My Freezone Story (?)

omnom

Patron with Honors
If, say, I taught the finer points of law to newbies, would they begin to see a gradual 'suck' for more law? I *hope* so! ;-)

I'm still concerned with this. You're a supposedly 20-year-old in some sort of school environment *teaching* law to your fellow classmates? Doesn't a legal education include an ethics class any more? No, not Scn ethics, I mean real/actual/legal ethics. Do the real professors/instructors know about this?

If you're doing study groups or other similar activities, that's one thing; if you continue to self-aggrandize yourself as a teacher (check the connotation versus denotation if you word-clear this before responding), you might want to talk to someone in the program with actual ethics-in-law background.

"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM." — L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952 (may also be included in Technique 88 - unable to verify at the moment)
 
I had some crazy insights. Thought I could share them. My mind is somewhat analytical and I used to play a game called "Beat Dr House", the object of which is to find the disease before 60 minutes are up.

I'm not a heavy Scnist. I'm into the lower half of the bridge because it helped my situation. I'm not in a school environment—I was doing it with friends from my family's law firm after some people (the young kids I hung out with and now teach) said that I should try my hand at it. I used the word "teach" because I think if you give someone knowledge that they didn't possess before, that's teaching by my definition, whether you get paid for it or not. I'm aware of connotation and denotation.

I found that there is a right way and a wrong way to knock something into people's heads, and, what's worse, the right and wrong ways VARY PER PERSON. So if someone tells me, well, I did what you said and it didn't work, I ask them, well, did you really do what I hinted, or did you do a pale imitation thereof because you didn't fully understand? I know my drunken ramblings are hard to understand ;-) I think that I can make it easier for others to do.

I found that the combination of Study Tech and good Scotch whisky, in addition to filterless Luckies, seems to improve my abilities in all fields. I use S.T. with moderation. I'm not a zealot, I just find that certain things work, that's all. I think that both the FZ and the Co$ are wrong. I think they have their priorities fucked. Why don't the Rons Orgs and other FZ groups concentrate a little more on the PHILOSOPHICAL part of "Scn" (if you could call it Scn after the religious bits have been de-emphasised)

I don't know why my personal philosophical beliefs should cause harm to anyone. Look, you can agree or disagree. But I think this can be done right or wrong. You can be nice about it, or you can be a royal prick. I don't think "free thought" should necessarily mean being completely against philosophical constructs and analogies.
 
Judging from the above link, which includes more than just Clearbird, you have now entered the land of vast Hubbardian significance, the Hubbardian labyrinth.


At first glance, it appears that "Clear," in Clearbird, is the end result, as in "We're done." Yet it seems to be a lead-in to something else, bait-and-switch-style.

Note, towards the bottom of the first link below, that Clearbird leads to the Advanced Ability levels (With a Clear depicted, sitting at a table, with an e-meter, a dark cloud labelled "case" hovering over his head): http://www.freezoneearth.org/Clearbird/Clearbird2004/index.htm

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometheus04/files/gradechartCB.htm

http://www.freezoneearth.org/Prometheus04/powerR6/power/adv_levelsCB.htm

Once you're "Clear" you're, ominously, "at risk."

"Anyone who is Clear but not OT III had better be pushed up to OT 3 first because otherwise he is at risk." 'HCOB' 23 Dec 1971.

I like the Clearbird material. However, Clearbird and Prometheus Reports do seem to have a symbiotic relationship.

This is from the author of the Clearbird materials, under 'KSW and Clearbird':

"We respect Ron's tech for what it is, a complete system that has been tested and adjusted, re-tested and adjusted again, and now existed more or less in its final form for over 30 years." http://the-scientologist.com/clearbird.shtml

And that "complete system" does not end at "Clear."

Of course, one can pretty much do whatever one wants with almost anything, but it does seem that the Clearbird materials were (are) meant as introductory (lead in) to the rest of Scientology, rather than a statement that Scientology (meaning, in this case, Scientology counseling) is only valid up to "Clear."

Which explains why there's no "warning label" attached.

I still like Clearbird :), but, as with Scientology, there does seem to be something lurking behind the Clearbird curtain too. Apparently, to the author of Clearbird, it's just Ron's smiling face.

Note: The author of Clearbird, last time I looked, was working on some variation of "AGPM" (Actual Goal Problem Mass) procedures. Hubbard abandoned this area of Scientology in the early 1960s. Faithfully, he still seems to believe that Hubbard must have stumbled across the secret to it all, if only it can be found in his sea of words.

Ahh, except you neglect to see one thing Veda: I was using that Web site ONLY for its excellent Study Manual, and nothing else. There's good and bad within Scn. The S.M. was the first thing I stumbled upon in my brief foray into Scn that I found "basically good". Bits and pieces of the other stuff is "basically good" and could be included in the S.M. (like the A.R.C. triangle, and indeed this IS included in Clearbird's S.M.) but anything that uses an e-meter is not my cup of tea.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Ahh, except you neglect to see one thing Veda: I was using that Web site ONLY for its excellent Study Manual, and nothing else. There's good and bad within Scn. The S.M. was the first thing I stumbled upon in my brief foray into Scn that I found "basically good". Bits and pieces of the other stuff is "basically good" and could be included in the S.M. (like the A.R.C. triangle, and indeed this IS included in Clearbird's S.M.) but anything that uses an e-meter is not my cup of tea.

Not to be concerned.

It was just a general informational post mainly meant for curious lurkers who might be wandering through the Freezone section of the MB.

Kind of like this post about the inspiration for the 'Factors' and the 'ARC triangle'.

crowhub1.gif


Hubbard's 'The Factors' appears to be a re-working of Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement', complete with Hubbard's addition of "Affinity, Reality, Communication" in the same place as Crowley had inserted the yogic "Bliss, Knowledge, Being."

And Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement' was, itself, a re-write of older Kabbalistic (and other) ideas, with Crowley's addition of a bit of Yogic teaching.

Hubbard removed the earlier part of Crowley's Naples Arrangement which posits a primordial 0+ and 0- (boy and girl aspect of "zero") which somehow generate a kind of pre-cosmic tension that begins the creation of (a) (the) universe.

However, Hubbard kept Crowley's insertion of "Bliss, Knowledge, Being" which became "Affinity, Reality, Communication."

Bliss, Knowledge, Being is inserted in the same place that Hubbard later added "Affinity (Bliss), Reality (Knowledge), Communication (Being)" to his 'The Factors'.

From Crowley's 'Book of Thoth':

"These ideas of Being, Thought and Bliss [or Bliss, Knowledge, Being] constitute the minimum possible qualities which a point must possess if it is to have a real sensible experience of itself..." : http://www.etarot.info/naples-arrangement

And ARC, in Scientology, is subordinate to "KRC," with ARC being the lower triangle of the "S with the double triangle" Scientology symbol, which is a re-expression of Crowley's "Love is the law, love under will."



Believe it or not, sometimes people become enchanted by these introductory pieces of Scientology and follow Hubbard's yellow brick road,
gm9_yellowbrick.jpg

ultimately, to their detriment.


I'm glad you're not one of them. :)
 

omnom

Patron with Honors
I found that there is a right way and a wrong way to knock something into people's heads, and, what's worse, the right and wrong ways VARY PER PERSON. So if someone tells me, well, I did what you said and it didn't work, I ask them, well, did you really do what I hinted, or did you do a pale imitation thereof because you didn't fully understand? I know my drunken ramblings are hard to understand ;-) I think that I can make it easier for others to do.

Since you're taking what you feel is most beneficial of the Tech (some sort of pale imitation of the "field" as a whole), can you use the bits and pieces you've pulled out to verify itself objectively? How would you prove it is self-sustaining (in CS, we'd call this Turing-complete - I'm sure there's a related term in epistemology, but I'm not very deep in pure philosophy)?

How do you remove bad data? FDS, of course! Whoops, now you're out of the realm of study tech and getting dangerously close to The Bridge. How do you overcome the next problem you encounter? Up the bridge, obviously!

It is pretty difficult to unwind the intertwining bits. If it works for you, and you realize that others may find a different approach, and some may agree with you, what else is the purpose of your recent posts? Are you looking for validation, an argument, or something else?

I think some people are genuinely trying to warn you to watch your grip on that slippery slope, and some are supporters of what you're doing. Either way, why continue on the futility of trying to convince people on the internet otherwise, or respond with hurt feelbads if/when people disagree?

If it works, use it. Please be careful to not fall in headfirst. I wish you the best, truly.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Moreover nothing about the xenu material is fundamental to the understanding or practice of scientology auditing. Not that he hasn't been told before. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

Scientology auditing occurs on its Grade Chart. The Grade Chart contains both OT 2 and it implants with their dates, durations, and descriptions, and OT 3 with its Incident 2. "Xenu" is just a shorthand way of saying Incident 2.

Scientology auditing began with the book, 'What to Audit', which told the person the contents of his own mind.

Before that, DMSMH told Dianetic enthusiasts what types of incidents they could expect to find.

Hypnotist Hubbard never stopped telling his followers what they could expect to find when they looked.

It's too late to take out the garden hose and hose down "Scientology auditing."

It's tainted.

And it should be tainted.

If you want to separate the English word "auditing" from Scientology, then you might get away with it, but Scientology auditing?

What is there about Scientologists that compels them to lie and manipulate?

Oh that's all right. Never mind. We already know don't we?
 
Since you're taking what you feel is most beneficial of the Tech (some sort of pale imitation of the "field" as a whole), can you use the bits and pieces you've pulled out to verify itself objectively? How would you prove it is self-sustaining (in CS, we'd call this Turing-complete - I'm sure there's a related term in epistemology, but I'm not very deep in pure philosophy)?

How do you remove bad data? FDS, of course! Whoops, now you're out of the realm of study tech and getting dangerously close to The Bridge. How do you overcome the next problem you encounter? Up the bridge, obviously!

It is pretty difficult to unwind the intertwining bits. If it works for you, and you realize that others may find a different approach, and some may agree with you, what else is the purpose of your recent posts? Are you looking for validation, an argument, or something else?

I think some people are genuinely trying to warn you to watch your grip on that slippery slope, and some are supporters of what you're doing. Either way, why continue on the futility of trying to convince people on the internet otherwise, or respond with hurt feelbads if/when people disagree?

If it works, use it. Please be careful to not fall in headfirst. I wish you the best, truly.

Thanks. I'm looking for educated debate. Disagreements are fine, as long as there's some Affinity, just a little bit of shared Reality (i.e. "Hubbard was not perfect" or "Dianetics is complete bull") and good Communication I'm fine with that.

What I don't want are ad-homs and incivility. A breakdown in Affinity, in other words. My object with the last few posts was nothing but an attempt to ask people to use logical argument instead of ad-hominem and other logical fallacies. I also ask people to consider the philosophY independent of the philosophER.

I understand people might get tired of the same old story and of course respond with the usual, "Sheesh!" Even warnings to tread on Hubbard's pyrite-paved road are fine, as long as they don't consist of, "You're an idiot for even the two-month foray on that road you took!" or insinuations to that regard. People like that give critics a bad name, that's all.

I'm happy to coexist with freezoner and critic alike. My viewpoint is somewhere in between. I know I can't please everyone. I just hope that whomever I piss off for some reason, internalise your feelings in some way, please!
 

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

I also ask people to consider the philosophY independent of the philosophER.

-snip-

Aren't you just a novice who's excited about finding out about Study tech and the ARC triangle?

No offense, but what do you know about the "philosophy"?

And which "philosophy" do you mean? :)

The Study Tech philosophy?

The ARC philosophy?

The Scientology Philosophy?
 
Aren't you just a novice who's excited about finding out about Study tech and the ARC triangle?

No offense, but what do you know about the "philosophy"?

Sorry for my bad communication skills, I never seem to say what I mean. What I meant was, say you found the "philosophical" (i.e. the non-auditing, non-study) Hubbard files all neat and bound together, with his name blotted out. No org membership, no nothing, just Hubbard's opinion on ARC, KRC, 8 Dynamics, Tone Scale. Or even better, a computer graphic of any of those, again, anonymously. What would your thoughts be then?

Disconnect the book from the writer I could have said. Like reading Das Kapital, with the word "communism" replaced by "socialist arrangement". Look over it with a dispassionate eye. You may find it good, or bad, whatever.

As I said, it's been a two-month trip, I incorporated some Hubbardisms into my world-view, left the others to rot, and that's about it.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Sorry for my bad communication skills, I never seem to say what I mean. What I meant was, say you found the "philosophical" (i.e. the non-auditing, non-study) Hubbard files all neat and bound together, with his name blotted out. No org membership, no nothing, just Hubbard's opinion on ARC, KRC, 8 Dynamics, Tone Scale. Or even better, a computer graphic of any of those, again, anonymously. What would your thoughts be then?

Disconnect the book from the writer I could have said. Like reading Das Kapital, with the word "communism" replaced by "socialist arrangement". Look over it with a dispassionate eye. You may find it good, or bad, whatever.

As I said, it's been a two-month trip, I incorporated some Hubbardisms into my world-view, left the others to rot, and that's about it.

Your communcation skills are fine.

Most people on ESMB are quite familiar with the warm and fuzzy parts of Scientology that you just mentioned, and many attained that familiarity when they were new to the subject just as your are today.

Best wishes. :)
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Moreover nothing about the xenu material is fundamental to the understanding or practice of scientology auditing. Not that he hasn't been told before. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

Oh no! It's time for mind numbing propaganda and lies about Scientology again!

You must have done the "other" Scientology.

The one that didn't have the books, tapes, PABS, tech volumes, Research and Discovery Series and OT Levels.

What did your Scientology consist of? Just pinch tests?
 

omnom

Patron with Honors
*BZZZZ!* WRONG! How do you remove bad data? Test it on yourself. If it doesn't work, throw it out!

*BZZZZ!* WRONG! How do you test it on yourself objectively in a measurable manner? You and I know this won't pass muster as science, so how does ST become "Turing-complete", to use my earlier analogy?

This is a function of epistemology, which LRH tried to claim he was doing ("knowing how to know" would fit into that category, for example). When you build your house on the ever-changing sands of weak philosophical theory, the loss of a stable foundation weakens or destroys that built upon it.

I know I'm getting a bit off-topic, but for me this is a key issue with the work-ability of any Tech, especially in it's entirety. To an extent any individual contents that came as a sole result of LRH's theories are highly suspect on that basis alone, and the failure to achieve the results claimed cements that up like a frog's ass.

It may be an interesting exercise to completely dissect ST, trace the beneficial bits you enjoy to their actual roots. Then you can eliminate the ST moniker and deal with the source material altogether.

I do understand the irony of some of the above statements, because I think logically speaking, ST can do the reverse of what I asked: it can be used as an anti-Turing device. If you truly follow the techniques you find beneficial to their roots, it invalidates itself and yields to the source material.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I get where you're coming from, HoneyWhite, in that yeah, we do test things on ourselves. People often say that if something feels wrong to you then probably something's wrong with whatever it is.

But it is also true that one can feel something is right or correct and it's a subjective thing that may or may not be so.

Isn't there a phrase- "trust but verify"?
 
I get where you're coming from, HoneyWhite, in that yeah, we do test things on ourselves. People often say that if something feels wrong to you then probably something's wrong with whatever it is.

But it is also true that one can feel something is right or correct and it's a subjective thing that may or may not be so.

Isn't there a phrase- "trust but verify"?

Well, I tend not to trust. If I am introduced to a system, I am likely to test bits and pieces of it out. If it's something that is not testable, I tend to shy away from it. Same with pseudo-science, and stuff that sounds like sci-fi. If it sounds crazy, it probably is—that's why I like the stuff that's well-grounded in reality.

There's been a bunch of stuff released on how to study for example, by Hubbard and others. The stuff is testable; in fact, Hubbard specifically mentions testability as a criterion. And from all the study stuff I tried, I find a slightly-modified Hubbard method to be satisfactory. I'm not going to say the best, but I'll say satisfactory.

There's the philosophical stuff, which can be tested to be WORKABLE, but not to be TRUE. In philosophy, we're not really searching for truth, but for a model to explain HOW something works, not WHY. So, we have the ARC triangle, which is a hypothesis (NOTHING MORE!) for why human relationships work that way. We have the Dynamics (which number at least eight, maybe more); these seek to explain the drive for "altruism" in a way, through the drive for survival.

Auditing sounds testable, and maybe I'll get around to it, maybe not—I think talking with someone, revisiting past experiences and such, does tend to "unmock" (destroy) the unconscious mind. What is wrong with Hubbardian psychotherapy is that it seems to accept so-called "whole-track experiences", which are simply the product of cryptomnesia, and not real.

Even body thetans have a grain of something to them, although I don't think they're the primary reason dragging people down, but they did not arise as a result of the Xenu incident, which is a product of cryptomnesia, and, hence, fictional. I think people may somehow "project" a part of themselves onto others, and this may exert an influence, good or bad, on someone else, and if they do seem to give you problems, there's a way to sort of blow them off you. This is all "up in the air", though, just a thought experiment for me. Something Ken Ogger wrote kind of put the idea in my head.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Well, I tend not to trust. If I am introduced to a system, I am likely to test bits and pieces of it out. If it's something that is not testable, I tend to shy away from it. Same with pseudo-science, and stuff that sounds like sci-fi. If it sounds crazy, it probably is—that's why I like the stuff that's well-grounded in reality.

There's been a bunch of stuff released on how to study for example, by Hubbard and others. The stuff is testable; in fact, Hubbard specifically mentions testability as a criterion. And from all the study stuff I tried, I find a slightly-modified Hubbard method to be satisfactory. I'm not going to say the best, but I'll say satisfactory.

There's the philosophical stuff, which can be tested to be WORKABLE, but not to be TRUE. In philosophy, we're not really searching for truth, but for a model to explain HOW something works, not WHY. So, we have the ARC triangle, which is a hypothesis (NOTHING MORE!) for why human relationships work that way. We have the Dynamics (which number at least eight, maybe more); these seek to explain the drive for "altruism" in a way, through the drive for survival.

Auditing sounds testable, and maybe I'll get around to it, maybe not—I think talking with someone, revisiting past experiences and such, does tend to "unmock" (destroy) the unconscious mind. What is wrong with Hubbardian psychotherapy is that it seems to accept so-called "whole-track experiences", which are simply the product of cryptomnesia, and not real.

Even body thetans have a grain of something to them, although I don't think they're the primary reason dragging people down, but they did not arise as a result of the Xenu incident, which is a product of cryptomnesia, and, hence, fictional. I think people may somehow "project" a part of themselves onto others, and this may exert an influence, good or bad, on someone else, and if they do seem to give you problems, there's a way to sort of blow them off you. This is all "up in the air", though, just a thought experiment for me. Something Ken Ogger wrote kind of put the idea in my head.

It's just an expression, so should be interpreted rather loosely.

What I mean is...testing it out on yourself is fine. Not a damn thing wrong with that. But doesn't hurt to realize that there are other ways of verifying and checking things out and that other people can be very wise, too. Even the skeptics. I personally learn a lot from skeptics. I do very much go by what I've observed or felt, surely. But I do look at other things and opinions that seem to conflict with that. A bit of balance can be helpful.
 
Top