I have a bee in my bonnet about this whole question of imaginary incidents with respect to audting.
The comment has been made and I acknowledge, by people far more tech-experienced than myself, that it doesn't particularly matter whether an "incident" is real...i.e, in the objective sense; names, dates, places, events etc. corroborated for example by public record...gravestones, newspaper reports, "discovering" someone in PT who also remembers/validates a shared past moment, whatever...or imaginary in that the PC has created or "mocked-up" a past scenario that never actually happened in the real world.
I'm not implying that a PC would do this to deceive or mislead (that would be a different issue) but myself, I have a pretty fertile imagination...I would think many people who are attracted to Scn in the first place are similar. This carries with it the obvious danger that a PC in trying to look back-track will create a story, a set of circumstances that match whatever he's trying to get handled...seems to me it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes between mock-up and memory, particularly if the guy has pre-Scn interest in "past lives" and has made earlier attempts to deal with issues by thinking back; has anyone with a serious interest in reincarnation NOT attempted self-auditing at some point? Do Popes fly? Is the bird Catholic?
Enter the e-meter ....My understanding of the use of this instrument is that it detects which item on a list rendered by the PC is the "real one"....at least one past auditor said to me that the real item is rarely the one the PC thinks it is, hence the meter's value.
So then, is one to take it that even with the benefits of this fabulous tool the PC might well wind up running a purely fictitious incident of his own unwitting creation? Yes I accept that if it gets charge off a case then there is perceived merit there...but at the cost of the PC building up a portfolio of bogus past-life incidents...isn't there something of a "reality-break" with the real universe there?
It's all well and good to strut about thinking you were Napoleon or Jesus or whatever, for the moment, (I was Thomas Paine
) but I would expect tears before bedtime.
A good number of people in both the Co$ and the FZ seem to accept the literal truth of for example the OT3 story...and doubtless much more of that ilk. Myself I tend to the opinion that it's a bunch of scientifically-impossible horse....what would Albert Einstein say? Unless of course Xenu and his chums found a way to fold space a la "Dune" or something. Shouldn't be too scathing on that point I suppose; you never know what's round the corner. But in truth, I think that argument is the least of it. No doubt most reading this will have formed their own opinion by now anyway.
Some good few years ago now a critic of the church said something very close to this: Scientology capitalises on breaking-down its members' ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality; this leaves them open to suggestibility and influence....a blatant control-mechanism.
This is my real beef I think; maybe I'd be less concerned about the real v. imaginary issue in auditing if it weren't for its enshrinement in such a mendacious environment.
Off now to compose the "Second Age of Reason"......
The comment has been made and I acknowledge, by people far more tech-experienced than myself, that it doesn't particularly matter whether an "incident" is real...i.e, in the objective sense; names, dates, places, events etc. corroborated for example by public record...gravestones, newspaper reports, "discovering" someone in PT who also remembers/validates a shared past moment, whatever...or imaginary in that the PC has created or "mocked-up" a past scenario that never actually happened in the real world.
I'm not implying that a PC would do this to deceive or mislead (that would be a different issue) but myself, I have a pretty fertile imagination...I would think many people who are attracted to Scn in the first place are similar. This carries with it the obvious danger that a PC in trying to look back-track will create a story, a set of circumstances that match whatever he's trying to get handled...seems to me it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes between mock-up and memory, particularly if the guy has pre-Scn interest in "past lives" and has made earlier attempts to deal with issues by thinking back; has anyone with a serious interest in reincarnation NOT attempted self-auditing at some point? Do Popes fly? Is the bird Catholic?
Enter the e-meter ....My understanding of the use of this instrument is that it detects which item on a list rendered by the PC is the "real one"....at least one past auditor said to me that the real item is rarely the one the PC thinks it is, hence the meter's value.
So then, is one to take it that even with the benefits of this fabulous tool the PC might well wind up running a purely fictitious incident of his own unwitting creation? Yes I accept that if it gets charge off a case then there is perceived merit there...but at the cost of the PC building up a portfolio of bogus past-life incidents...isn't there something of a "reality-break" with the real universe there?
It's all well and good to strut about thinking you were Napoleon or Jesus or whatever, for the moment, (I was Thomas Paine
) but I would expect tears before bedtime.A good number of people in both the Co$ and the FZ seem to accept the literal truth of for example the OT3 story...and doubtless much more of that ilk. Myself I tend to the opinion that it's a bunch of scientifically-impossible horse....what would Albert Einstein say? Unless of course Xenu and his chums found a way to fold space a la "Dune" or something. Shouldn't be too scathing on that point I suppose; you never know what's round the corner. But in truth, I think that argument is the least of it. No doubt most reading this will have formed their own opinion by now anyway.
Some good few years ago now a critic of the church said something very close to this: Scientology capitalises on breaking-down its members' ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality; this leaves them open to suggestibility and influence....a blatant control-mechanism.
This is my real beef I think; maybe I'd be less concerned about the real v. imaginary issue in auditing if it weren't for its enshrinement in such a mendacious environment.
Off now to compose the "Second Age of Reason"......
Simply, in social life (meaning to me the "entertainment" part) I do tolerate anything and wouldn't attempt to change people, epecially as to how they behave. 
