Scientology: hard and soft, tech and religion

[Lermanet_com]

It's all ba-a-a-ad, Terril. That's the new orthodox religion. You have to subscribe or you risk being labelled a brainwashed dupe with a secret agenda to brainwash the entire world.

nothing, not even scientology, is all bad...

And I'll quote from Voltaire's Zadig..quoting the angel Jesrad

Zadig: 'Is it necessary then, venerable Guide, that there should be Wickedness and Misfortunes in the World, and that those Misfortunes should fall with Weight on the Heads of the Righteous?

Jesrad: The Wicked, replied Jesrad, are always unhappy. Misfortunes are intended only as a Touch-stone, to try a small Number of the Just, who are thinly scatter’d about this terrestrial Globe: Besides, there is no Evil under the Sun, but some Good proceeds from it'

More on this in THIS THREAD in the Recommended Reading section of ESMB

 

[Smilla]

Samuel Johnson (British Author, 1709-1784) once commented upon the literary efforts of a contemporary, saying that their writing contained good and original material:

"However, the part that was original was not good, and that which was good was not original."

This is the problem with the Tech. It actually contains nothing new that works. The things that could actually do a person some good, in terms of permitting them to relate to people and communicate better, etc. are all available (at far less cost) elsewhere. Even the term, 'Scientology' wasn't Ron's. Neither was the electropsychometer.

As a whole, the organization, its founder, the staff, the promises and the Tech can certainly be fascinating... but it's like a theatrical production: you get up close to the scenery, and you can see that it's all just two-dimensional. The actors have a limited repertoire, they aren't as good as the reviews suggested... and the production doesn't actually reflect you or your interests.

In summary, the hard Tech isn't good, because it doesn't work; and the soft Tech isn't original. And what does that leave? Nothing much, except power structures and uniforms. We can do better - and do more to bring about the end of this shameful episode - simply by connecting better with our fellow citizens. And you never needed LRH to tell you how to do that.

Welcome and thanks for a great post.

 

[yon8008]

...
"However, the part that was original was not good, and that which was good was not original."
....

This certainly is a cleaver [sp: clever] invalidation.

 

[Smilla]

This certainly is a cleaver invalidation.

It works fine for me

 

[Lermanet_com]

This certainly is a cleaver invalidation.

Might a "Cleaver invalidation" be a distinction without a difference?

 

[yon8008]

But, how much investigation do you think would be necessary to honestly make this statement:

...
This is the problem with the Tech. It actually contains nothing new that works.
...

To make the above statement honestly would require:
1) knowing what the subject contains,
2) knowing what of the subject is and is not new,
3) isolating the new elements and showing that they do not work.

If you think the subject doesn't contain useful data, and you look at the mountain of materials, it would be easy to walk by without looking - but wouldn't qualify you to make the statement that "It actually contains nothing new that works".

If you have studied the subject, I would be very interested in learning if you believe the DATA SERIES "doesn't work"; or if the DATA SERIES is "not new", who has written a better exposition of data & situational analysis prior to LRH.

 

[Smilla]

But, how much investigation do you think would be necessary to honestly make this statement:



To make the above statement honestly would require:
1) knowing what the subject contains,
2) knowing what of the subject is and is not new,
3) isolating the new elements and showing that they do not work.

If you think the subject doesn't contain useful data, and you look at the mountain of materials, it would be easy to walk by without looking - but wouldn't qualify you to make the statement that "It actually contains nothing new that works".

If you have studied the subject, I would be very interested in learning if you believe the DATA SERIES "doesn't work"; or if the DATA SERIES is "not new", who has written a better exposition of data & situational analysis prior to LRH.

If you are an OT, you just know these things, because you know how to know.

 

[Lermanet_com]

If you have studied the subject, I would be very interested in learning if you believe the DATA SERIES "doesn't work"; or if the DATA SERIES is "not new", who has written a better exposition of data & situational analysis prior to LRH.

Ahhhhhh, took the ESTO Course when it was first excreted from Hubbard's orfice...and I thought how fascinating...There were a dozen or so OUTPOINTS to "EVALUATE", i took copious notes, and I thought, as you do now, that (insert low voice with great solemnity here) THE DATA SERIES was amazing stuff...

Until I started reading THE LOGICAL FALLACIES

of which there are over 100, and include those dozen, that hubbard cherry picked so carefully for us to ogle over, and think how clever be he...
much like the little kangaroo he caused that kid to see in his hands, who shew it to all his friends, this cute little kangaroo...after being hypnotized by Hubbard at a Science Fiction meeting in LA... Here is an image of one of Forrest Ackerman's (Was Hubbard's Literary Agent) typewritten notes from that time...

More here http://www.lermanet.com/excalibur/index.html

The data series OUTPOINTS are small subset of the 100+ LOGICAL FALLACIES
LOGICAL FALLACIES that were used by hubbard with intent to decieve you, and trick your subconscious into making you believe that ENGRAMS (little kangaroos?) supposedly even exist...and only HE could get rid of them for you...at great expense of course...sign here...now... pick up the cans please... this is the session.. I'd like to indicate that you have been lied to a great many times by a master hypnotist who then picked your pocket and then trained you how to run his scam for him...and make money... and make others make more money...but only for the scam.

 

[Freeminds]

But, how much investigation do you think would be necessary to honestly make this statement...
...

Okay, good point. And the entrance to a semantic minefield. I think this will take some time to talk through in its entirety.

For now, I'll clarify that when I say "It actually contains nothing new that works", I mean that none of the 'new-age' descriptions of superpowers has any basis in fact. Let's consider the end phenomena for example:

"Awareness of yourself in relation to others and the physical universe." Effectively means nothing, because you already are. The 'win' might make you feel cuddly, but it doesn't allow you to do anything useful. Ditto "Rehabilitation of intention and ability to project intention." An internal (subjective) process, and therefore impossible to test or verify. Another 'soft' one. So maybe you carry on up the Bridge. (Let's gloss over the Space Opera, shall we?) "Cause over life", perhaps? Subjective, tending towards impossible. Who really has control over every aspect of their life?

Can you really be three feet back from your own head? (Which is to say, could you tell me what playing card I'm holding up, behind you? No.) Might we levitate? No. Travel to other planets? Sure: it's called daydreaming. (And it might well entertain you or even do you good... but it's another 'soft' one.) Astral projection, remote viewing, telekinesis, spiritual healing, perfect recall... all implied powers of the OT, and never delivered. The 'hard' Tech - "that which is good", or the payoff, if you will - never materialises. Which only leaves us with "that which is not original" (empathy, communication, focus, etc.) and that's available in a myriad of self-help books.

 

[yon8008]

Ahhhhhh, took the ESTO Course when it was first excreted from Hubbard's orfice...and I thought how fascinating...There were a dozen or so OUTPOINTS to "EVALUATE", i took copious notes, and I thought, as you do now, that (insert low voice with great solemnity here) THE DATA SERIES was amazing stuff...

Until I started reading THE LOGICAL FALLACIES

of which there are over 100, and include those dozen, that hubbard cherry picked so carefully for us to ogle over, and think how clever be he...
much like the little kangaroo he caused that kid to see in his hands, who shew it to all his friends, this cute little kangaroo...after being hypnotized by Hubbard at a Science Fiction meeting in LA... Here is an image of one of Forrest Ackerman's (Was Hubbard's Literary Agent) typewritten notes from that time...

More here http://www.lermanet.com/excalibur/index.html

The data series OUTPOINTS are small subset of the 100+ LOGICAL FALLACIES
LOGICAL FALLACIES that were used by hubbard with intent to decieve you, and trick your subconscious into making you believe that ENGRAMS (little kangaroos?) supposedly even exist...and only HE could get rid of them for you...at great expense of course...sign here...now... pick up the cans please... this is the session.. I'd like to indicate that you have been lied to a great many times by a master hypnotist who then picked your pocket and then trained you how to run his scam for him...and make money... and make others make more money...but only for the scam.

Thank you VERY MUCH! I really appreciate the links to the logical fallacies.

I also agree that much of Scientology can and should be carefully evaluated as you described in your last paragraph - presentation that get the gullible to go into agreement with the ideas of powerlessness and needing Scientology. (I wonder sometimes if LRH knew what he was doing the whole time [he talks about this exact point in the PDC]... I can imagine that he just wanted to see how outrageous he could grow the joke/profit-machine... imagine if all it took for him was to continuously act a little more confident and a little more serious and out-last everyone in the "incredulity contest". It's either a really incredible joke by a genius and heartless manipulator - or LRH may have believed it himself.)

As for the Data Series: Just because additional clarification/expansion could be ADDED to the Data Series to improve it, doesn't mean that it isn't NEW and HELPFUL.

Here is one example: I was really impressed by the concept of 'the ideal scene' and the importance of knowing 'what the situation should look like'. This was not something that had never been presented to me in 22 years of formal education, it is only obvious after you see it, and this idea alone could be used to dramatically improve the efficiency of any government agency or business or Scientology itself: "What is this thing supposed to do?" "What would it look like if it was working correctly?" "What is the difference between what we ARE SEEING and what we SHOULD BE SEEING?"


- Yon

 

[Zinjifar]

You might look to who's defining 'ideal' and whether they have a working example. Scientology sees the 'Cleared Planet' as 'ideal'. What they have to show for it is the Sea Org; the only 'scene' where Scientology actually has the control to make things like they want em.

Zinj

 

[Lermanet_com]

Well, look, scientology isnt all bad... there are some very tastee raisins in the steekin' poop. With that said... I believe there is little point in engaging in discussion about how to best extract raisins from poop and tis far better to goto the source documents from which Hubbard stole those things that glittered and caught your fancy...causing you to look deeper.... until, all you saw was Ron......

Hubbard did say "Always goto Source" (and he meant to HIM)

But to figure out how hubbard stole ten years of my life I did what Ron said... I went to Source.. the sources he stole from without attribution in order to make us think he was of so fine a mind... that we would believe...

We are required to believe he had altitude.. because... every hypnotist's teaching materials state... that your reputation, and confidence, and certainty allows you to hypnotize others easily... as you may recall from your training on how to hypnotize others that we received and studied and drilled so well, while Hubbard told us we were doing "Training Routines" to learn to "confront"... < This is a great example of hoe hubbard "Fair Games" you from the very start with a "Shore story" - "learning to confront" when you are actually learning how to hypnotize yourself and others...

http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosis-index.htm

TR-O is from a little book called Hypnosis for Salesmen... if you are just a homeless guy on the street.. good luck... unless of course you are gypsy, who has been taught the art of doing a face pass with gold ring while talking quickly.... so you wont notice them lifting your wallet with the other hand.. LINK to Confusion Technique

In Hypnosis for Salesmen is a technique called The Eye to Eye Technique... we practiced staying awake while being hypnotized.. we did it for hundreds of hours!! do you remember??? and we became adept at "getting our TRs in" on command which in fact was .. hypnotizing ourselves to enter a trance oas needed.. LINK to The Gradation Chart

see my Hypnosis thread on OCMB

There is even some old data that indicates that the small 80 microamps from the E-meter of direct current may be enough to potentiate to a slight degree hypnosis due to electronarcosis... < stick that into google LINK to Estabrooks on Electronarcosis

we were conned and fleeced, and all the rest of the OSA/GO, dirty tricks and blackmail data - and litigation conducted ONLY in a quest for silence... LINK to Silence... was so that you would not dare wake up to the FACT of the fraud that had been perpetrated against you, until after the statute of limitations expired... but even that is being addressed in the latest litigations...

In order to recover fully, one need only goto the original materials by those people demonized as evil by scientology. (See Ad Hominem) The BEST of scientology is no better than Hypnosis and like Hypnosis.. requires constant reenforcement... thus you must come to the event!! get on the bridge!!! Do it now!!! But if we had KNOWN that we were practicing hypnosis, we would never have DARED putting off medical treatment just because through hypnosis and suggestion we no longer felt the symptoms..

The incredible emotional pain of disconnection is practiced solely so that those who wake up from the trance, and realize it was all bullshit, do not have any opportunity towake up the other people in the room!!!

We were not "CLEAR..." were were in a trance...and trance states are PAIN FREE.

Geddit?

Please pass this stuff along to any others you know who might benefit from it..

And the best thing of allis that Trance states are FREE!!!
It is time to wake up, finish recovery, and quit arguing about raisins...

 

[Mystic]

I never argue about raisins. I just take a zerotol and cool it.

 

[Leon]

There are numerous arguments here which I will try to deal with.

!) Is Scientology "original"? meaning is LRH the "source" of it all? Answer: I neither know nor care. It was packaged and presented, I entered it with my eyes open, and from the time of my second auditing session (with Dalene Regenass - an old time St Hiller) I knew with a certainty that it worked for me and I wanted to knw everything there was to know about it. I have never regretted that decision.

2) Is TR-0 hypnotism? If you do it wrong then it can be that. If you "do" it right then it never will. It has very often been done very very wrongly with an enforced self-induced trance-like state imposed upon the person, replacing and substituting for, the actual being. familiarity with the lectures on basic Auditing (as given on the original HRD course) will sort out a supervisor's ideas on what is required for proper TR-0.

3) The Data Series. I disliked them from the very beginning. I was already familiar with the principles of False Argument and could see that the Data Series was a poor substitute for those.

Used as a method of data analysis didn't meke any sense either since one could posit whatever one chose as the "Ideal Scene" and the "outpoints" would then vary accordingly. This does not mean that they were not fun to study and play with. I enjoyed that a lot, even though I never took them on board for myself. I spent about six weeks in the Data Bureau on Flag doing evals of Orgs and never once had an eval of mine rejected; to my knowledge one was even made the basis of a Flag mission that was sent out. Every eval was done purely on the basis of analysing the Org's statistics and reading "between the lines" what was actually going on.

4) (This Q not actually asked here but implied throughout) Is Scientology a valid subject and a route to personal betterment? Answer:Yes it is, but as with any "system" it will do absolutely nothing by itself. Anyone who falls for the idiocy of "Just pay your money and sit back and enjoy your trip to OT" is a fool just asking to be seperated from his money. For me even before I started or even heard of Scio I knew that any betterment could only come from personal application and hard work. You only get from Scio what you put into it - NOT the money, but the focus and intention and application of personal good sense.

Organisationally Scio told a lot of lies. I knew that then - we discussed it among ourselves after course on many occasions - and very few of us ever went the effect of them. When I saw the game changing in the early '80s I knew it was now time to get out, and so I did. With no regrets. I have continued my personal studies of the subject ever since and have audited thousands of hours since then too.

When people whom I meet say to me that they got nothing worthwhile out of Scientology my first question is always what auditor training did they do? The answer has ALWAYS been none or minimally little. Always. And yet how ofetn were you urged to "Get Trained"? Times beyond counting.

 

[lkwdblds]

Sharing common ground with you

There are numerous arguments here which I will try to deal with.

!) Is Scientology "original"? meaning is LRH the "source" of it all? Answer: I neither know nor care. It was packaged and presented, I entered it with my eyes open, and from the time of my second auditing session (with Dalene Regenass - an old time St Hiller) I knew with a certainty that it worked for me and I wanted to knw everything there was to know about it. I have never regretted that decision.

2) Is TR-0 hypnotism? If you do it wrong then it can be that. If you "do" it right then it never will. It has very often been done very very wrongly with an enforced self-induced trance-like state imposed upon the person, replacing and substituting for, the actual being. familiarity with the lectures on basic Auditing (as given on the original HRD course) will sort out a supervisor's ideas on what is required for proper TR-0.

3) The Data Series. I disliked them from the very beginning. I was already familiar with the principles of False Argument and could see that the Data Series was a poor substitute for those.

Used as a method of data analysis didn't meke any sense either since one could posit whatever one chose as the "Ideal Scene" and the "outpoints" would then vary accordingly. This does not mean that they were not fun to study and play with. I enjoyed that a lot, even though I never took them on board for myself. I spent about six weeks in the Data Bureau on Flag doing evals of Orgs and never once had an eval of mine rejected; to my knowledge one was even made the basis of a Flag mission that was sent out. Every eval was done purely on the basis of analysing the Org's statistics and reading "between the lines" what was actually going on.

Leon, when did you serve those 6 weeks? I "served" 3 weeks spanning October and early November of 1973 on the Apollo. I had no hatting for the duties of my post, and was ordered to route onto the Data Evaluators' Course and start doing my first Eval on the same day personally by LRH along with 4 other "Programs Chiefs". I received no Hat write up, did you receive a hat write up when you entered the Data bureau?

4) (This Q not actually asked here but implied throughout) Is Scientology a valid subject and a route to personal betterment? Answer:Yes it is, but as with any "system" it will do absolutely nothing by itself. Anyone who falls for the idiocy of "Just pay your money and sit back and enjoy your trip to OT" is a fool just asking to be seperated from his money. For me even before I started or even heard of Scio I knew that any betterment could only come from personal application and hard work. You only get from Scio what you put into it - NOT the money, but the focus and intention and application of personal good sense.

I attempted personal application and in this was aided by some very good lower level staff members. However, the focus of mid and upper level managment was always to prevent me from progressing smoothly and effectively towards more competence through personal application and hard work, with one exception, Irene Derman (Howey). She was the only upper level exec who ever assisted me and I was transfered out of her jurisdiction after only one month.

Organisationally Scio told a lot of lies. I knew that then - we discussed it among ourselves after course on many occasions - and very few of us ever went the effect of them. When I saw the game changing in the early '80s I knew it was now time to get out, and so I did. With no regrets. I have continued my personal studies of the subject ever since and have audited thousands of hours since then too.

I did not realize organizational policy included the telling of a lot of lies. I got my first inklings of this on the Apollo. In my time, no one would dare criticize Church management and discuss it amongst ourselves. We knew that we would be KRed (Knowledge Reported) and be brought into Ethics for such.

When people whom I meet say to me that they got nothing worthwhile out of Scientology my first question is always what auditor training did they do? The answer has ALWAYS been none or minimally little. Always. And yet how ofetn were you urged to "Get Trained"? Times beyond counting.

I agree with your paragraphs #1 and #2 above and your closing paragraph about people who claim they got nothing out of Scn, not doing any serious training. However, I have found here on ESMB people who claim to have done a lot of training and still assert the subject had no worthwhile aspects .BTW, there is a companion trait common in those who claim the subject is complete bunk and that is that they did not do many of the fundamental steps on the "Bridge". For example they attested to "Naturl Clear" or "past life Clear", they never did a "Life Repair", they never did "ARC Straight Wire", never did Power or Power Plus and of course never did the Clearing Course or the "old" OT Levels, pre NOTs. I believe people such as you and me who feel they did get something significant out of Scn are in the minority here on ESMB. It takes courage to write a post such as yours, which I quote above, so I decided that since I have views similar to yours, the right thing to do is to give you some back up.

In reading "Mate's" various posts, which for some reason had never caught my eye until this thread was inadvertently called to my attension by "Carmelo Orchards". I have formulated an idea that what was missed by Hubbard, probably intentionally, is a written overview of Scientology, in particular, what training was for, what processing was for, what were the attributes we were shootimg for by engaging in these activities. How would these attributes be put to use, etc.

I believe non Scientology businesses are now using the term "Mission Statement" or "Business Plan" when teaching how to set up and run a business activity in Grad School. This is a very fundamental concept and yet Hubbard failed to clearly and specifically delineate anything like this to us. Instead, we were enticed to get processing to achieve super human states, which intrigued most people and got them to sign up. After some processing and hopefully receiving wins from it, we were encouraged to train by telling us we could double our personal gains through training plus we could help others and even earn added income by becoming an auditor. Once we began our training and were reasonably well processed then, gears were shifted and we were told it was unethical and out exchange to not join staff. When we would join staff, only then were we told that only the 3rd and 4th dynamics really mattered and that the other dynamics needed to be let go of. We were sucked in on a gradient and were never given anyr Mission Statement in advance. This huge ommision led to our entrapment within the organization and our efforts to break free and bring down the organization which entrapped us.

That Organization lacked the required Integrity and Honesty to state its well formulated plans for us in advance and give us an accurate road map of where we were headed if we joined up.
Lakey

 

[Hatshepsut]

Lakey
That Organization lacked the required Integrity and Honest to state its well formulated plans for us in advance and give us an accurate road map of where we were headed if we joined up.
Lakey

There is a demand for 'transparency' in big business for this new decade. Think the C of S can handle it it. Not.

 

[Leon]

Lakey,

I was on the Apollo from Feb through to July of 1971. I did time in the Data bureu - not as a posted staff member but just as an FEBC completion expediting there - towards the end of this period, probably June and part of July. Hat- write-up? No such thing existed.

My time in the Org was during the 1970's to about early 1983. We had no big brother looking over our shoulders to any particular extent. The outer outer Orgs were still mostly self-managed with FOLO's idiot orders beng largely disregarded.

Also we had no effective HCO for prob the last 5 or more years of this period. Even when we did have one before that they were relatively sane. Cape Town only had one period of insane ethics and that was about 1968/9 before I was involved.

 

[Leon]

Main thing is that the whole out-point data eval system of LRH's is inherently flawed. It is based on the idea that the out-points given in policy somehow cover all bases, that aberrated people while unknowingly always dramatise these outpoints, that the ones whose outpoints get reported up to data bureau are the most aberrated on staff, and the the one with the most is the worst offender and is the WHY of any lack of progress in the Org.

Each of these points is a fallacy.

Also, it completely exonerates and precludes any possibility that idiot upper management could be a factor in why orgs fail. Hows that for an outpoint?

 

[Student of Trinity]

[T]here is a companion trait common in those who claim the subject is complete bunk and that is that they did not do many of the fundamental steps on the "Bridge". For example they attested to "Natural Clear" or "past life Clear", they never did a "Life Repair", they never did "ARC Straight Wire", never did Power or Power Plus and of course never did the Clearing Course or the "old" OT Levels, pre NOTs.

I'm interested in this. As I said when I introduced myself, I tend to assume that at least some things in Scientology probably do work as far as they go. It would be interesting if we could actually pin down which these are, if there are any. Are these courses possibly 'the ones that work'? Just what do they deliver?

Of course the alternative hypothesis is simply that people who get into Scientology young naturally happen to go through the big maturing stages of the early twenties while they're doing Scientology. They attribute these steps of personal growth to Scientology, when in fact they would have happened in college, or the Marine Corps, or the first job, or the first relationship, or whatever.

 

[Mystic]

Any so-called "I tried it and it worked for me", yeah, it worked! Successful implant and now you're hooked. Isolating the "cognition phenomena" was a piece of genius on Hubbard's part, eh? Yeah, sure...and now you're hooked.

Go ahead, have thousands of "cogs". I've walked around for 3 months with a "floating TA". Yeah, sure, so what? That and $2 will buy a cup of coffee.

All illusion, baby, all illusion.