Scientology is all bad

[Lermanet_com]

Hypnosis is noted for appearing most effective in the beginning of its use... the more it is used the less effective it becomes...and the more often it must be used to reenforce the suggestions...

 

[Infinite]

Your faith in the Anderson Report is, to me, kind of odd for such a dox/plox dude.

I wonder what you'd discover if you actually looked and devoted the same effort to investigating the actual methods and actions that led to the conclusions of the Anderson "Board" Of Inquiry as you do to "investigating" things scientological.

"They" is a bit of a misnomer when speaking of the Board, isn't it?

Why not ask Roger B here on ESMB? Unlike "the Board", he was actually there and paying attention at the time, IIRC.

Let it go, Panda. The Report was 1965. It found, inter alia, Scientology=Hynotism. The evidence was overwhelming. Quibbling over procedural errors does not open the door to a relitigation of that conclusion.

 

[Jquepublic]

The Anderson Report cannot be dismissed as "out of date" and nor can its findings be done away with by DAing its participants. There are exactly zero leaps of logic in the Report, other than those introduced by L Ron Hubbard in his repeated attempts to obfuscate. The bits and pieces of "tech" which made up the data considered is irrelevant to the fact that, at its core, Scientology "processing" consists, mainly, of hypotism. That was true in 1950 and its true, still, in 2012. Its a constant.

I'd love to see your reading list. I've done a bit myself. What's the most recent article you've seen on the subject of covert authoritative hypnosis?

Bullshit. The Anderson Report IS out of date and anyone who was involved with the subject of Scientology since the 80s can read those processes and see it for themselves. Don't go accusing me of DAing anyone, that's a load of crap and I'll spoon feed it right back to you. Making that sort of statement is effectively DAing ME and my opinions, presumably because you don't like them. Too bad. They're true and factual statements and a succinct summation of my own opinion which like it or not, I happen to qualify as having due to personal and involved experiences in the subject and another decade of unraveling the truth of said experiences.

In short, I am trying to have an honest and open discussion with you on this subject, so please refrain from cheap shots and rest assured I will do the same. I happen to like you and see value in your opinions, but I won't listen to a single thing you have to say if you go intentionally pissing me off. If I seem to be over-reacting, it boils down to a simple fact: Nothing sets my head on fire like someone accusing me of applying Scientology.

I'm reading on the subject of hypnosis in general as I don't see that you've proven your theory that authoritative hypnosis is a factor in Scn. That video certainly didn't prove it. My reading list is Hypnosis: The Cognitive-Behavioral Perspective by Spanos, Hypnosis and Hypnotherapy Basic to Advanced Techniques for the Professional by Banyon, Cognitive Psychology by Sternberg, Hypnosis and Conscious States: The Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective by Jamieson and a handful of papers I can access through my university account.

 

[Claire Swazey]

And Roger and Panda are here now. Just because a report says something doesn't make it true.

Other people have opinions and experience.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

To believe there is a "State of Clear", one must believe there is a thing called "The Reactive Mind". Not only has that not been proven, there isn't any evidence for it. No one can "get rid of their Reactive Mind" because nobody has one.

Independent Scientologists get around that by pretending that the definition of "Clear" is something else. No, the precise Hubbard definition of "Clear" is "a being who doesn't have a Reactive Mind". It isn't "a person who feels really good" or "a person who had a very nice 'cognition'." There is no "Clear". Period.

I agree with you. If Scientology has any value at all, that value ends somewhere in the lower grades.

Bill

OH THANK GOD!!!

Ah, GOD BLESS YOU Bill, you're restoring my faith in humanity, or at least in the potential for return to sanity and full recovery for Ex Scientologists! This is truth, this is reality (all you tech loyalists, your views OBVIOUSLY may vary... )

In a nutshell, this is my and every other right thinking person's overall objection to Scientology "auditing" or "processing" as counseling, from Book One auditing all the way on up to endless yet to be released levels of Space Opera... no matter what the drills, what the levels, when it was done, by whom, who invented or squirreled what, etc.

It's all based on a fallacy, a FALSE IDEA that was MADE UP by Ron to sell books and his lectures. In other words, to make money off of other people's problems and search for relief of same, or their search for a meaningful life, and/or enlightenment regarding the way their and other minds worked.

God love ya, Bill, if you were here I would smother you in kisses!

At last, a rational viewpoint on this!

Some of you are not quite so far outside of the Scientology bubble as you think you are. Do more research, and question everything, all the assumptions or agreements upon which your understanding of how Scientology works!

One might do well in starting by googling "Operant Conditioning"

 

[Lone Star]

OH THANK GOD!!!

Ah, GOD BLESS YOU Bill, you're restoring my faith in humanity, or at least in the potential for return to sanity and full recovery for Ex Scientologists! This is truth, this is reality (all you tech loyalists, your views OBVIOUSLY may vary... )

In a nutshell, this is my and every other right thinking person's overall objection to Scientology "auditing" or "processing" as counseling, from Book One auditing all the way on up to endless yet to be released levels of Space Opera... no matter what the drills, what the levels, when it was done, by whom, who invented or squirreled what, etc.

It's all based on a fallacy, a FALSE IDEA that was MADE UP by Ron to sell books and his lectures. In other words, to make money off of other people's problems and search for relief of same, or their search for a meaningful life, and/or enlightenment regarding the way their and other minds worked.

God love ya, Bill, if you were here I would smother you in kisses!

At last, a rational viewpoint on this!

Some of you are not quite so far outside of the Scientology bubble as you think you are. Do more research, and question everything!

Well I do declare (you) that this is probably the most suppressive post I've ever read.

I'm afraid that I'll have to forward this uplines.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

LOL!!!

Go right ahead, feel free...who knows, it just might do some of those poor people some good "up" there.

 

[Lone Star]

LOL!!!

Go right ahead, feel free...who knows, it just might do some of those poor people some good "up" there.

It might make them piss on LRH's bust.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Ha! OK, since you asked...

You have not fully grasped what is being done on OT II and III. ...

Actually, he hasn't fully grasped anything about scientology auditing tech.

Infinite has no actual experience with any of it having only read about it on the web. He has no direct knowledge of that which he speaks. He has been corrected concerning his displays of ignorance of the subject of scientology on several prior occasions, even on one notable occasion causing Emma to call him out for his ridiculous assertions.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

Actually, he hasn't fully grasped anything about scientology auditing tech.

Infinite has no actual experience with any of it having only read about it on the web. He has no direct knowledge of that which he speaks. He has been corrected concerning his displays of ignorance of the subject of scientology on several prior occasions, even on one notable occasion causing Emma to call him out for his ridiculous assertions.


Mark A. Baker

Are you Clear?

 

[Smilla]

Scientology falsehood #3602:

"Only Scientologists can understand Scientology."

[Originally stated by another poster, worthy of restatement.)

 

[Jquepublic]

"FIVE...FOUR...THREE...TWO...ONE..."

*(loud sharp noise~ Finger Snap) SNAP!

"Come up to present time...."

"END SESSION"

"The session is ended, thank you."

How many of you have experienced that in a session with an Auditor, or in co-auditing, or in self-auditing? Witnessed someone else do it? Or heard another old-timer Scientologist say and do such a thing to themselves?

I have witnessed someone looking into a mirror and "auditing themself" regarding some minor anxiety over a personal matter, to "reduce charge". That, verbatim, was the ending of the auditing session...I also heard that same reverse countdown and finger snap from another Scientologist over the phone, when he wasn't aware the connection had gone through to me yet, and also saw it done in a live "demonstration" of co-auditing years ago (done in an Org to convince "raw meat" that auditing was safe and beneficial and that they should "try" it...)

That, my friends, no matter how much you may be in denial about it, is part of hypnotic processing. The reverse count-down, the loud, sharp finger snap noise (done in front of the PC's face) ESPECIALLY the "come up to present time" command...and end of session demarcation is classic hypnosis technique to bring the subject back up in consciousness and out of a state of reverie, following a session.

Nothing in Scientology "processing" would work without the application of self-hypnosis. Many people just do not see it for what it is.

There is no regression in Scientology processing, only in Dianetics. Scientology processes are run in present time with the preclear recalling incidents to answer the question. There is no counting and snapping outside Book 1.

 

[Jquepublic]

Actually, he hasn't fully grasped anything about scientology auditing tech.

Infinite has no actual experience with any of it having only read about it on the web. He has no direct knowledge of that which he speaks. He has been corrected concerning his displays of ignorance of the subject of scientology on several prior occasions, even on one notable occasion causing Emma to call him out for his ridiculous assertions.


Mark A. Baker

Not having personal experience in the subject doesn't render him incapable of understanding it through gathering information, though. I think that's true of cults in general - that in order to truly understand the cult experience you have to have lived it in some way - but not on the subject of auditing in specific. There's more than enough info on the web explaining what it is for someone to come to at least a basic understanding.

 

[Smilla]

Not having personal experience in the subject doesn't render him incapable of understanding it through gathering information, though. I think that's true of cults in general - that in order to truly understand the cult experience you have to have lived it in some way - but not on the subject of auditing in specific. There's more than enough info on the web explaining what it is for someone to come to at least a basic understanding.

Mark has taken the time to learn about topics that he has not had direct experience of, and makes well-informed comments on those topics.

If we dismiss Infinite's comments because he has not had direct experience of some of the topics discussed, we'd have to dismiss a lot of Mark's comments too.

Seems unnecessary to me.

 

[Lone Star]

Mark has taken the time to learn about topics that he has not had direct experience of, and makes well-informed comments on those topics.

If we dismiss Infinite's comments because he has not had direct experience of some of the topics discussed, we'd have to dismiss a lot of Mark's comments too.

Seems unnecessary to me.

 

[Veda]

It was during the "Dianetic Clear frenzy" of '79, that I first noticed the "hypnotic" power that Hubbard's pronouncements could have over Scientologists. That "hypnotic" power existed earlier, but somehow I had managed to avoid noticing it in a direct and undeniable fashion.

IMO, "Clear" will always have a strong "hypnotic" over-lay. Scientologists are the effect of Hubbard and Scientology when they decide they are Clear, and there's no escaping that, except by being happily unaware if it, as are the Freezone Scientologists and Independent Scientologists and, for that matter, CofS Scientologists.


From Hubbard's 'Affirmations' of 1946:

"Your writing has a deep hypnotic effect on people and they are always pleased with what you write...

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."


Just for fun, a small potpourri sampling of OT 2 Hubbardian oobleck:

"Never proceed past a non-reading item. To do so can be very deadly..."

....

"Many persons experience unreality at the start of [implant] GPM running; this leaves when you see the meter reads."

....

"They are implant incidents...

"Trillion, 20,095.

"Hot Cold.

"This is a pole with a split in it. The back split is hot, the front is cold. Two temperatures. Duration is 1 [and] 1/8th seconds...

"Dance Mob.

"Trillions, 18,992.

"This duration is 7/8 of a second. There is a pole that pulls one in. One is caught in the pole."

And a little more:

"230 trillions.

"This seeks to install...

"Implanter X... Target X," etc. [Shows diagram of implant], etc.


The above said, that doesn't necessarily mean that every action called "auditing" - which includes some pretty innocuous things - must, in and of itself, be bad.

 

[shadow]

Actually, he hasn't fully grasped anything about scientology auditing tech.

Infinite has no actual experience with any of it having only read about it on the web. He has no direct knowledge of that which he speaks. He has been corrected concerning his displays of ignorance of the subject of scientology on several prior occasions, even on one notable occasion causing Emma to call him out for his ridiculous assertions.


Mark A. Baker

Direct knowledge and personal experience are not required for evaluation and study of most things in life.

Some examples:
Are people who have had heart attacks the only people who could understand, study or evaluate the effects or develop treatments for heart attacks?

Are people who have had fatal drug overdoses the only people who could understand, study or evaluate the effects or develop treatments to prevent fatal overdoses?

Also, because our personal experiences can be hard to evaluate objectively, a series of anecdotes is not strong evidence to support a claim. Even when many anecdotes are collected to prove a point, as Roger Brinner said "The plural of anecdote is not data."

I am not using this comment as evidence for, or against, the issue being discussed. This is to just point out a logical fallacy, which are combined with attacking the person not the argument, and appealing to authority, do not address the issue under discussion.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Scientology falsehood #3602:

"Only Scientologists can understand Scientology."

[Originally stated by another poster, worthy of restatement.)

In support of what you're saying, one of my closest friends has never been in Scn but is a critic. This guy understands stuff Hubbard says in tapes and other places far better than people I knew who were totally into it.

However, that being said, I think sometimes some people may have a bit of a frame of reference from having been involved in it. But if they're into it now, they can be biased in Scn's favor. We've all seen that.

 

[Veda]

Stand tall Scientologists. Be proud.

An ordinary Scientologist towers above the great sages and prophets of the past.​

 

[Claire Swazey]

V,

That looks like it's from one of the old Advance Mag articles. Is it?