Scientology explained

[Commander Birdsong]

I have come to believe that an auditor is a predatory type of person and I'm not going to pretend to like auditors or people that seem to advocate for them.

puh-lease...

real auditors are of sterling character. indeed one of the things i particularly enjoy about the practice is how my personal ego plays no part in it. when i am in auditor mode i am all about the person i'm working with. period.

Co$ goes and warps that. one of the more disgusting reports i've read told of auditors crush regging pc's during session breaks at flag

but NO!!! george

auditing properly conducted is a noble activity

 

[Leland]

There ain't no such thing as 100% standard auditing. This has been discussed on this board many times already. "Standard" in the CofS means "the latest hobby-horse" and nothing more.

What was standard at the time of the Class 8 Course is totally squirrel now. How then can there be a "standard" form of Scientology?

It is a work in progress. It is under development. Has always been so and quite likely will always be so.

It is a work in progress....that is not allowed to change or be altered. WoW. Sounds like trouble.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Time to bring this thread back on the topic of arguing about whether anything can be done to improve human (athlete) performance by use of "mental" type techniques . . .

Now I know Hubbard said this sort of thing should be able to be done . . . and we all know he was a liar . . . but . . . lookie here in the Wall Street Journal this morning!!

Horror oh horror . . . . does this reveal and prove the extent of Hubbard's lies and screw ups???

Here we see him having addressed a subject others succeed at while the "great white, golden haired weasel wizard" produced something to screw so many folks up!!!!

Here for your argumentative pleasure this morning's offering.

the mental dimension is very important. it's like yogi berra said "baseball is 90% mental and the other half is physical"

that a mental discipline and specifically dianetics can be of use is very well established. after the '69 season john brodie's wing was so sore and weak he thought his carreer was done. hooked with spickler and in '70 turned in one of the all time great seasons for a QB


/

hmmm...

my response is the second half of what's in the box above

 

[JustSheila]

Let the invisible Panda who watches over us all and his wife be witness to the fact that me and the other girls and some of the others tried our best to get you off the hook on this thread, Leon.

And it doesn't change the fact that I still find clay demos and the fact that COS got us to spend so much time and effort on making these and labeling them extremely funny, as well as screaming at ashtrays, repeatedly walking to walls and turning around, 5 copies of invoices (or was it six?) and so many other incredibly asinine things that are part of Scientology incredibly stupid. The obsessions and attention to details that have nothing to do with anything in the first place is part of what makes Scientology hilarious.

As much as you think me or others were laughing at you, the truth is - you don't hold a candle for being funny and Scientology is hilarious.

That I actually did all those stupid things and believed in them wholeheartedly was every bit as asinine and stupid. I think you're quite alright as a person when you're not talking Scientology, Leon, but when Scientology is the brunt of so many jokes and you get caught up in it and take it seriously, unfortunately, you sometimes end up looking a bit silly yourself. As I did when I was a Scientologist, as we all did.

You can't hang out with Krusty the Clown, call it a religion and take it seriously and not expect to catch a few laughs as Krusty's straight man.

But I digress. What I'm saying is, I tried to help you out of here but you seem to not want that. So as the Panda and Panda's wife are witness, you're on your own mate. But I did try. :confused2:

 

[Commander Birdsong]

You are not making any sense. It appears that you are reiterating a claim you once made that you used magic to influence Boston sports. No specific claim has been made and I am almost afraid to ask.

Now if you had said you had postulated Boston cheesecake as the best in a past life, I probably would have agreed.

magick?

i don't claim to "magic" but that's a semantic question

no, i don't formally use magic but it is sort of magical thing...

maybe you should be afraid to ask because i do want to expand on what i've done. it's a spiritual thing and i've been working on it since ten years before i ever heard of scientology

and the results

are in the record book

and they are pretty damn fancy results

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

Please refer to Modern Science of Mental Health for answers to your question. Keep in mind also later developments in the subject.

Except it is not a science is it?

So your answer to the thread you started where you said you would answer all the questions is...

read a book by a person who I think is a fraud, which makes scientific claims which I don't think are true and on a subject which I don't think is scientific and bear in mind other developments either within the church that I claim is not applying the tech properly and/or outside of the church which I will not specify except to say that they have nothing to do with Marty Rathbun, whom I don't like.

I take it back. I sense you are sensible and with your common sense are making a great deal of sense.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

By your very own words you claim to do " standard auditing " but you also add in other stuff - both can not be true.

The real point is it isn't misapplied tech that people leave because of it is because the tech does not really "work" at any acceptable worthwhile standard.

That is the long & the short of the tech. Like trying to breed unicorns - bud, that can only happen in your mind.

There are even further contradictions
1) They don't do the tech properly in scientology.
2) The standard tech of Hubbard needs to be changed in order to work.
3) People leave because the tech is misapplied.
4) Leon uses standard tech
5) Leon uses more than standard tech.
6) The founder was a fraud and didn't know the tech as well as subsequent people

if (1) They don't do proper tech in scientology and (2) it is necessary to change the tech because standard tech doesn't work because (6) the founder was a fraud and didn't know the tech as well as subsequent people then why would (3) people leave the church because the tech has been changed?

It seems to me that if (2) the standard tech needs to be changed because (6) the founder was a fraud then if they changed the tech, it would work and people would not leave because (3) the tech is misapplied.

How can (4) Leon use standard tech when (2) the tech needs to be changed because (6) the founder was a fraud and didn't know the tech as well as subsequent people but he should (5) alter the tech (which he does) but then he is not (4) using standard tech which is the reason (3) that people leave the church because the tech is misapplied?

If (4) Leon does standard tech but (2) standard tech doesn't work and needs to be modified so he isn't (4) doing standard tech then how does he know when he is (1) misapplying the tech. What I mean is is doing (4) standard tech (1) misapplying the tech because (2) the standard tech of Hubbard needs to be altered in order to work but then it would be (2) misapplied which would give people ARC breaks.

I can see now why clay demoing is so important. Clay makes sense. It is real. Clay obeys the laws of physics and cannot be fit together in way that are logically impossible because the universe won't actually let it. If you say, I am going to make a round square, you couldn't make that in clay. The clay wouldn't let you.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if words were like clay and if things made no sense, the words couldn't come out of your mouth or be posted online? Well maybe not. We wouldn't have this thread would we?

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Except it is not a science is it?

So your answer to the thread you started where you said you would answer all the questions is...

read a book by a person who I think is a fraud, which makes scientific claims which I don't think are true and on a subject which I don't think is scientific and bear in mind other developments either within the church that I claim is not applying the tech properly and/or outside of the church which I will not specify except to say that they have nothing to do with Marty Rathbun, whom I don't like.

I take it back. I sense you are sensible and with your common sense are making a great deal of sense.

there is science to it but it's a "soft" science rather than a hard science like metallurgy or chemistry or physics

as it delves into the spirit it becomes parascientific and as a practice it is ultimately an art

as it happens, i was actually astonished how often auditing produced exact predicted results

 

[sallydannce]

Yes, and not only scientology, but a million and one other things we take for granted or complain about like the weather, or the crap on TV, while elsewhere children are down on their hands and knees sifting through dirt for grains of rice. One just has to thank one's lucky stars that one was born in relatively comfortable circumstances. It could have been so very different.

I really think you've hit on something there Sallydannce.

There is something here that "tips the hand " (card playing ) of another possible hidden strategy of ElCon......that he might have played upon that "self indulgence" of the first world kids that first got in. That it was easier for him to sell them the cult doctrine....because they already "knew" that they were the most advanced....so why shouldn't there be a technology "found" that will make them even better.....even super humans and gods....

In a confidence game....it takes the participation of the mark.....to make it work....and perhaps ElCon knew this....and played upon this "self indulgent" flaw....of those that have had it so good.....and or those that want to help others.....too.

ElCon...stated his stuff was the first "American" mind tech...or something like that...and came out of, at that time, "cutting edge" scientific schooling and such....

Just some thoughts....but there is something to this train of thought....And deserves exploring.....IMO

This self-indulgent neurotic aspect of scientology troubled me deeply as I deprogrammed. I had broken the mental shackles when I was living in China and I had seen things that do not, in the main, exist in the Western world.

The deep shame of what I had been involved in, chasing rainbows and being so involved in a warped "me me me" system (presented in a fake package of "saving the world") disgusted me. I began to describe scientology from A to Z, as vulgar. Seriously vulgar, ineffective and useless in the real world. The dismissive, marginalising, hierarchical, methods entrenched in scientology can only "work" in a society that is overly-abundant. Hubbard says scientology is for "the able". What he meant was scientology is for a first-world fool with too much time and money on their hands.

An inane way to happiness campaign, or 12 1/2 hours of auditing, or a bunch of deluded fake ministers wearing bright yellow t-shirts running around doings assists (smiling sweetly for photo opportunities), does not feed hungry children or make an iota of difference to someone with leprosy who is struggling to live on very mean dusty streets. Or to those that don't have clean drinking water, etc., etc.

Once I got back living in the West (NZ) I wanted to leave again, and go to a third world country to do penance for all my years of being such a retard. I was serious about this. I spoke to the therapist I was working with and she understood my burning need to go and live in a hut, get useful and get over my pathetic first world me-me-me stuff. Though she was very non-directive with me, she quietly suggested I do one hour a week of volunteer work to see if that might help me re-frame things and begin to work through some of the deep shame I felt.

I listened to her and did this. I now do a lot of stuff quietly in the background but I have still not ruled out doing a stint in a place that needs practical support. So if you ever hear that I am in some country with a name hard to spell, you'll know what is going on.

 

[strativarius]

there is science to it but it's a "soft" science rather than a hard science like metallurgy or chemistry or physics

C'mon CB, 'soft science'? That's as close as it gets to being an oxymoron without actually being one.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

scientology explained?


explanation A:

a modestly popular third rate author decided the path to great wealth lay in founding a religion. he cobbled together bits of freud, gautama, rosicrucianism etc. and served it smothered in the most farfetched bizarre cosmology ever coined by any mage

explanation B:

a modestly successful third rate bohemian author dabbled in the dark side of the occult, successfully conjured a demon which consumed his living soul and replaced it with an infernal entity which has inscribed a grand grimoire for destroying christianity and preparing earth for the antichrist

explanation C

an heroic, brilliant and altruistic genius solved the riddles of the mind and spirit and the future is now endlessly beautiful for us all

explanation D

"if winston churchill had not existed it would have been necessary to invent him". i've spoken with brits who were young in 1940 who have stated flatly that if it were not or winston churchill britain would not ave continued to fight after the fall of france. that's probably true. no western front and operation barbarossa probably wins

a BIG part of the reason for the success of dmsmh in 1950 was the acquisition of The Bomb by the rooskies. the bomb made it a whole gnu ballgame. hubbard raised a banner that attracted many very bright and able people who did something new in the context of a most extraordinary historic zeitgeist

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

I agree with you. Please note that I have not made these claims anywhere so I absolve myself from having to prove any of them.

As for IQ - when the psychologists reach some sensible agreement on what exactly intelligence is and how to go about measuring it then there will be a prospect of doing so.

Until then not.

Which means that you do think it raises IQ, which is a scientific question.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

C'mon CB, 'soft science'? That's as close as it gets to being an oxymoron without actually being one.

not at all strats...

"soft science" is not a term i coined. can't off hand tell you where i ran across it but it fits pretty well

with human psychology you have too many variables and intangibles for a hard science. but science and scientific method are deeply involved with the development and practice of the subject

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

This self-indulgent neurotic aspect of scientology troubled me deeply as I deprogrammed. I had broken the mental shackles when I was living in China and I had seen things that do not, in the main, exist in the Western world.

The deep shame of what I had been involved in, chasing rainbows and being so involved in a warped "me me me" system (presented in a fake package of "saving the world") disgusted me. I began to describe scientology from A to Z, as vulgar. Seriously vulgar, ineffective and useless in the real world. The dismissive, marginalising, hierarchical, methods entrenched in scientology can only "work" in a society that is overly-abundant. Hubbard says scientology is for "the able". What he meant was scientology is for a first-world fool with too much time and money on their hands.

An inane way to happiness campaign, or 12 1/2 hours of auditing, or a bunch of deluded fake ministers wearing bright yellow t-shirts running around doings assists (smiling sweetly for photo opportunities), does not feed hungry children or make an iota of difference to someone with leprosy who is struggling to live on very mean dusty streets. Or to those that don't have clean drinking water, etc., etc.

Once I got back living in the West (NZ) I wanted to leave again, and go to a third world country to do penance for all my years of being such a retard. I was serious about this. I spoke to the therapist I was working with and she understood my burning need to go and live in a hut, get useful and get over my pathetic first world me-me-me stuff. Though she was very non-directive with me, she quietly suggested I do one hour a week of volunteer work to see if that might help me re-frame things and begin to work through some of the deep shame I felt.

I listened to her and did this. I now do a lot of stuff quietly in the background but I have still not ruled out doing a stint in a place that needs practical support. So if you ever hear that I am in some country with a name hard to spell, you'll know what is going on.

This is in the wrong thread. It should be in a thread called 'humanity explained.'

I like your perspective.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

not at all strats...

"soft science" is not a term i coined. can't off hand tell you where i ran across it but it fits pretty well

with human psychology you have too many variables and intangibles for a hard science. but science and scientific method are deeply involved with the development and practice of the subject

Except that science and scientific method are not at all involved with the development and practice of Scientology.

That is why it is a pseudoscience.

 

[Gizmo]

There ain't no such thing as 100% standard auditing. This has been discussed on this board many times already. "Standard" in the CofS means "the latest hobby-horse" and nothing more.

What was standard at the time of the Class 8 Course is totally squirrel now. How then can there be a "standard" form of Scientology?

It is a work in progress. It is under development. Has always been so and quite likely will always be so.

Thank you for an excellent il;lustration of that shit does not work. No mater how the tech is shuffled or who shuffles the tech - it for 60 years has failed to produce what it claims to be able to produce.

What is insanity ? Scientology in any way, shape or form.

Next please.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Except that science and scientific method are not at all involved with the development and practice of Scientology.

That is why it is a pseudoscience.

not so...

ron himself was...uhh...somewhat spotty in terms of true scientific rigor

but

there is extensive use of scientific method

just for one thing

independent replication of results

dmsmh produces "working theory" and techniques for practice. it became a publishing phenomenon because people read it, tried it and got some good results

 

[Type4_PTS]

there is science to it but it's a "soft" science rather than a hard science like metallurgy or chemistry or physics

as it delves into the spirit it becomes parascientific and as a practice it is ultimately an art

as it happens, i was actually astonished how often auditing produced exact predicted results

Would you please link to any evidence that the scientific method was used?

 

[Anonycat]

Would you please link to any evidence that the scientific method was used?

As far as I know, or has been documented, the research was feeding himself drugs and his kid pills and seeing where it went.

 

[Balthasar]

Now because we are back on thread topic, I feel the need to say that OT3 was quite good for me.

However, I did hate the Grades and in fact, I did only grade Zero so can't coment on the other grades except perhaps, that I hated them too. NED I despised as well because it insulted my brain.

However truth be told, OT3 was good. I would say if it was crap if it were. If something is shit, I say it because I am not getting paid for promoting Scn tech. I found OT3 is a very effective spiritual technique and it gave exellent results for me. That's not a subjective, delusionary imagination of mine. The results were very visible and friends and co workers that time were noticing and commenting. It wasn't just me who felt better. It was a massive change and people could perceive it without me talking about it.

So therefore for me it is clear that Hubbard with OT3 was on the right track but got it wrong with adding his stuff. Well, he isn't God. He was just human and he is allowed to make mistakes like everybody else.

I am surprised that I am the only one (except Terril Park perhaps) who says that OT3 was good. C'mon, there must be some more people who benefitted from OT3?

Nobody really? Was I the only winning OT3 in the history of Exes?

Note: Those who have not audited OT3 but cannot refrain to give their valuable indispensable expertise are free to do so of course.