What's new

Processing Gains

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Scientologists are unwilling to learn or even consider anything about the mind that does not come from L Ron Hubbard.

Hey Alanzo,

I enjoy your posts but I wish you'd occasionally qualify some remarks; e.g. many Scientologists or a large proportion of scientologists or all the scientologists I have met. Or are you trying to prove Hubbard wrong when he said that "there are no absolutes"? :)
 

Veda

Sponsor
Scientologists are unwilling to learn or even consider anything about the mind that does not come from L Ron Hubbard.

Hubbard took what he knew from hypnosis and developed Dianetics and Scientology from it.

He wanted to sell Dianetics, but hypnosis had a very bad reputation to the general public. So he bent over backwards to make sure that everyone knew that Dianetics was the OPPOSITE of hypnosis (an early application of "positioning" tech).

He trashed hypnosis, using the very same fear and ignorance against it that the general public already had. He didn't need to fight that battle, anyway, so he just positioned Dianetics as a "bolt from the blue", thus cutting its time track and its lineage to earlier knowledge and technology on the human mind.

He didn't care that he heaped more fear and ignorance onto a general understanding of the human mind - he simply wanted to sell some books, and then some services he developed from it.

Hubbard took hypnosis and hypnotherapy to new heights with his organized rundowns and grades technology, and his development of TRs.

If you'll study the history of hypnosis, really look into it, and combine what Hubbard taught you with Dn & Scn, you will have a much greater understanding of the human mind than just what a Scientologist knows alone.

That he trademarked everything, jealously fought anyone who would take his tech and expand on it, is simply evidence of his narcissism and lack of enlightenment and intention to enrich himself off of his own work - despite all the altruistic ideals he hid behind.

Have you ever taken someone who is unfamiliar with Scientology, and who actually has an independent personality, intelligence, and will, and is not the classic stereotypical suggestible turnip (such as the ones seen clapping on cue at Scientology events), and taken him through some of the "processes" of "Grade Zero," by way of "auditing"?

It's quite interesting to do that.

This "Grade" has to do with comminication, what would it be Ok to say to Grandpa? Etc. (Perhaps someone could list the processes of Grade Zero, since, inevitably, someone will read this as being "TR 0.")

The point is that there are many factors involved, and influencing what occurs. It's not just one thing.

And words, we are trapped in a sea of words. The word is not the thing. The map is not the territory.

Obviously, 1950 Dianetic "auditing" was a spin-off of older "hypno-therapy." How does one access the person's subconscious mind when the conscious mind interferes? It's necessary to by-pass the conscious mind, perhaps by invoking a response suddenly in an instant, or by quieting the conscious mind, maybe even "putting it to sleep" - but, wait, that's something like definition number one for the word, "hypnosis," and which definition are we on now?

Yet, what about other actions that are also called "auditing"? These come in a wide variety. Some don't resemble 1950 Dianetics. So what of those?

Walk through a park with someone and ask him to, "Point out something that's communicating?" Mmmmm. That's not at all like 1950 Dianetics, but it's still labeled with the word, "auditing."

And what of that which precedes the action of (any) "auditing"? (And this, particularly for a suggestible person, is where "pre-loading" can occur. And in a manipulative environment, it supposed to occur.)

And, in Scientology - although it depends on the individual (the ultimate variable) - by the time the person has been IN Scientology to some extent, some pre-loading will likely occur. And what is something such as "OT 2," but pre-loading followed by blatant "loading"? And, amazingly, this is also called, "auditing." (And, alas, for some, "auditing" is any action that involves holding the electrodes - in this case, one-hand electrodes - of a meter, and watching the needle for any movement, and noting those needle movements on a piece of paper.)

So, there are many things that are designated with the word "auditing," and many situations in which these many kinds of "auditing" can occur.

And, also, people differ.

And as for "hypnosis" - it is a word (as in something consisting of black lines and squiggles, or a sound), and one with many meanings. And I posted a collection of definitions already, in a link in a prior post.

And, maybe, if the difficult task of describing actions, conditions, or states of consciousness, perception, and unconsciousness is to be attempted, then, maybe, it might be approached - as much as possible - using ordinary words, words understood by anyone, and about which there is no controversy or confusion.

And to place this in a context:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=3036&postcount=1
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Hey Alanzo,

I enjoy your posts but I wish you'd occasionally qualify some remarks; e.g. many Scientologists or a large proportion of scientologists or all the scientologists I have met. Or are you trying to prove Hubbard wrong when he said that "there are no absolutes"? :)

Alrighty then.

(Change made in the original)
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Veda -

I think you are over-emphasizing the words. And this over-emphasis does not allow for seeing the whole canyon.

Yes, there are rocks in the canyon. And some parts of the canyon are not gorges, or even valleys. Some are even hills. But it's all part of one grand canyon.

Working with the mind to heal mentally caused ills led people to develop processes to go inward and focus on things, to the exclusion of other things, with the intent relieving those mentally caused ills.

As far back as the 1750's people have been engaging in this activity and documenting it. That activity has come under the heading of hypnosis.

Hubbard is very much part of that line.

Yes, or no?
 

Veda

Sponsor
Veda -

I think you are over-emphasizing the words. And this over-emphasis does not allow for seeing the whole canyon.

Yes, there are rocks in the canyon. And some parts of the canyon are not gorges, or even valleys. Some are even hills. But it's all part of one grand canyon.

Working with the mind to heal mentally caused ills led people to develop processes to go inward and focus on things, to the exclusion of other things, with the intent relieving those mentally caused ills.

As far back as the 1750's people have been engaging in this activity and documenting it. That activity has come under the heading of hypnosis.

Hubbard is very much part of that line.

Yes, or no?


One thing at a time. What words am I over-emphasizing?
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
One thing at a time. What words am I over-emphasizing?

Working with the mind to heal mentally caused ills led people to develop processes to go inward and focus on things, to the exclusion of other things, with the intent relieving those mentally caused ills.

As far back as the 1750's people have been engaging in this activity and documenting it. That activity has come under the heading of hypnosis.

Hubbard is very much part of that line.

Yes, or no?
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Hey Alanzo,

I enjoy your posts but I wish you'd occasionally qualify some remarks; e.g. many Scientologists or a large proportion of scientologists or all the scientologists I have met. Or are you trying to prove Hubbard wrong when he said that "there are no absolutes"? :)

Don't hold your breath.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
An attitude that does you credit, sir.

You, yourself, do not fit the mold of the normal Scientologist, nor do some of the others on here. I have found people who have been able to resist the coercion and the brainwashing techniques in Scientology much better than I was able to.

So, you were right.

When you're right, you're right.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Have you ever taken someone who is unfamiliar with Scientology, and who actually has an independent personality, intelligence, and will, and is not the classic stereotypical suggestible turnip (such as the ones seen clapping on cue at Scientology events), and taken him through some of the "processes" of "Grade Zero," by way of "auditing"?

It's quite interesting to do that.

This "Grade" has to do with comminication, what would it be Ok to say to Grandpa? Etc. (Perhaps someone could list the processes of Grade Zero, since, inevitably, someone will read this as being "TR 0.")

The point is that there are many factors involved, and influencing what occurs. It's not just one thing.

And words, we are trapped in a sea of words. The word is not the thing. The map is not the territory.

Obviously, 1950 Dianetic "auditing" was a spin-off of older "hypno-therapy." How does one access the person's subconscious mind when the conscious mind interferes? It's necessary to by-pass the conscious mind, perhaps by invoking a response suddenly in an instant, or by quieting the conscious mind, maybe even "putting it to sleep" - but, wait, that's something like definition number one for the word, "hypnosis," and which definition are we on now?

Yet, what about other actions that are also called "auditing"? These come in a wide variety. Some don't resemble 1950 Dianetics. So what of those?

Walk through a park with someone and ask him to, "Point out something that's communicating?" Mmmmm. That's not at all like 1950 Dianetics, but it's still labeled with the word, "auditing."

And what of that which precedes the action of (any) "auditing"? (And this, particularly for a suggestible person, is where "pre-loading" can occur. And in a manipulative environment, it supposed to occur.)

And, in Scientology - although it depends on the individual (the ultimate variable) - by the time the person has been IN Scientology to some extent, some pre-loading will likely occur. And what is something such as "OT 2," but pre-loading followed by blatant "loading"? And, amazingly, this is also called, "auditing." (And, alas, for some, "auditing" is any action that involves holding the electrodes - in this case, one-hand electrodes - of a meter, and watching the needle for any movement, and noting those needle movements on a piece of paper.)

So, there are many things that are designated with the word "auditing," and many situations in which these many kinds of "auditing" can occur.

And, also, people differ.

And as for "hypnosis" - it is a word (as in something consisting of black lines and squiggles, or a sound), and one with many meanings. And I posted a collection of definitions already, in a link in a prior post.

And, maybe, if the difficult task of describing actions, conditions, or states of consciousness, perception, and unconsciousness is to be attempted, then, maybe, it might be approached - as much as possible - using ordinary words, words understood by anyone, and about which there is no controversy or confusion.

And to place this in a context:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=3036&postcount=1

Veda -

I think you are over-emphasizing the words. And this over-emphasis does not allow for seeing the whole canyon.

Yes, there are rocks in the canyon. And some parts of the canyon are not gorges, or even valleys. Some are even hills. But it's all part of one grand canyon.

Working with the mind to heal mentally caused ills led people to develop processes to go inward and focus on things, to the exclusion of other things, with the intent relieving those mentally caused ills.

As far back as the 1750's people have been engaging in this activity and documenting it. That activity has come under the heading of hypnosis.

Hubbard is very much part of that line.

Yes, or no?

One thing at a time. What words am I over-emphasizing?

Working with the mind to heal mentally caused ills led people to develop processes to go inward and focus on things, to the exclusion of other things, with the intent relieving those mentally caused ills.

As far back as the 1750's people have been engaging in this activity and documenting it. That activity has come under the heading of hypnosis.

Hubbard is very much part of that line.

Yes, or no?

You've deleted the comment about over-emphasizing words?

The point is that when a word has no certain meaning, it's difficult to have a converstion using that word.

On the Net, I just came across another definition for hypnosis: "influential communication." So, add that to the list.

I'll probably have as much success convincing those in love with the word, "hypnosis" of its (current) impracticality (due to disputed meanings), as I have convincing some people that the word, "thetan" was a dark-Hubbardian inside-joke-word, and that they should use more ordinary terms.

And that's mainly what I'm saying. Why not use ordinary language that we all understand, for now?

Then, maybe we could actually understand each other?

As for your question, suggest reading the entire link posted above.

It includes another disputed term, "brainwashing," however, that's mostly because Hubbard used the term, himself, to describe the booklet the above link addresses.
 
Last edited:

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
You've deleted the comment about over-emphasizing words?

The point is that when a word has no certain meaning, it's difficult to have a converstion using that word.

On the Net, I just came across another definition for hypnosis: "influencial communication." So, add that to the list.

I'll probably have as much success convincing those in love with the word, "hypnosis" of its (current) impracticality (due to disputed meanings), as I have convincing some people that the word, "thetan" was a dark-Hubbardian inside-joke-word, and that they should use more ordinary terms.

And that's mainly what I'm saying. Why not use ordinary language that we all understand, for now?

Then, maybe we could actually understand each other?

As for your question, suggest reading the entire link posted above.

It includes another disputed term, "brainwashing," however, that's mostly because Hubbard used the term, himself, to describe the booklet the above link addresses.

All right, let's take it a different way.

What was Mesmer involved in?

Charcot?

Braiden?

These people were all performing a CERTAIN ACTIVITY, using similar approaches to similar problems. They contributed to a certain body of knowledge along a similar line.

Without naming or using any word to describe the activity, I am saying that Hubbard learned from them, and others doing similar activities, and he developed Dianetics and Scientology based on the knowledge gained from performing those similarly-grouped activities.

Agreed?

Or not.

And why.
 

Veda

Sponsor
All right, let's take it a different way.

What was Mesmer involved in?

Charcot?

Braiden?

These people were all performing a CERTAIN ACTIVITY, using similar approaches to similar problems. They contributed to a certain body of knowledge along a similar line.

Without naming or using any word to describe the activity, I am saying that Hubbard learned from them, and others doing similar activities, and he developed Dianetics and Scientology based on the knowledge gained from performing those similarly-grouped activities.

Agreed?

Or not.

And why.

Agreed, but you left out these two fellows. Hubbard learned from them also:

Aleister Crowley:

http://www.nndb.com/people/100/000030010/crowley-face.jpg

Alfred Korzybski:

http://www.informaticafriuli.com/wp-content/uploads/Alfred_Korzybski.jpg

Note: "hain Indexes" on chalkboard is "Chain Indexes," as in "earlier similar" (also Korzybski's usage).
 
Last edited:

Tanstaafl

Crusader
You, yourself, do not fit the mold of the normal Scientologist, nor do some of the others on here. I have found people who have been able to resist the coercion and the brainwashing techniques in Scientology much better than I was able to.

So, you were right.

When you're right, you're right.

Alanzo, you're alright. We can only call it as we see it. The vast majority on this forum do just that. Sadly, there are a couple of hangers-on who either call it as they've been told to call it or just don't/won't look but call it anyway.

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Snuffy,

the problem or element here may be that we're not fully crediting the mutable nature of reality.

There are practices, phenomena, etc, that aren't inherently one way or another, but can become that way.
 
Top