Putting LRH on a pedestal

Tanstaafl

Crusader
true - but I think you need to take the chain of thought a little further. The fact that the ultimate "abilities" supposedly being led up to cannot actually be manifested as objective realities would seem to indicate that the subjective "abilities" are merely artifacts of persuasion, rather than realities.


I can see that viewpoint. It has previously been my view that there was a possibility that the "runway" to take off into OT states was much longer than anyone anticipated. This seems less likely to me now but I still hold some faint hope. I have witnessed demonstrable changes in people's behaviour that I consider to be positive and (relatively) stable.


Well.. people tend to turn to psychiatry and psychology because they are suffering. People tend to get into Scientology because they are looking for ways to better themselves.

I wonder if that's true. Take staff for example: it seems to me that there is a lot of low-toned mockery of high-toned viewpoints going on. I don't take too much that is said or written by Scientologists at face value. Who truly knows why anyone does anything? I don't think this damns Scn but the general level of self-awareness people have.

AS for the "results" - hmm. "Wins" are not results, merely expressions of joy and good feeling. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. So where are the tested results showing demonstrable improvement in people's lives? Improvements above and beyond what would be expected of someone becoming older and wiser? Where are the wonderful writers and engineers that, after 50 years, Scientology would be creating? The Jesuits do better than that and they don't claim to have a 'technology'..

I can't and won't argue with you on that. The degree of "results" is not impressive compared to the hype. Hubbard seems to be in breach of his main policy: deliver what you promise.

I can't really explain this in words, but I've always been a "glass half-empty" person. For a long time I have just wanted to cease to exist (not suicide).
I don't believe things because I need or want them to be true. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that even if Scn doesn't make OTs then it's basics could be the core for a progressive technology that could.

Granted, I'm not sure how OT a person can be in a shared universe. :duh:



naah, I don't think so. But our views are different.

I'm glad you're on the forum Mick. If my own beliefs and ideas aren't challenged then I won't reinspect them periodically and they will be come automaticities. It was failing to apply this policy that led to me staying with CoS years after I should have realised that bugger all was happening (for me at least).

I've found a good measure of something on this forum that seems in short supply elsewhere - maturity and mutual respect.

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
What an interesting exchange. Great posts from both of you...

I agree with Mick about why people (most people) get into psychology and psychiatry. It seems to be almost always due to suffering, something they want to address and get rid of. I've seen that many times. And I applaud it- I think some doctors can help where auditing would not.

Scientology does draw people in by asking about their "ruin", but for many, it is about searching for something more, something esoteric.

Thing is, Scn bills itself as everything from a floor wax to a dessert topping...so it'll handle your ruins, tell you the secrets of the universe, you name it.

Hubbard thought rather highly of himself and of his ability to create a philosophy/methodology that would do all that, didn't he!
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I agree with Mick about why people (most people) get into psychology and psychiatry. It seems to be almost always due to suffering, something they want to address and get rid of. I've seen that many times. And I applaud it- I think some doctors can help where auditing would not.!

A little 2wc, with minimal inval or eval, is always going to be of some help, I think.

Psychotherapy seems to be much less prevalent in the UK than the US. Probably most of what the British know of the subject comes from watching Frasier re-runs. :)

Scientology does draw people in by asking about their "ruin", but for many, it is about searching for something more, something esoteric.

Very true. I was guilty during my early days in Scn of assuming everyone else was in it for the same motivations. How wrong I was! :eek:

Hubbard thought rather highly of himself and of his ability to create a philosophy/methodology that would do all that, didn't he!

He certainly did Your Royal Fluffiness. I don't mind people being cocky or self-important from time to time so long as they back it up with great results. The amount of hype surrounding the claimed results for the tech seems to me to invite hidden standards.

Personally, my hidden standard was that I should be able to lift up a tractor (not with the body). I kid you not. :duh: I'm still trying to find a way of cutting back the gradient on lifting a particle of dust :melodramatic:

Can anyone come up with a sillier hidden standard?

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Personally, my hidden standard was that I should be able to lift up a tractor (not with the body). I kid you not. :duh: I'm still trying to find a way of cutting back the gradient on lifting a particle of dust :melodramatic:

Well, it just so happens....

Here's a post I wrote in 2004 entitled "How to Learn Telekineses":

If you consider telekinesis merely one of those uninteresting parlor
tricks, feel free to ignore the rest of this post.

I read an interesting book over the weekend by the authors of "China's
Super Psychics", Paul Dong and Thomas Raffill. Paul Dong is a martial
arts master. The book is called, "Empty Force" and subtitled, "The Power
of Chi for Self-Defense and Energy Healing".

I had commented earlier on not having found a procedure anywhere for
developing the ability of telekinesis in oneself. Well, it looks like
I have found one. And it is very interesting.

"Empty Force" is the name given to a martial arts skill of supposedly
directing chi from the practitioner's body at another or others, and
influencing them thereby. The influence can involve mental confusion,
or even cause the opponent to be knocked backwards or down. All without
physical contact. Even through a closed door into an adjacent room.

Looking this up on the Net shows a refutation article, Randi style, that
is quite convincing. I am taking the book at face value, without personal
inspection of the matter at hand. The theory of it all makes sense to
me. There are probably some martial arts experts on this list who could
give us the benefit of their hands-on experience.

The manner of learning to master the empty force is very interesting.

95% of the power of the empty force comes from "standing-on-stake".
And what is "standing-on-stake"? It is an exercise in stillness. One
stands, with the feet about a shoulder-width apart, with the hands raised
to about waist level with the palms down. The eyes are closed. Mentally
what one does is similar to OT TR0--not the same but similar. You can
look it up on the Net. Part of the exercise is imagining ch'i filling
the body.

Later, one drills with a candle. One lights it and stands 6 inches away,
and drills focusing the mind with strong intention, pointing two fingers
at the candle flame, and guiding the ch'i to the flame. This is done
for 20 or 30 minutes a day, indoors, until one can make the candle flicker
and finally go out.

The next exercise involves making a cotton ball about the size of a ping-
pong ball and hanging it in your room by a fine thread, with the doors
and windows shut so there is no wind. As with the candle, one points
at the cotton ball and focuses the intention on it, until one can move
it. Then move back and do the same until one can move the cotton ball
from 8-10 feet away.

Next replace the cotton ball with a heavier object, such as a cloth ball,
and practice the same thing. And so on.

This isn't meant to be a full instruction here, but just to give an idea
of the gradient scale of technique.

The amount of time it reportedly takes to develop the ability is three
years at two or three hours a day.

It occurs to me that someone who has already spent hundreds of hours
drilling OT TR-0 and TR-0 would already be a good way towards the goal.
Whether or not it is a worthwhile goal is not the topic of this post.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

Paul
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I know there's benefit to be derived from psychotherapy of different sorts.

But in my personal opinion, though not very Hubbardian, I think there are times when a person may need psychiatric meds. In those cases, I see it as the lesser of the evils, but, nevertheless, there are people who, even if they wanted auditing (which not everyone does. Not everyone is a Scn'ist) that it might not assist them for whatever reason. I think highly of auditing but I do not think that everyone can always respond the way LRH thought they would.

I think that psychiatric meds have stabilized many people when other things did not.

Of course it's better to get to the root of what's in restimulation but, IMO, this cannot always be done.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
How to Learn Telekinesis

Bump re post 44. I just remembered about this. I find it interesting.

Paul
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
You know, I never got the whole idea of making LRH out to be a much larger-than-life character. The PR machinery of the church went into overdrive, exaggerating or distorting facts in order to promote the idea that there was nothing he couldn't do or be a professional in.

Just look at publications like the Ron mags or the book "LRH: A Profile" for blatant examples of what I mean.

I think the one piece of writing that took the biscuit was either a magazine or a promo piece I saw a few years ago. It was going on about LRH's artistic or musical prowess and this S.O. member who wrote it said that LRH's performance had been even better than [whichever famous name it was].

I wonder what training in the arts/classics this writer had in order to make such an evaluation? This just tells me that someone saw fit to write some BS to promote LRH without knowing jack about the subject.

Maybe in some parts of the world people are impressed by this stuff but I'm sorry to say as a cynical Brit it had the opposite effect on me.

I'm not a Brit but it had the same effect on me when I was inside. Now that I'm out...I still cringe at the though that I actually tried "handling" myself for being such... an iconoclast :D :wink2:

Vinair mentioned that he overlooked this aspect of the Scilonic experience, I unfortunately could not get it out of my mind...it was like a tiny rock inside my shoe.This of course was not a determining factor for me to leave, it was just so fucking annoying!

If one would only listen to that"little voice" more often...

TP
 
Top