What's new

Nonexistent engrams

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
I have noticed that some ex-Scientologists still believe that PC auditing has some value. I hate to burst their bubble, but this auditing has only negative value. The purpose of this article is to show that engrams do not exist.
To start with, Hubbard did not invent the notion of engram, he borrowed it from Korzybski. Coridon wrote in his book that in early 1950 the Scientologist were instructed to study Korzybski’s works on engrams. Later, of course, LRH became the sole inventor of the idea of engram. Please, consider my post as a critique of Korzybski’s invention.
According to Korzybski, when an individual is rendered unconscious, his mind records everything that surrounds him correctly and in minute detail, including the speech of the people standing nearby. But then the mind incorrectly interprets the meaning of the phrases that it recorded during the moments when the person passed out (LRH calls such distortions “reactive mind”) Korzybski did not say that these distortions cause psycho-somatic illnesses, but LRH did. However, from the standpoint of this article, it is immaterial whether the psycho-somatic illnesses are the productions of the reactive mind or not.
Now I’m going to prove that engrams do not exist.
There are 6 possible scenarios that an unconscious individual can endure:
1. His mind does not record anything.
Obviously, in this case there are no engrams.
2. His mind records all events, but later cannot interpret the words and phrases that he heard.
Inability to interpret the words and phrases shows that there are no false interpretations and, therefore, no engrams.
3. His mind interprets the words and phrases correctly.
This is the best possible scenario, it does not matter whether he was unconscious or not -- he interprets everything correctly.
4. His mind interprets the words incorrectly but the phrases correctly.
Even if this is possible, as long as he interprets the phrases correctly he is in a great shape because the phrases are the final products of the speech.
5. His mind interprets the words correctly but the phrases incorrectly.
How plausible this scenario is? Basically, it detaches the meaning of a phrase from the meanings of words it is composed of. But this leads to creation of a new language where each phrase is a word. On the other hand, he is unable to communicate in that language with the auditor or any other person because he is the only one who understands it. So any bit of information he transmits in that language cannot be interpreted by anyone; it is impossible to tell whether he has an engram or not. The whole meaning of the word “engram” becomes null and void because of the lack of interpretation of that person’s experience during the time of unconsciousness.
6. His mind interprets both the phrases and the words incorrectly.
Indeed, a mental disorder leading to incorrect interpretation of words and phrases does exist. Its careers assign wrong meaning to the words and, subsequently, to the phrases. But it is impossible to communicate with these people because they cannot translate their own language into a normal language. Say, a PC during the auditing enters the reactive mind area, so to speak. It means that he forgets the normal language and begins communication in his language. He cannot translate his language into English (French, German, etc) because he forgets it. Unless its is possible for someone to remember the language and do not remember it at the same time, which is completely absurd, a PC cannot tell the auditor what is going through his head. END OF PROOF.
I did my share of Dianetics auditing. None of my PCs was wearing glasses; perhaps, they were using contact lenses. Because of that I thought my auditing was fine. I used to tell Clears who were wearing glasses that they were declared Clear by mistake. “Your auditor is poorly qualified”, I would say. They thought I was a weirdo and a bad Scientologist, they even wrote KRs on me. But that did not stop me from telling the “truth”. Now I know that I was an idiot. Dianetics does not work, period. Your PC might feel great after auditing. But he is bullshitting you and himself. He is predisposed to feel good by the virtue of self-suggestion (this is kind of a self-hypnotic suggestion). What is missing in the picture are measurable improvements in his health such 20/20 eye vision, properly functioning kidneys, normal heart rate, etc.
Dianetics, which is the foundation of Scientology, is rotten to the core; it is based on erroneous Korzybski’s ideas. This is not to say that Korzybski was always wrong; he made a substantial contribution to the science. But his notion of the engram is a dud.
When foundation is shaky, the whole building is bound to fall, which is what happened to Scientology.
------------------------------------------
If you do not have engrams, you cannot have implants, ether. In order to have implants you, or your thetan, has to be put into some kind of hypnotic state and provided with false memories. But, as long as you use the language correctly, you cannot be implanted with anything -- the logic is the same as in the case of the engram. Look at it this way: Say, you were provided with the image of Buddha at an implant station and told that he is real. But you’re in a hypnotic state and, because of that, cannot tell reality from hallucination. The words “real” and “unreal” mean nothing to you, so you cannot accept Buddha either as a reality or a hallucination. To make things short, the word “Buddha” and the images corresponding to him mean absolutely nothing to you while you’re in a hypnotic state at an implant station. When you, or your thetan, wake up you’re free to learn about Buddha from scratch and from the books, and to make your own determination whether to follow his religion or not.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I have noticed that some ex-Scientologists still believe that PC auditing has some value. I hate to burst their bubble, but this auditing has only negative value. The purpose of this article is to show that engrams do not exist.
To start with, Hubbard did not invent the notion of engram, he borrowed it from Korzybski. Coridon wrote in his book that in early 1950 the Scientologist were instructed to study Korzybski’s works on engrams. Later, of course, LRH became the sole inventor of the idea of engram. Please, consider my post as a critique of Korzybski’s invention.
According to Korzybski, when an individual is rendered unconscious, his mind records everything that surrounds him correctly and in minute detail, including the speech of the people standing nearby. But then the mind incorrectly interprets the meaning of the phrases that it recorded during the moments when the person passed out (LRH calls such distortions “reactive mind”) Korzybski did not say that these distortions cause psycho-somatic illnesses, but LRH did. However, from the standpoint of this article, it is immaterial whether the psycho-somatic illnesses are the productions of the reactive mind or not.
Now I’m going to prove that engrams do not exist.
There are 6 possible scenarios that an unconscious individual can endure:
1. His mind does not record anything.
Obviously, in this case there are no engrams.
2. His mind records all events, but later cannot interpret the words and phrases that he heard.
Inability to interpret the words and phrases shows that there are no false interpretations and, therefore, no engrams.
3. His mind interprets the words and phrases correctly.
This is the best possible scenario, it does not matter whether he was unconscious or not -- he interprets everything correctly.
4. His mind interprets the words incorrectly but the phrases correctly.
Even if this is possible, as long as he interprets the phrases correctly he is in a great shape because the phrases are the final products of the speech.
5. His mind interprets the words correctly but the phrases incorrectly.
How plausible this scenario is? Basically, it detaches the meaning of a phrase from the meanings of words it is composed of. But this leads to creation of a new language where each phrase is a word. On the other hand, he is unable to communicate in that language with the auditor or any other person because he is the only one who understands it. So any bit of information he transmits in that language cannot be interpreted by anyone; it is impossible to tell whether he has an engram or not. The whole meaning of the word “engram” becomes null and void because of the lack of interpretation of that person’s experience during the time of unconsciousness.
6. His mind interprets both the phrases and the words incorrectly.
Indeed, a mental disorder leading to incorrect interpretation of words and phrases does exist. Its careers assign wrong meaning to the words and, subsequently, to the phrases. But it is impossible to communicate with these people because they cannot translate their own language into a normal language. Say, a PC during the auditing enters the reactive mind area, so to speak. It means that he forgets the normal language and begins communication in his language. He cannot translate his language into English (French, German, etc) because he forgets it. Unless its is possible for someone to remember the language and do not remember it at the same time, which is completely absurd, a PC cannot tell the auditor what is going through his head. END OF PROOF.
I did my share of Dianetics auditing. None of my PCs was wearing glasses; perhaps, they were using contact lenses. Because of that I thought my auditing was fine. I used to tell Clears who were wearing glasses that they were declared Clear by mistake. “Your auditor is poorly qualified”, I would say. They thought I was a weirdo and a bad Scientologist, they even wrote KRs on me. But that did not stop me from telling the “truth”. Now I know that I was an idiot. Dianetics does not work, period. Your PC might feel great after auditing. But he is bullshitting you and himself. He is predisposed to feel good by the virtue of self-suggestion (this is kind of a self-hypnotic suggestion). What is missing in the picture are measurable improvements in his health such 20/20 eye vision, properly functioning kidneys, normal heart rate, etc.
Dianetics, which is the foundation of Scientology, is rotten to the core; it is based on erroneous Korzybski’s ideas. This is not to say that Korzybski was always wrong; he made a substantial contribution to the science. But his notion of the engram is a dud.
When foundation is shaky, the whole building is bound to fall, which is what happened to Scientology.
------------------------------------------
If you do not have engrams, you cannot have implants, ether. In order to have implants you, or your thetan, has to be put into some kind of hypnotic state and provided with false memories. But, as long as you use the language correctly, you cannot be implanted with anything -- the logic is the same as in the case of the engram. Look at it this way: Say, you were provided with the image of Buddha at an implant station and told that he is real. But you’re in a hypnotic state and, because of that, cannot tell reality from hallucination. The words “real” and “unreal” mean nothing to you, so you cannot accept Buddha either as a reality or a hallucination. To make things short, the word “Buddha” and the images corresponding to him mean absolutely nothing to you while you’re in a hypnotic state at an implant station. When you, or your thetan, wake up you’re free to learn about Buddha from scratch and from the books, and to make your own determination whether to follow his religion or not.

Dude, this is an old argument. Engrams, secondaries, locks, ARCx, implants, whatever; it's all an effort to describe one thing: asserted forms of charge. In layman's English, such charge would be be experienced as residual emotion, resistance to looking at something, cognitive distortion (altered thinking), etc.

These are all symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is a consequence of traumatic experience. While Hubbard's interpretation of engrams as being a trace in the cell is incorrect, and a lot of the other interpretations and specific cases he makes may have been absurd, the idea that facing such experiences and examining them over and over is exactly what is needed to extinguish the repression holding them in the present moment and release the person to face the future with greater ego strength, going forward.

Hubbard's language was atrocious. PTSD was not known of, in his time. He made up a vocabulary and imported concepts from all over the popular psychology of his day, including hypnotism and buddhist dyad meditation, systematic desensitization, abreaction, dissociation... many elements. Surprisingly, the dianetics procedure works well to help people break the chains of PTSD. The problem is, the Church tells them it's erasing a reactive mind, and that they are a thetan, and that now they are in danger... NO! Hubbard wanted credit for this creation, though dianetics was bastardized Freudian regressive analysis as explained in "Two Short Accounts of Psycho-Analysis" - S. Freud

You'll never get anywhere telling people who have benefited from regressive, systematic desensitization (which dianetics causes) of the symptoms of PTSD that they didn't have real benefits, because they did. They did not become "Clear", they didn't erase "basic basic", but they did extinguish a reaction or associated conditioned response, or many of such.

While Scientologists might be stumped when you hit them with Hubbard's hyperbolic claims, they will most likely surprise you if you think they had no benefit from their auditing. That's the trap. They know it "worked" for them, even if they "aren't Clear yet". They're stuck feeling that they have to defend something which never delivers what it says, but delivers SOMETHING, and something that is valuable to them.

Trying to tell people that they couldn't possibly have had the experience that they did, in fact, have just sounds strident. The approach must be much more nuanced, if you expect an audience that can hear you.
 

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
Dude, this is an old argument. Engrams, secondaries, locks, ARCx, implants, whatever; it's all an effort to describe one thing: asserted forms of charge. In layman's English, such charge would be be experienced as residual emotion, resistance to looking at something, cognitive distortion (altered thinking), etc.

These are all symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is a consequence of traumatic experience. While Hubbard's interpretation of engrams as being a trace in the cell is incorrect, and a lot of the other interpretations and specific cases he makes may have been absurd, the idea that facing such experiences and examining them over and over is exactly what is needed to extinguish the repression holding them in the present moment and release the person to face the future with greater ego strength, going forward.

Hubbard's language was atrocious. PTSD was not known of, in his time. He made up a vocabulary and imported concepts from all over the popular psychology of his day, including hypnotism and buddhist dyad meditation, systematic desensitization, abreaction, dissociation... many elements. Surprisingly, the dianetics procedure works well to help people break the chains of PTSD. The problem is, the Church tells them it's erasing a reactive mind, and that they are a thetan, and that now they are in danger... NO! Hubbard wanted credit for this creation, though dianetics was bastardized Freudian regressive analysis as explained in "Two Short Accounts of Psycho-Analysis" - S. Freud

You'll never get anywhere telling people who have benefited from regressive, systematic desensitization (which dianetics causes) of the symptoms of PTSD that they didn't have real benefits, because they did. They did not become "Clear", they didn't erase "basic basic", but they did extinguish a reaction or associated conditioned response, or many of such.

While Scientologists might be stumped when you hit them with Hubbard's hyperbolic claims, they will most likely surprise you if you think they had no benefit from their auditing. That's the trap. They know it "worked" for them, even if they "aren't Clear yet". They're stuck feeling that they have to defend something which never delivers what it says, but delivers SOMETHING, and something that is valuable to them.

Trying to tell people that they couldn't possibly have had the experience that they did, in fact, have just sounds strident. The approach must be much more nuanced, if you expect an audience that can hear you.
As I stated in the post, I am not criticizing Hubbard’s interpretation of engrams, I am criticizing Korzybski’s idea of the engram, which has nothing to do with PTSD and other things that you mentioned. When you have PTSD or similar mental disorder, you are not misinterpreting the language, but keep reliving the episode that caused it, as you correctly noted. But there is no linguistic distortions, and there is no reactive mind. There are different techniques designed to stop you from reliving horrific episodes, none of them has any resemblance to Dianetics auditing. I could go over some of these techniques if you wish just to prove to you that they have anything to do with PC auditing.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
As I stated in the post, I am not criticizing Hubbard’s interpretation of engrams, I am criticizing Korzybski’s idea of the engram, which has nothing to do with PTSD and other things that you mentioned. When you have PTSD or similar mental disorder, you are not misinterpreting the language, but keep reliving the episode that caused it, as you correctly noted. But there is no linguistic distortions, and there is no reactive mind. There are different techniques designed to stop you from reliving horrific episodes, none of them has any resemblance to Dianetics auditing. I could go over some of these techniques if you wish just to prove to you that they have anything to do with PC auditing.

Actually, you're wrong. PTSD does include flashbacks, cognitive distortions, emotional problems, and is an umbrella under which a number of disorders are stashed (anxiety, chronic rage, depression, intrusive thoughts, etc.). There are a number of effective remedies, the most successful of which include repetitive active imaginal rehearsal, such as EMDR, TIR, Systematic Desensitization, and earlier outmoded remedies that had their own doctrinal flaws. Auditing is a bastardized form of psychotherapy, and as such, it has some potential to do well by the "preclear". However, since it is used at the direction of people who are using it as bait, it will eventually do them more harm than good.

Korzybski's work is not at all identical to Hubbard's, but you can see that Hubbard was drinking from that well.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
The validity of L Ron Hubbard's plagiarised "engrams" was found wanting in scientific studies at New York University in the early 1950s. The Dianetics Foundation assisted with one early experiment but quickly realised that wasn't such a good idea. It was around about the same time Hubbard took against academics and decided his con required religious cloaking: hey presto, Scientology. The world's been a sicker place since.
 

Lure Rob & Hyde

Patron with Honors
I have noticed that some ex-Scientologists still believe that PC auditing has some value. I hate to burst their bubble, but this auditing has only negative value. The purpose of this article is to show that engrams do not exist.
To start with, Hubbard did not invent the notion of engram, he borrowed it from Korzybski. Coridon wrote in his book that in early 1950 the Scientologist were instructed to study Korzybski’s works on engrams. Later, of course, LRH became the sole inventor of the idea of engram. Please, consider my post as a critique of Korzybski’s invention.
According to Korzybski, when an individual is rendered unconscious, his mind records everything that surrounds him correctly and in minute detail, including the speech of the people standing nearby. But then the mind incorrectly interprets the meaning of the phrases that it recorded during the moments when the person passed out (LRH calls such distortions “reactive mind”) Korzybski did not say that these distortions cause psycho-somatic illnesses, but LRH did. However, from the standpoint of this article, it is immaterial whether the psycho-somatic illnesses are the productions of the reactive mind or not.
Now I’m going to prove that engrams do not exist.
There are 6 possible scenarios that an unconscious individual can endure:
1. His mind does not record anything.
Obviously, in this case there are no engrams.
2. His mind records all events, but later cannot interpret the words and phrases that he heard.
Inability to interpret the words and phrases shows that there are no false interpretations and, therefore, no engrams.
3. His mind interprets the words and phrases correctly.
This is the best possible scenario, it does not matter whether he was unconscious or not -- he interprets everything correctly.
4. His mind interprets the words incorrectly but the phrases correctly.
Even if this is possible, as long as he interprets the phrases correctly he is in a great shape because the phrases are the final products of the speech.
5. His mind interprets the words correctly but the phrases incorrectly.
How plausible this scenario is? Basically, it detaches the meaning of a phrase from the meanings of words it is composed of. But this leads to creation of a new language where each phrase is a word. On the other hand, he is unable to communicate in that language with the auditor or any other person because he is the only one who understands it. So any bit of information he transmits in that language cannot be interpreted by anyone; it is impossible to tell whether he has an engram or not. The whole meaning of the word “engram” becomes null and void because of the lack of interpretation of that person’s experience during the time of unconsciousness.
6. His mind interprets both the phrases and the words incorrectly.
Indeed, a mental disorder leading to incorrect interpretation of words and phrases does exist. Its careers assign wrong meaning to the words and, subsequently, to the phrases. But it is impossible to communicate with these people because they cannot translate their own language into a normal language. Say, a PC during the auditing enters the reactive mind area, so to speak. It means that he forgets the normal language and begins communication in his language. He cannot translate his language into English (French, German, etc) because he forgets it. Unless its is possible for someone to remember the language and do not remember it at the same time, which is completely absurd, a PC cannot tell the auditor what is going through his head. END OF PROOF.
I did my share of Dianetics auditing. None of my PCs was wearing glasses; perhaps, they were using contact lenses. Because of that I thought my auditing was fine. I used to tell Clears who were wearing glasses that they were declared Clear by mistake. “Your auditor is poorly qualified”, I would say. They thought I was a weirdo and a bad Scientologist, they even wrote KRs on me. But that did not stop me from telling the “truth”. Now I know that I was an idiot. Dianetics does not work, period. Your PC might feel great after auditing. But he is bullshitting you and himself. He is predisposed to feel good by the virtue of self-suggestion (this is kind of a self-hypnotic suggestion). What is missing in the picture are measurable improvements in his health such 20/20 eye vision, properly functioning kidneys, normal heart rate, etc.
Dianetics, which is the foundation of Scientology, is rotten to the core; it is based on erroneous Korzybski’s ideas. This is not to say that Korzybski was always wrong; he made a substantial contribution to the science. But his notion of the engram is a dud.
When foundation is shaky, the whole building is bound to fall, which is what happened to Scientology.
------------------------------------------
If you do not have engrams, you cannot have implants, ether. In order to have implants you, or your thetan, has to be put into some kind of hypnotic state and provided with false memories. But, as long as you use the language correctly, you cannot be implanted with anything -- the logic is the same as in the case of the engram. Look at it this way: Say, you were provided with the image of Buddha at an implant station and told that he is real. But you’re in a hypnotic state and, because of that, cannot tell reality from hallucination. The words “real” and “unreal” mean nothing to you, so you cannot accept Buddha either as a reality or a hallucination. To make things short, the word “Buddha” and the images corresponding to him mean absolutely nothing to you while you’re in a hypnotic state at an implant station. When you, or your thetan, wake up you’re free to learn about Buddha from scratch and from the books, and to make your own determination whether to follow his religion or not.

I am really glad you opened up this area of Korzybski and Hubbard's plagurization of his work.
I have been looking into this for some time and I would like to share with anyone who wants to get the main points of General Semantics some links that make Korzybski much easier to understand.
Keep in mind that Korzybski later on said that he apologized for his clumsiness in writing General Semantics as he only had 20 years or so of English speaking experience when he wrote the book.

First of all his statement( Korzybski's) "The Map is not the Territory" is well explained in this link to begin a general understanding of his work in order to shed Hubbard's perversions of it for his own ends.

http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/gensemantics.html

I became very interested in Korzybski when I started looking at Hubbard as a science fiction writer who started a religion.
This is what I had heard many many times from critics but never really looked at it.
When I did look at it I then ran across A E Van Voght who attributed Korzybski for his success as a sci-fi writer and it began to be very revealing.
Then I read about Robert A Heinlein who stated in 1939 he had informed John Campbell, editor of Astounding Science Fiction, about Korzybski's General Semantics and explained it in great detail to him until he got it.

We all know that Hubbard got his first real break from John Campbell the editor of Astounding Science Fiction.

Is this how Hubbard came to know of Korzybski's General Semantics ?
Sounds plausable to me since Hubbard lacked much in the academics area throughout his carnival like life.

Quote:
A rolling stone gathers no moss. (thus a rolling stone stone will never be as slippery and slimey as Hubbard)
 
Last edited:

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
Question for Ulduz:
Have you had any Dianetic Auditing; Book 1, R3R, NED?
I was doing auditing based on the books Dianetics Volumes I and II. I was not using E-meter because at the time these books were written the device was not invented. I did not receive any auditing.
 

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
Actually, you're wrong. PTSD does include flashbacks, cognitive distortions, emotional problems, and is an umbrella under which a number of disorders are stashed (anxiety, chronic rage, depression, intrusive thoughts, etc.). There are a number of effective remedies, the most successful of which include repetitive active imaginal rehearsal, such as EMDR, TIR, Systematic Desensitization, and earlier outmoded remedies that had their own doctrinal flaws. Auditing is a bastardized form of psychotherapy, and as such, it has some potential to do well by the "preclear". However, since it is used at the direction of people who are using it as bait, it will eventually do them more harm than good.

Korzybski's work is not at all identical to Hubbard's, but you can see that Hubbard was drinking from that well.
You are right about flashbacks and other stuff, I did not deny it takes place in a PTSD person.
But let’s see what happens if you use Dianetics procedures to tread a PTSD person. You’ll send him right back to the time when the harmful incidents took place. But this is exactly the thing that you should do your best to avoid. Recalling the incidents in minute detail would add more burden to his already heavily damaged psyche. That would arouse suicidal or homicidal tendencies in him. Professional psychologists do not do that. Instead they try to keep the PTSD patient in the present time by using work therapy, development of hobbies such as painting, singing, poetry readings; improving his family ties, etc. All these techniques are well-known and widely used. But not a single therapist in his right mind would try to make his PTSD patient revisit the harmful incidents. Only when the patient expresses desire to talk about the horrific past the doctor would listen to him.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
You are right about flashbacks and other stuff, I did not deny it takes place in a PTSD person.
But let’s see what happens if you use Dianetics procedures to tread a PTSD person. You’ll send him right back to the time when the harmful incidents took place. But this is exactly the thing that you should do your best to avoid. Recalling the incidents in minute detail would add more burden to his already heavily damaged psyche. That would arouse suicidal or homicidal tendencies in him. Professional psychologists do not do that. Instead they try to keep the PTSD patient in the present time by using work therapy, development of hobbies such as painting, singing, poetry readings; improving his family ties, etc. All these techniques are well-known and widely used. But not a single therapist in his right mind would try to make his PTSD patient revisit the harmful incidents. Only when the patient expresses desire to talk about the horrific past the doctor would listen to him.

Completely false. The very best approach is to have them review such incidents in detail, until they no longer cause anxiety or attract their attention, but instead they are just like any other memory. They have information content, but no compulsive power.

Again, this is why the treatments that are out there, now, are effective, because they do this. They are effective to the extent that they do this. Talking about other things might help build rapport, but it doesn't deal with the central problems. One of the errors of some therapists is that they are worried about retraumatizing their client. The memory of the incident is not the incident. You could cause them to become upset, by looking at it, but only if you didn't help them get through it. It is upsetting to therapists to have their client become very anxious or emotional, sometimes, but they should be trained to deal with it. It's not a game of canasta, after all. Surgeons deal with people who are frightened to lose their leg in order to save their life. They don't stop at the last minute because the person is in pain. They get it done, and done properly. Failure to do this constitutes a much worse violation of the client than possibly upsetting them along the way.

They know what they have to face is upsetting. That's why they are coming for help. If they could get through it on their own, they wouldn't need help. Being upset or anxious causes a person to not be able to track as well, to reason poorly, and to not be able to get through traumatic experiences, which is why they stay with you without help. Of course you don't push someone into something that they don't want to look at, but you also don't shy away from it when they start telling you. It's fine to help unburden the person, first. Without doing this, and without developing rapport, they cannot trust you with heavier matters. This shouldn't be prolonged, though. The client will tell you what they want to focus on. I certainly would never tell them what they have to look at.

Perhaps you have an assumption that I, personally, am following Hubbard's guidance as to when and how to address matters, and that could be confusing our conversation. Please review my sigfile: I am NOT a dianeticist or scientologist of any stripe. It is my belief that when the person comes to you for assistance with something, you help them with that thing, and not with something else. There are a variety of procedures I would use, and I wouldn't use any of them against the will or without the interest of the client. I also would not have them walk in saying they wanted to finally address the incident in Saigon and tell them that instead, I'd like to ask them about their mother.
 
Last edited:

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
Completely false. The very best approach is to have them review such incidents in detail, until they no longer cause anxiety or attract their attention, but instead they are just like any other memory. They have information content, but no compulsive power.

Again, this is why the treatments that are out there, now, are effective, because they do this. They are effective to the extent that they do this. Talking about other things might help build rapport, but it doesn't deal with the central problems. One of the errors of some therapists is that they are worried about retraumatizing their client. The memory of the incident is not the incident. You could cause them to become upset, by looking at it, but only if you didn't help them get through it. It is upsetting to therapists to have their client become very anxious or emotional, sometimes, but they should be trained to deal with it. It's not a game of canasta, after all. Surgeons deal with people who are frightened to lose their leg in order to save their life. They don't stop at the last minute because the person is in pain. They get it done, and done properly. Failure to do this constitutes a much worse violation of the client than possibly upsetting them along the way.

They know what they have to face is upsetting. That's why they are coming for help. If they could get through it on their own, they wouldn't need help. Being upset or anxious causes a person to not be able to track as well, to reason poorly, and to not be able to get through traumatic experiences, which is why they stay with you without help. Of course you don't push someone into something that they don't want to look at, but you also don't shy away from it when they start telling you. It's fine to help unburden the person, first. Without doing this, and without developing rapport, they cannot trust you with heavier matters. This shouldn't be prolonged, though. The client will tell you what they want to focus on. I certainly would never tell them what they have to look at.

Perhaps you have an assumption that I, personally, am following Hubbard's guidance as to when and how to address matters, and that could be confusing our conversation. Please review my sigfile: I am NOT a dianeticist or scientologist of any stripe. It is my belief that when the person comes to you for assistance with something, you help them with that thing, and not with something else. There are a variety of procedures I would use, and I wouldn't use any of them against the will or without the interest of the client. I also would not have them walk in saying they wanted to finally address the incident in Saigon and tell them that instead, I'd like to ask them about their mother.
I did not accuse you about being a Scientologist or Dianeticist. This argument is not about Dianetics, but about Korzybski’s ideas.
“Completely false. The very best approach is to have them review such incidents in detail, until they no longer cause anxiety or attract their attention, but instead they are just like any other memory. They have information content, but no compulsive power”.
Have ever read a single article on how PTSD is treated? I did. From what I gather, the patients are encouraged to concentrate on present events, not on their past traumatic experiences. Later in their treatment they undergo grief counseling – they grieve about their fallen comrades. But it as far as it goes, they do not go through the traumatic incidents themselves. Better forget those things as fast as you can.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I did not accuse you about being a Scientologist or Dianeticist. This argument is not about Dianetics, but about Korzybski’s ideas.
“Completely false. The very best approach is to have them review such incidents in detail, until they no longer cause anxiety or attract their attention, but instead they are just like any other memory. They have information content, but no compulsive power”.
Have ever read a single article on how PTSD is treated? I did. From what I gather, the patients are encouraged to concentrate on present events, not on their past traumatic experiences. Later in their treatment they undergo grief counseling – they grieve about their fallen comrades. But it as far as it goes, they do not go through the traumatic incidents themselves. Better forget those things as fast as you can.

Korzybski's ideas were developed by others, and two major branches evolved in the united states. One was by a respectable psychologist named Albert Ellis, who developed Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT), and the other branch was created by Bandler and Grinder, hasn't achieved the same scientific acclaim, and is called NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP). REBT is a primary treatment option for PTSD, and devotes considerable time to facing incidents directly in order to see how a person is viewing them, and then to change those views, though that is not its only methodology. NLP I'm not so conversant with, though I'm currently reading "Reframing".

Yes, I've read considerable amounts of articles on PTSD and how to handle it. Those who shy away from facing the incidents underpinning PTSD are usually advocating "treatment", instead of resolution of PTSD. Without facing and resolving the underlying trauma, PTSD will persist. http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/treatment-ptsd.asp Note EMDR (which has imaginal rehearsal as a major component), Prolonged Exposure therapy (exposure to what, do you imagine?).

"What is exposure therapy?

In exposure therapy your goal is to have less fear about your memories. It is based on the idea that people learn to fear thoughts, feelings, and situations that remind them of a past traumatic event.

By talking about your trauma repeatedly with a therapist, you'll learn to get control of your thoughts and feelings about the trauma. You'll learn that you do not have to be afraid of your memories. This may be hard at first. It might seem strange to think about stressful things on purpose. But you'll feel less overwhelmed over time.

With the help of your therapist, you can change how you react to the stressful memories. Talking in a place where you feel secure makes this easier.

You may focus on memories that are less upsetting before talking about worse ones. This is called "desensitization," and it allows you to deal with bad memories a little bit at a time. Your therapist also may ask you to remember a lot of bad memories at once. This is called "flooding," and it helps you learn not to feel overwhelmed.

You also may practice different ways to relax when you're having a stressful memory. Breathing exercises are sometimes used for this.

What is EMDR?

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is another type of therapy for PTSD. Like other kinds of counseling, it can help change how you react to memories of your trauma.

While thinking of or talking about your memories, you'll focus on other stimuli like eye movements, hand taps, and sounds. For example, your therapist will move his or her hand near your face, and you'll follow this movement with your eyes.

Experts are still learning how EMDR works. Studies have shown that it may help you have fewer PTSD symptoms. But research also suggests that the eye movements are not a necessary part of the treatment." - http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/treatment-ptsd.asp
 
Last edited:

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
Wikipedia gives a fairly good overview of PTSD treatment procedures. The one similar to Dianetics auditing is labeled as the least effective method. Personally, I think it is inhumane to put a rape victim through the rape episode over and over again.
The fact that there is plenty of lawsuits against CoS brought forward by the former PCs does not surprise me – these people suffered substantial and, perhaps, irreversible damage as the result of Dianetics auditing. I just hope that I did not cause any damage to my PCs.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Wikipedia gives a fairly good overview of PTSD treatment procedures. The one similar to Dianetics auditing is labeled as the least effective method. Personally, I think it is inhumane to put a rape victim through the rape episode over and over again.

The fact that there is plenty of lawsuits against CoS brought forward by the former PCs does not surprise me – these people suffered substantial and, perhaps, irreversible damage as the result of Dianetics auditing. I just hope that I did not cause any damage to my PCs.

I gotta be honest here. After probably 600 hours of auditing, over many years, I NEVER experienced anything resembling "harm" or "damage". I might add that a great deal of that auditing was "dianetics", run R3R style, all 4 flows, for MANY hundreds of hours. Once I went "past track", it was an adventure every day, for MANY months, jumping in and contacting some new strange amazing "past life experience".

I recall during one session where I contacted some incident, and suddenly I had an intense urge to puke. It was severe. The auditor got me a bucket, so that it could be close by in case I had to hurl. I tried to leave the room, and the auditor wouldn't let me. I got pissed. He TR3'ed the notion, "the way out is the way through". So, I ran through the incident a few more times, went early-similar, and BANG, the chain blew, and the feeling of sickness instantly vanished! BANG!

Whatever was happening, SOMETHING was going on! Of all Scn stuff, I find the MOST value in repetitive running of past painful incidents (dianetics) and some of the Grade processes.

I cannot see any short or long term negative results from ANY perspective from my own auditing. And, there might be positive effects that I am unaware of, and because I am critical of so many things about Scientology, it might be difficult for me to confront or admit such benefits. :confused2:
 
Last edited:

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Wikipedia gives a fairly good overview of PTSD treatment procedures. The one similar to Dianetics auditing is labeled as the least effective method. Personally, I think it is inhumane to put a rape victim through the rape episode over and over again.
The fact that there is plenty of lawsuits against CoS brought forward by the former PCs does not surprise me – these people suffered substantial and, perhaps, irreversible damage as the result of Dianetics auditing. I just hope that I did not cause any damage to my PCs.

If they are replaying it in their mind all the time, anyway, it is no violation to have them do so in a safe environment, with help to get through it and past it.

And, again, I wouldn't recommend Dianetics. Procedurally, it has some bugs I don't like (including meter dependence, for R3R, as well as assessment/pre-assessment issues, and the tendency to push for past life resolution instead of simply accepting what is there, now). I do think Dianetics was on the right track, in many ways, but was derailed by Hubbard's insanities.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I gotta be honest here. After probably 600 hours of auditing, over many years, I NEVER experienced anything resembling "harm" or "damage".

I cannot see any long term negative results from ANY perspective.

Depends how you do it. If it's stressful environment, with lots of "bypassed charge" by incompetent auditors (which is mostly what they have in the Church, now, particularly after GATT), then I could see lots of triggering with little resolution, resulting in a person being worse off than when they started.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Wikipedia gives a fairly good overview of PTSD treatment procedures. The one similar to Dianetics auditing is labeled as the least effective method. Personally, I think it is inhumane to put a rape victim through the rape episode over and over again.
The fact that there is plenty of lawsuits against CoS brought forward by the former PCs does not surprise me – these people suffered substantial and, perhaps, irreversible damage as the result of Dianetics auditing. I just hope that I did not cause any damage to my PCs.

I call Apples and Oranges. there can be no valid comparison between formally trained medical professionals delivering PTSD treatment regimes and part-time Scientologists performing the spiritual rite of Dianetics Auditing. To begin with, the medicos, at least, have peer-reviewed empirical test results to base their treatments on as well as a plethora of 21st Century technology. What have the Scientologists got - Xenu, body thetans, a reboxed 19th Century wheatstone bridge and a book of Success Stories? C'mon.
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
Depends how you do it. If it's stressful environment, with lots of "bypassed charge" by incompetent auditors (which is mostly what they have in the Church, now, particularly after GATT), then I could see lots of triggering with little resolution, resulting in a person being worse off than when they started.

Most of my auditing was in 1976-77, even with many "interns", who weren't necessarily the "best", but I wasn't going to let any auditor's flaws block me from diving down my track! I looked forward everyday for getting more dianetics. It WAS an "adventure" for me at the time. I spent MANY intensives on the Drug Rundown, having tried almost every drug in the book, and ALL of it was "whole track". I was a space cadet when doing drugs, and I was a space cadet with dianetic auditing. What was that question on the Green Form, "trying to get the same effect from auditing as from drugs"? It ALWAYS read on the meter for me! :confused2:

Damn, I must have tried to F/N that "drug list" fifty times! I would be sitting there as calm as possible - PLEASE, F/N THIS TIME! But then, nope, ONE item would read, and it would be back to more drug rundown R3R. I did get sick of it after about 200 hours . . . .

There was no stress from the organization to speak of - that only occured later, when I joined staff.

My last auditing was in about 2000 (Sec Checks), and even with my awareness of the extreme nuttiness in the Church after about 1980 (that is the approximate date I noticed it, not when it started), I still got more out of auditing than not. I have no idea what auditing is like these days.

Honestly, I always looked at it that it was MY JOB to address my case, and that the auditor was there ONLY to help out in directing me in the right direction. Other than that, I didn't depend that much on my auditor.
 
Last edited:

Ulduz

Patron with Honors
Korzybski's ideas were developed by others, and two major branches evolved in the united states. One was by a respectable psychologist named Albert Ellis, who developed Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT), and the other branch was created by Bandler and Grinder, hasn't achieved the same scientific acclaim, and is called NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP). REBT is a primary treatment option for PTSD, and devotes considerable time to facing incidents directly in order to see how a person is viewing them, and then to change those views, though that is not its only methodology. NLP I'm not so conversant with, though I'm currently reading "Reframing".

Yes, I've read considerable amounts of articles on PTSD and how to handle it. Those who shy away from facing the incidents underpinning PTSD are usually advocating "treatment", instead of resolution of PTSD. Without facing and resolving the underlying trauma, PTSD will persist. http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/treatment-ptsd.asp Note EMDR (which has imaginal rehearsal as a major component), Prolonged Exposure therapy (exposure to what, do you imagine?).

"What is exposure therapy?

In exposure therapy your goal is to have less fear about your memories. It is based on the idea that people learn to fear thoughts, feelings, and situations that remind them of a past traumatic event.

By talking about your trauma repeatedly with a therapist, you'll learn to get control of your thoughts and feelings about the trauma. You'll learn that you do not have to be afraid of your memories. This may be hard at first. It might seem strange to think about stressful things on purpose. But you'll feel less overwhelmed over time.

With the help of your therapist, you can change how you react to the stressful memories. Talking in a place where you feel secure makes this easier.

You may focus on memories that are less upsetting before talking about worse ones. This is called "desensitization," and it allows you to deal with bad memories a little bit at a time. Your therapist also may ask you to remember a lot of bad memories at once. This is called "flooding," and it helps you learn not to feel overwhelmed.

You also may practice different ways to relax when you're having a stressful memory. Breathing exercises are sometimes used for this.

What is EMDR?

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) is another type of therapy for PTSD. Like other kinds of counseling, it can help change how you react to memories of your trauma.

While thinking of or talking about your memories, you'll focus on other stimuli like eye movements, hand taps, and sounds. For example, your therapist will move his or her hand near your face, and you'll follow this movement with your eyes.

Experts are still learning how EMDR works. Studies have shown that it may help you have fewer PTSD symptoms. But research also suggests that the eye movements are not a necessary part of the treatment." - http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/treatment-ptsd.asp
Does it really matter who furthered Korzybski’s ideas? Since they are based on false premises, all further developments are wrong. Psychologists have been wrong before -- I mean those one who still believe in psychoanalysis.
Apparently, you are familiar with other techniques of PTSD treatment; I gather your opinion of them is not very high. I hold them in high regards. This brings us to the next question -- which techniques are better? Not a long ago I was watching an American TV show, 20/20. The topic was the new prescription medication drug that helps forget certain things (sorry, I do not remember how it is called). A rape victim, who is Canadian, was also on that show. 20 years ago she was brutally raped and over the course of years her mental condition was deteriorating. She had undergone the kind of treatment you advocate in the hands of psychoanalysts, but her condition was getting even worse. Finally she decided to try this medication, and it did wonders for her. She did not exactly forget that she was raped, but her memories of that event got dim and almost unreal. She is doing fine these days, and no longer thinks about divorce. Her case like nothing else convinced me that Dianetics-like procedures are worthless and sometimes outright deadly. I’m sure all former Scientologists who sue CoS have similar stories.
 
Top