinatown. Not to mention the pub.
Anyway next protest if you want to come, myself and the usual suspects and
who knows however many others will likely have dinner again.
Hey Terill is right - when you have din dins with terrill its beer all round.
The man puts in some plucky work with the elbows!!
Terril park
Sponsor
Please give a detailed explanation as to why you post this comment.
Enquiring minds are interested.
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
If this thread is indicative of what happens after having dinner with Terril, then I'll be sticking to just tea and biscuits, no offence Terril.
not so - really tansy Terrill dropped by the wenlock ranch on his US trip and despite us holding polar opposite opinions on scientology it was great. Well part from his fascination for American Microbrews - one blueberry ale springs to mind ...
These are very pertinent and valuable questions Zander, I am impressed, and I'm starting to like you.. a lot..
Amidst all the healthy debate in this thread I very nearly didn't see your kind comments, but thank you Pixie
Zander
The 'so what' is that Ron based all his 'theories' (they're not) and 'discoveries' (umm, yeah) on the 'Engram Theory'.
The experiment in question invalidates the Engram Theory.
That's all it has to do. Ron's track-record on his 'discoveries' and 'theories' is 0.
All that proves is that, every time Ron's 'theories' or 'discoveries' have been subjected to objective review, they have failed.
Zinj
The experiment in question invalidates the Engram Theory.
That's all it has to do. Ron's track-record on his 'discoveries' and 'theories' is 0.
All that proves is that, every time Ron's 'theories' or 'discoveries' have been subjected to objective review, they have failed.
Zinj
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
No, dollink, but they DO call themselves CHRISTIANS. And prior to the Reformation, there only was ONE way to BE a Christian. There was only one Christian Church.
And of course I know my history on that. I know it quite well. And this is evident.
Fact is, there is no definition in the technical dictionary that says one has to be a member of any organization to be a Scn'ist. But even if there were- it would not bother me. There was a time when if a person did not toe the line, if they differed at all from the mainstream, they were called heretics, they were killed, they weren't recognized. The only changes and interpretatations (and there were many over the years. Some of the VERY early Christians believed in group marriage. Try making that one fly a few hundred or so years later!) allowed were those of church authorities, no matter how little sense it made.
Frankly, because CofS changes all kinds of stuff nowadays- stuff Hubbard never heard of or sanctioned-one could say THOSE people weren't Scn'ists, either. But I don't see you saying that. Why is that, I wonder?
Sammy Hagar was wrong. There ain't just one way to rock. So let's rock on!
Sammy Hagar was wrong - to join Van Halen. The only real Van Halen had DLR as a vocalist.
Sorry, I thought this thread needed a bit of levity (the original VH was better tho).
Last edited:
Axiom142
Gold Meritorious Patron
When I was ‘in’, I thought that a Scientologist was always a member of the Church of Scientology. But, when I learnt about the Freezone and Ron’s Orgs, I realised that someone could be a Scientologist without being part of the CoS. This was a major change of viewpoint for me. In fact, I think it was Fluffy posting on Beliefnet that she still considered herself a Scientologist, but practised outside the church, that finally did it.
I sometimes use what I have learnt in Scientology in my everyday life, but I certainly don’t consider myself to be a Scientologist. And, I have absolutely no desire to receive any more Scientology ‘services’ thank you very much!
If someone wants to call themselves a Scientologist, that’s fine by me. But, I wouldn’t consider them a Scientologist unless they actually practised Scientology regularly. I would often see people at events and IAS Patron’s Dinners who really only went to these events and didn’t do much else. I never considered them ‘proper’ Scientologists.
I have no doubt that Miscavige and his cronies and probably most of the CoS staff as well, consider that you have to be a member of the CoS to be a Scientologist. And, this means that you have to be on course, getting auditing, donating to the IAS, ideal orgs and any other fund raising program that is in vogue at any particular time. I have seen long-term members being threatened with expulsion for not being on lines and progressing up the Bridge. To me, this is a very twisted interpretation of what being a Scientologist means, but it obviously serves the current ‘management’.
Axiom142
I sometimes use what I have learnt in Scientology in my everyday life, but I certainly don’t consider myself to be a Scientologist. And, I have absolutely no desire to receive any more Scientology ‘services’ thank you very much!
If someone wants to call themselves a Scientologist, that’s fine by me. But, I wouldn’t consider them a Scientologist unless they actually practised Scientology regularly. I would often see people at events and IAS Patron’s Dinners who really only went to these events and didn’t do much else. I never considered them ‘proper’ Scientologists.
I have no doubt that Miscavige and his cronies and probably most of the CoS staff as well, consider that you have to be a member of the CoS to be a Scientologist. And, this means that you have to be on course, getting auditing, donating to the IAS, ideal orgs and any other fund raising program that is in vogue at any particular time. I have seen long-term members being threatened with expulsion for not being on lines and progressing up the Bridge. To me, this is a very twisted interpretation of what being a Scientologist means, but it obviously serves the current ‘management’.
Axiom142
Terril park
Sponsor
Well we are still trying to determine what that term means. If thats done by thursday 2 pm I might then be persuaded to answer.
Oh well its probably that time somewhere on the globe.
Its not a definitive experiment IMO. Here I am, no training in scientific method, or the philosophy of such, of relatively limited experience as an auditor in this area, and people wish to listen to my opinion?
Why?
I don't care if dianetics is a science or not. It is a therapy. My psychology/FZ friend says it would be easy to jump through the hoops and be accredited here in the UK. I'd like to see that happen.
There is an enormous amount of data in PC files, often of extrordinary content. There wasn't back in 1950. Some of this could be cross checked with
family members still alive etc. Wish it could be. There is also a problem re
confidentiality.
One experiment with people totally new to a discipline is not definitive.
Someone wishes to find a researcher who is interesting to investigate this i'd be happy to help.
The success stories I post are genuine. Someone wishes to trawl through them and find those valid for such research I'm prepared to try and get permission for people to comment be interviewed whatever.
The examination of mainstream psychotherapy has not reached such a level of proof.
Anyone here know if Freud's comments re trauma have been tested in
such a way?
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
If I didn't think the definitions were important I wouldn't have posted one. Some if not most of the best scientologists I've known were declared by the CofS and are no longer members; it doesn't mean they stop using the tech. In fact, it was often precisely because they believed in the tech and refused to compromise their belief that it should be known and used as widely as possible, and applied whenever the need arose even in the CofS, that they were declared in the first place.
CofS management is suppressive to the spread and use of the tech and has been for a long time, therefore it's perfectly consistent to be a scientologist and not a member of the CofS.
Imagine 2 fisherman going out to fly-fish at a local stream. The first one is very experienced at not only tying the fly's on the line, but is extremely well versed on 'making the flies' also. The second one is reasonably efficient at both acts, but is primarily the fishing-enthusiast par-excellence between the two. He can round up 10 people to join em on a fishing trip in 20 minutes.
When it's time to make-the-fly and tie-it-to-the-line, the second one sits down and watchs the first one do his work. So to speak.
I'm not Veda mind you....I'm just sayin...
Mojo
Why blame 'current management'? They're just doing what Ron did, and, Ron made no bones about expelling and declaring Scientologists. And, Ron considered himself the arbiter of 'who is a Scientologist'.
And, since Ron created Scientology, He is/was.
Is 'Keeping Scientology Working' part of the 'Tech'?
Are HCOBs and HCOPLs, 'The Tech'?
How *much* of the 'Tech' must a Scientologist accept to be a Scientologist?
Ron would have said; all of it. Or else.
Zinj
Vinaire
Sponsor
Well we are still trying to determine what that term means. If thats done by thursday 2 pm I might then be persuaded to answer.
Oh well its probably that time somewhere on the globe.
Its not a definitive experiment IMO. Here I am, no training in scientific method, or the philosophy of such, of relatively limited experience as an auditor in this area, and people wish to listen to my opinion?
Why?
I don't care if dianetics is a science or not. It is a therapy. My psychology/FZ friend says it would be easy to jump through the hoops and be accredited here in the UK. I'd like to see that happen.
There is an enormous amount of data in PC files, often of extrordinary content. There wasn't back in 1950. Some of this could be cross checked with
family members still alive etc. Wish it could be. There is also a problem re
confidentiality.
One experiment with people totally new to a discipline is not definitive.
Someone wishes to find a researcher who is interesting to investigate this i'd be happy to help.
The success stories I post are genuine. Someone wishes to trawl through them and find those valid for such research I'm prepared to try and get permission for people to comment be interviewed whatever.
The examination of mainstream psychotherapy has not reached such a level of proof.
Anyone here know if Freud's comments re trauma have been tested in
such a way?
Whether there are engrams or not, i don't know. But, from my experience, there is certainly a solidification of thought, emotion and effort; and that solidification can suddenly explode or vaporize.
.
Similar threads
