Scientology is all bad

[HelluvaHoax!]

No arguments there.

I mentioned "subjective opinions" because that seems to be the main bone of contention about whether or not any apparent gains from the activity are actual.

Here's the problem with that.

Any relatively curious or upbeat person can have "wins" on virtually anything.

Getting "wins" is an intrinsic thread that runs through all of life. I can have "wins" on a vast number of projects, ventures and adventures and even on extraordinarily simple & fleeting moments. None of those involve "tech" or "Scientology".

I've had innumerable "wins" on posting dreadful things about Scientology here on ESMB how the tech doesn't do what it warrants and guarantees. What does any of this have to do with Scientology? So in other words, people can apparently have "wins" on the opposite of Scientology. LOL. But it's true.

A person is programmed to have "wins" in their life and they spend virtually every waking moment attempting to get "wins" in one manner or another. So when a person spends years doing anything, they are bound to get wins if they are half-way competent at living.

Scientology puts a color transparency over a person's life and labels every win a technical victory. If the tech actually produced predictable and produceable "wins" people would stay in Scientology. They don't usually. That can only mean that they are getting more losses than wins. Right?

I don't contend that people don't get wins while they are in Scientology. Why shouldn't they? They are alive and they are trying to accomplish thousands of things in their lives and some of them succeed, so they are SUPPOSED to be having wins.

Look, if the WINS:LOSS ratio in anyone's life inverts, they commit suicide. Very few people, by percentage, kill themselves, so we can conclude that almost everyone on the Earth is having "wins" that outweigh the losses.

There is no "tech" involved with the 7 billion people living their lives around the world. Scientology is simply taking credit for the wins a person produces as part of the job of being alive.

I don't have any hard statistics on how many people continue Scientology after they begin it, but I did have decades of just about any kind of Scientology activity you can imagine, so I'll make an educated guess. Maybe 1-2 percent of people who reach for Scientology (book, course, auditing...) walk away from it later. What does that say about the "tech" that produces "wins"?

The re-sign success rates are probably substantially higher for people who join a local bowling league than Scientology with all its advanced OT technology. Maybe people would be having far MORE wins had they not joined.

If someone wants to call the "wins" they have in the course of living "Tech Wins" they can do that. But then they are only talking about "feel good" moments not measurable events or improved abilities.

There is an awful confusion and the blurriest line imaginable when it comes to people shuffling the rhetorical deck and confusing the ideas of "WINS" with "GRADE CHART ABILITIES ATTAINED.

So, if someone says they have wins, so what? Let 'em!

I am talking about whether the tech actually works, that is to say DOES WHAT IS SAYS IT DOES.

No argument there.

If people get wins from being on an e-meter and talking to someone else, good for them. That doesn't happen to be what Scientology says it is.

I joined Scientology to get certain results that were promised.

I discovered later that it was a fraud. A hoax.

I get far more wins being away from it and, from all appearances, so do you. Otherwise you'd be continuing your "Bridge".

I had recent meeting with some corporate big shots who wanted to hand out in their exclusive cigar club. They have "wins" from smoking cigars. There was no tech anywhere. They just enjoyed it.

I took someone out for dinner tonight and they had "wins" on the great food and Italian restaurant. No tech. Just normal life going on.

I am not having any "wins" any more on this post so I will end off. I am going to get some water (seriously) and I have no doubt I will have a "win". (Thanks Ron)

End of Friendly Rant.

 

[Panda Termint]

Are you sure that this is the reactive mind? Dilpicle defines it differently, if I understood him correctly, GE is a positive thing.
The problem with Hubbard definitions is that he contradicted himself on so many occassions that none of his theoretical crap should be taken seriously.

If you'd listened closely enough to enough Hubbard Lectures you would have heard Hubbard say it himself. I don't recall the name/date of the particular Lecture.

I know what I think he meant by that statement and have an understanding of this stuff that serves me well enough but I gave up teaching scientology some time back.

I don't think of the GE as a negative thing.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

No, everyone did not use to call it OT Org.



TG1

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

This is a really bad impersonation of a Scientologist.

I can see his mouth moving when the little dummy speaks.

 

[Veda]

If you really haven't understood the concept of the GE (Genetic Entity) then a lot of the Hubbardian paradigm will be hard to follow.

I could tell you but then I'd have to [strike]kill[/strike]bill you.

Oh, OK. Try thinking of the GE as the Body's "Reactive Mind" as opposed to the Thetan's "Reactive Mind". It probably won't help but what the heck!

Why don't you have him read Hubbard's 'History of Man?':

"You can, at you own choice, go on living with and processing this composite known as homo sapiens and create homo novis. But be advised that... you are condemning a preclear to the dwindling spiral - for the theta being as part of the composite decays fast and soon dies forever in the rigid apathy of MEST."

Well, not actually dies, Hubbard's "paradigm" doesn't allow for dying, since it posits INFINITE PLEASURE if one cooperates with the BIG PUSH TO FREEDOM and INFINITE PAIN if one does not:

"...it's a sad thing. It is what really happens to the thetan who is not salvaged or processed and goes on down the chute. Man, when I saw that, I actually felt sorry for these guys who try to hit at us. Poor devils. Some religions talk about hell. It's understatement of what really happens."

Ron's Journal 30'

 

[Panda Termint]

Helluva, I'm not talking about "wins". Subjective opinions are hard to measure. The guy thinking he's better isn't the same as the guy actually being better, except when it is.

I think the only acceptable criteria would be physiological or mental changes that were measurable by actual test. I think I understand which requirements would satisfy those who chose to investigate such practices.

I wonder how often such tests are applied in related fields? We've seen many accepted therapies later discredited and I think, maybe, one or two which were originally rejected but later shown to be more workable than at first thought.

I'm not arguing for Dianetics or scientology here but I have seen some interesting changes wrought by these procedures. I am very curious as to what a proper Clinical Trial/scientific test of Dianetics and scientology might show. I don't assume that they would show nothing of interest.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Why don't you have him read Hubbard's 'History of Man?':

"You can, at you own choice, go on living with and processing this composite known as homo sapiens and create homo novis. But be advised that... you are condemning a preclear to the dwindling spiral - for the theta being as part of the composite decays fast and soon dies forever in the rigid apathy of MEST."

Well, not actually dies, Hubbard's "paradigm" doesn't allow for dying, since it posits INFINITE PLEASURE if one cooperates with the BIG PUSH TO FREEDOM and INFINITE PAIN if one does not:

"...it's a sad thing. It is what really happens to the thetan who is not salvaged or processed and goes on down the chute. Man, when I saw that, I actually felt sorry for these guys who try to hit at us. Poor devils. Some religions talk about hell. It's understatement of what really happens."

Ron's Journal 30'

You are totally wrecking it.

Why can't people have a perfectly rational discussion about wacky stuff that Ron made up? LOL.

It's like you are interrupting someones word clearing session just when they are soooooo close to getting the proper balance of mass and significance that allows them to think that Ron was sane.

Anyways, for my money, this thread is being heavily trolled. Seems to be a new pilot being run. The "curious about Scientology" poster who earnestly is trying to sort it all out. LOL.

Actually it is a little closer to what WOULD actually be a good Troll Tech, but I have never posted what that is, even though I am pretty damn sure that I would know how to Troll. They almost got it right on some other threads but they didn't actually understand it exactly. I am purposely NOT posting how it could be done and never will.

They are still looking for something that can derail threads. There's just gotta tech that works! Good luck guys!

 

[Panda Termint]

Why don't you have him read Hubbard's 'History of Man?':

<snip...>

Why don't you?

Oh, wait... you just did... sorta.

 

[Panda Termint]

You are totally wrecking it.

Why can't people have a perfectly rational discussion about wacky stuff that Ron made up? LOL.

<snip...>

He's a spoilsport, next thing you know he'll take away all our chew-toys!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Helluva, I'm not talking about "wins". Subjective opinions are hard to measure. The guy thinking he's better isn't the same as the guy actually being better, except when it is.

I think the only acceptable criteria would be physiological or mental changes that were measurable by actual test. I think I understand which requirements would satisfy those who chose to investigate such practices.

I wonder how often such tests are applied in related fields? We've seen many accepted therapies later discredited and I think, maybe, one or two which were originally rejected but later shown to be more workable than at first thought.

I'm not arguing for Dianetics or scientology here but I have seen some interesting changes wrought by these procedures. I am very curious as to what a proper Clinical Trial/scientific test of Dianetics and scientology might show. I don't assume that they would show nothing of interest.

If Scientology admitted that it is mental therapy and subjugated itself to the regulatory protocols that govern professional therapists, then they would be "getting it honest and straight" as Hubbard cynically admonished all Scientologists to do on their Danger conditions. That would be a step in the right direction.

Next they would be incorporated as a BUSINESS which is actually what 98% of Scientology is. They would pay taxes. They would have the same consumer protection regulations as other businesses so they would have to immediately stop making outlandish claims that are quackery. Ever see a professional therapist claim that they could give you perfect memory and no psychosomatic illness?

The religion of Scientology (if anyone was actually still interested) could also continue to exist as a church, but they would no longer have a PRICE LIST and CASH REGISTER. People could "worship" and go to Sunday services to listen to the weekly sermon by a "minister" if they chose. Who cares?

The newly formed therapy clinic would have to pay its people minimum wage and employees would be entitled to a vast list of protections against abuse.

If they didn't follow regulations and laws, they'd be shut down.

If they screwed someone over they could be sued in civil court.

If they abused people they could be prosecuted criminally.

If they didn't pay their taxes (real estate, income, employee, etc) they could go to jail for tax evasion.

That would be the starting point for an honest version of Scientology.

Then they would offer therapy and claims could/would be made.

Clients would be entitled to post their "reviews" on the internet about the service they received, good or bad. Anyone could look it up, just like eBAY.

Now at that point Scientology could begin doing some legitimate testing.

Most of Scientology would be found to work sporadically or not at all.

If the client expectations was not filled with delusional indoctrination (Clear, OT, etc.) it is highly doubtful that most would have the results that they now claim to have. It is highly doubtful (if not impossible) that if the pc didn't know what they were supposed to do (get VGIS and FN and COG) that it would happen very often. Not more than normal therapy.

If the pc didn't know the Eps of the levels (because they could not publish that claim) how many PCs would attain those EPs? Probably few or none.

And then, if Scientology wanted to become a legitimate mainstream therapy (e.g. high volume sales) they could subject their techniques to scientific review and see what they've really got. Double Blind studies would probably kick the Placebo effect right out the door.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to audit someone on the grade chart without telling them what is supposed to happen? LOL

 

[Div6]

You are totally wrecking it.

Why can't people have a perfectly rational discussion about wacky stuff that Ron made up? LOL.


<snippage>

Assumes facts not in evidence, to wit: that the people involved are rational or capable of rationality.

Good luck with that.

 

[Dilpickle]

I have to rely on my memory now, so I cannot give you a direct reference. Hubbard wrote somewhere that a GE is a former thetan who degraded beyond repair, he even wrote that he tried to audit a GE once, but the poor thing was not responding. Then he wrote something about the theta line and evolutionary line that produced GE.
To me the evolutionary line and the theta line were indistinguishable from each other, even the word-clearing did not help to make a distinction.

The idea that everything has a consciousness is one of Hubbard ideas that he borrowed from sci-fi novels. I run into this idea in several sci-fi stories. I liked the stories, but I never took them seriously. The way I see it, there is no empirical data that would confirm this assertion.

Hmm.. I like My Definition of a GE better.. and I didn't get that idea of everything having consciousness from Ron.. maybe he said it, but I never read it. I just intuit it by putting my attention on various creatures/plants/things and feeling like "someone" is there

 

[Smilla]

Dianetics and Scientology as therapies? Lol.

Comparative studies? Lol.

Here's the nub - why it can't be studied for efficacy alongside legitimate therapies:

Scientology brainwashes people before they get the therapy!

They get brainwashed into accepting and using a new language.
They get brainwashed into accepting somebody else's explanation of what is wrong with them.
They get brainwashed into accepting somebody else's definition of what they are.
They get brainwashed into accepting somebody else's idea of what progress is.
They get brainwashed into believing that a funny little lie-detector has amazing power.
They get brainwashed into believing in supernatural states they should try to achieve.
I could go on all day, but I won't!

With legitimate therapies it's more like: "Lets try it and see if it helps."

Doctors don't brainwash their clients before treating them. Neither do psychanalysts, counsellors, art therapists, music therapists, shiatsu practitioners, psychologists, or reflexologists, or dentists, or Reiki practitioners, or shoe-menders, or electricians.

That is why Scientology can't come out into the light, and be comparatively evaluated.

Auditor: "Is that an ARCX?"

Client: "WTF is one of them?"

Auditor: "Is there a PTP?"

Client: "WTF is one of them?"

Client: "Why are you looking at me in that weird way?" "Why do you want me to hold these empty soup cans?" "Why are you fiddling with that little box, and writing stuff down?"

Auditor: "Your needle is floating."

Client: "WTF?"

Get the idea?

Maybe you can run a bit of un-metered Diagarbage without brainwashing your client first, but that's about it.

No brainwashing, no Dianetics, and no Scientology.

 

[Panda Termint]

If Scientology admitted that it is mental therapy and subjugated itself to the regulatory protocols that govern professional therapists, then they would be "getting it honest and straight" as Hubbard cynically admonished all Scientologists to do on their Danger conditions. That would be a step in the right direction.

<snip for brevity>

Excellent! Of course, you've probably just presented some of the most compelling reasons why we'll never see the CofS engage in such testing.

Maybe some brave FZers or Indies will take up the gauntlet.

 

[Panda Termint]

...
Scientology brainwashes people before they get the therapy!
<....snip>
With legitimate therapies it's more like: "Lets try it and see if it helps."
<snip...>

Just as a comment on this;

There is/was a rather interesting exception to this concept.

There used to be a Course requirement (on the NED Crs or maybe Grad V Crs, I think) where you had to get a completely "raw", never a scientologist, never indoc'd PC, and deliver a Dianetic Assist or some such to full EP without engaging in any unnecessary indoctrination of the PC as to what was expected etc. You just cleared the words of the commands being used.

It's been a while and I don't know if I remember the exact procedure correctly but I have done the action on several "never-brainwashed" PCs to quite interesting results.

One guy had a very serious physical condition "turn off". I don't know if it turned off as a direct result of the session, it may have been some other factor, but it definitely occurred and he was completely amazed to have it occur. He had no expectations regarding the condition, as far as I know.

Go figure. :confused2:

In relation to your rudiments scenario, most people will know what you mean and will respond accordingly to "Upset" for ARCX, "A problem right here and now" for PTP and "Something you're not saying/don't want to talk about" for WH. It's not rocket surgery.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Excellent! Of course, you've probably just presented some of the most compelling reasons why we'll never see the CofS engage in such testing.

Maybe some brave FZers or Indies will take up the gauntlet.

Yes, and after an exhaustive 3-5 year study that was not yielding the results they had hoped for they would end off because in the debug session, it would read on "OVERRUN".

Then they'd get it rehabbed to a FN and cognite that "there was nothing wrong in the first place."

They would write a Success Story and a everyone would be 8C'ed into mandatory event where they would get a confidential briefing that the clinical testing was off policy and the people who started it have been declared.

And all of the PCs who took part in the clinical trial would be ordered to buy a special Rundown to correct the out tech of not being given a CS-1 before getting auditing and other psych sabotage.

Then they'd play a grainy black and white film from 1959 where Ron talks about "The best way to know is to pervade" and tells some scientific stories about "those boys down at the nuclear research lab trying to think their way upscale" and everyone would laugh at the wogs folly.

Later that evening there would be free refreshments and free consulting by spiritual guides called Registrars.

Scientologists would sleep well that night knowing that their problems are over.

 

[Smilla]

Excellent! Of course, you've probably just presented some of the most compelling reasons why we'll never see the CofS engage in such testing.

Maybe some brave FZers or Indies will take up the gauntlet.

Maybe they would, but how could they prevent interference from Xenu and his implanter org? That might mess up results...

 

[Panda Termint]

Thanks so much for playing. For some reason I'm really enjoying this thread now.

 

[Winston Smith]

Hmm, therapy. Being a person in quite ill health and lost my mojo (gawd I miss Mike Myers and his oh so funny movies...) about the only therapy I need these days is the free kind. As in going outside and beholding the beauty of central Virginia. (Thomas Jefferson once said central VA is "Eden in America.") I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that Scn is all bad, even if ppl can find good in it.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I sometimes found auditing rather therapeutic. There were times when it seemed to help. I'm not saying there's nothing else. I'm just saying that this is what I was doing at the time and I did derive some comfort, assistance and some insights.

 

[Infinite]

I sometimes found auditing rather therapeutic. There were times when it seemed to help. I'm not saying there's nothing else. I'm just saying that this is what I was doing at the time and I did derive some comfort, assistance and some insights.

Auditing seems such a hassle. Having to learn all those new words and what they mean and how the floating tone scale needle arm thing measures thoughts . . . sounds sorta crazy. We wogs find its much simpler to receive comfort, assistance, and insights when just chatting to friends. Especially if none of the friends makes us hook up to a lie detector and then writes down everything important we say. That's kinda a buzzkill.