Scientology is all bad

[Jquepublic]

Emphasis mine ...




Yes, that makes more sense.

When you lose people that you love to the cofs, and you do lose them at the very moment they become a scientologist, it's hard to move on because you are leaving something precious behind, it feels as if you are abandoning them, even if they've disconnected from you (probably more so) and especially if you failed to protect them from scientology in the first place.

Knowing that your loved ones are being manipulated and betrayed makes it difficult to let go and move on even if you would like to.

I don't know a single ex who didn't lose a loved one. I know that I can make a list:

Edward DiMartino
Aaron Smith-Levin
Ali Pearson
Collin Smith-Levin
Crystal Halonen
Barbara Friedman
Andreas Rodriguez
Jim Lee
Bonnie DiMartino
Amilio DiMartino
Carole Orbach
Tim Lomas
Gayle Smith
Shane Brochdorff
Anthony Kovasevick
Paul Schobel
Bernadette Nunn
Sera Barton
Sherie Androschuck


I could go on but I think I'd be here all night. But not a day goes by that I don't think about the people on this list. I wonder where they are, how they are, if they're still alive. Some aren't. They're the reason I'm not Anonymous. I want them to be able to find me if they ever want to reconnect.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

This is an interesting conversation among OT's:

http://youtu.be/3C5j63DsmnQ

 

[phenomanon]

Thanks for clarifying Jay Que, I understand your perspective on this better.

About "imaginary incidents", the Auditor was instructed by LRH to encourage the PC to run imaginary incidents because in doing so the PC would ultimately feel "safe" to run "real ones".

phenomanon

 

[Demented LRH]

About "imaginary incidents", the Auditor was instructed by LRH to encourage the PC to run imaginary incidents because in doing so the PC would ultimately feel "safe" to run "real ones".

phenomanon

Hubbard blurred the line beween reality and hallucination (or imagination) by saying, "reality is a group agreement".

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Hubbard blurred the line beween reality and hallucination (or imagination) by saying, "reality is a group agreement".

It is often the only reality that actually matters. Case in point the rush to wage war in iraq. What humans believe determines what they perceive and how they act. It's not a question of reason as few people actually base their behavior on rational thought. In dealing with groups understanding the role of group agreement is a necessity.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Demented LRH]

It is often the only reality that actually matters. Case in point the rush to wage war in iraq. What humans believe determines what they perceive and how they act. It's not a question of reason as few people actually base their behavior on rational thought. In dealing with groups understanding the role of group agreement is a necessity.


Mark A. Baker

You refer to reality as it is defined in social sciences. Your remark is correct, but it has no relation to Scientology.

Hubbard's definition of reality is different. He wrote something like this (I am paraphrasing him), "Suppose, 9 men say, "There is no cat on the stage", but 1 man says, "There is a cat on the stage". Then he is right because in his reality there is a cat on the stage".
To me it looks like this man is hallucinating, but Hubbard says that his hallucination is his reality.

 

[Claire Swazey]

About "imaginary incidents", the Auditor was instructed by LRH to encourage the PC to run imaginary incidents because in doing so the PC would ultimately feel "safe" to run "real ones".

phenomanon

Isn't that similar to psychologists playing along with a patient's fantasy about being this or that person or something of the sort?

 

[Bill]

You refer to reality as it is defined in social sciences. Your remark is correct, but it has no relation to Scientology.

Hubbard's definition of reality is different. He wrote something like this (I am paraphrasing him), "Suppose, 9 men say, "There is no cat on the stage", but 1 man says, "There is a cat on the stage". Then he is right because in his reality there is a cat on the stage".
To me it looks like this man is hallucinating, but Hubbard says that his hallucination is his reality.

Exactly right. Hubbard was all for "disagreeing with 'reality'".

Bill

 

[Infinite]

Isn't that similar to psychologists playing along with a patient's fantasy about being this or that person or something of the sort?

Nope, quite different. The psychologist doesn't encourage the creation of fantasy and, obviously, doesn't have a view as to what the fantasy might be.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... To me it looks like this man is hallucinating, but Hubbard says that his hallucination is his reality.

If the man is hallucinating then the hallucination is his reality. What is so hard to understand about that?

If a man sees a cat on the stage then that is his reality whether or not there is a cat there. Reality in this sense does not suggest objective truth. It corresponds to a recognizably subjective sense of truth.

Nothing about reality implies either sanity or accurate perception. It's just about matching a person's reality so as to improve communication with him. It's not about enforcing your own beliefs of objective truth on others.

The concept of ARC implies addressing the person at his reality in order to better understand him. Attempting to enforce your own reality will lead to his becoming upset with you and thereby create an ARCX.

Whether you actually want to create a heightened sense of ARC with the person is a separate issue.

Think of the reality of different political extremists. They may be utterly certain of their own view as well as completely convinced of the obvious insanity of those who disagree. If a person wishes to communicate effectively with such then he will fail unless he understands this other person's reality.

And of course, nothing suggests that a person actually needs to bother. Remember the "never give or receive a communication ...." bit? That one was another decent suggestion, however the Co$ may have misapplied it.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Claire Swazey]

Nope, quite different. The psychologist doesn't encourage the creation of fantasy and, obviously, doesn't have a view as to what the fantasy might be.

I think it's pretty similar. Psychologists do actually sometimes encourage the furthering and, thus, the creation of aforementioned fantasies, delusions and the like.

If someone comes up with something that's maybe not true/real, then it's the same thing whether a psychologist foments it or a Scn or Dianetic auditor does.

 

[Infinite]

I think it's pretty similar. Psychologists do actually sometimes encourage the furthering and, thus, the creation of aforementioned fantasies, delusions and the like.

If someone comes up with something that's maybe not true/real, then it's the same thing whether a psychologist foments it or a Scn or Dianetic auditor does.

Not really. Scientology is not a therapy so the comparison fails on the apples/oranges basis. Next, furthering does not equate to creation. Also, and so far as this instance is concerned, if a person does not believe in past lives, no psychologist is going to put the client on a lie detector and then encourage the client to imagine past lives.

 

[Gadfly]

A great deal of life involves fantasies and delusions.

Lots of woman love ugly fat guys and vice versa. If one were to require a strict alignment with "the facts of the physical", life wouldn't exist as we know it.

A great deal of what is real for any person is arbitrary, VERY subjective, and NOT at all in accordance with many other people's view of "what is real".

Deal with it!!!!!

I find a MAJOR problem on this planet is when any person demands or wants everybody to agree with ONE standard - whether that standard be religious, philosophical, spiritual, political or scientific.

What separates Mankind from the animal kingdom IS his or her sense of self AND PERSONAL SUBJECTIVITY. One of these days, just maybe, a greater proportion of humankind will actually understand and APPLY that idea - and tolerate the view that subjectivity involves VERT DIFFERENT views about reality by different people. And the strange FACT that MANY can be right (while appearing to be wrong and contradictory to others).

If one simple treats this "scientifically" and observes the behavior and nature of human beings, it is clear and obvious that different people can have different things be real. THAT is what is real - the fact that various people can have very different things be REAL to them. And, on a certain level, this demand that everybody agree and align with "proof" of some sort IS NUTS! (just as Hubbard himself said . . . )

There will always be a large component of any person's mind and view that has little or nothing to do with "proof" - even for those who claim the contrary.

 

[Gadfly]

Not really. Scientology is not a therapy so the comparison fails on the apples/oranges basis. Next, furthering does not equate to creation. Also, and so far as this instance is concerned, if a person does not believe in past lives, no psychologist is going to put the client on a lie detector and then encourage the client to imagine past lives.

Well, you can claim all you want that NOTHING about Scientology is "therapeutic".

But, even though I detest a great deal about how Hubbard put his subject and organization together, some of the auditing and TRs were VERY "therapeutic" for me.

Dianetics can and does function as a therapy. So do various assists for "losses". ARC X handlings function as a sort of therapy.

Sorry, this statement is NOT true, neither subjectively for many people, and not objectively if one studies certain aspects of the larger subject honestly and carefully:

Scientology is not a therapy.

I find most of the expanded grades to also be quite "therapeutic".

I know, some people here on ESMB really want to be able to have certain generalities be true (on both sides).

Also, I am pretty sure that there are licensed therapists out there who use "past life regression". In fact, also, the majority of "alien abduction" events have been recounted in "hypnotic regression" (though granted the techniques are VERY susceptible to suggestion by the hypnotist), having been performed by licensed psycholgists.

The field of modern psychology embraces what was considered quite strange and even esoteric twenty or thirty years ago. Many modern psychologists use visualization and affirmation techniques that come straight from the same sources Hubbard studied (magick, the occult, meditation, eastern philosophy, etc.).

 

[Infinite]

Well, you can claim all you want that NOTHING about Scientology is "therapeutic".

I have never claimed NOTHING about Scientology is "therapeutic".

But, even though I detest a great deal about how Hubbard put his subject and organization together, some of the auditing and TRs were VERY "therapeutic" for me.

Dianetics can and does function as a therapy. So do various assists for "losses". ARC X handlings function as a sort of therapy.

Sorry, this statement is NOT true, neither subjectively for many people, and not objectively if one studies certain aspects of the larger subject honestly and carefully:

Scientology is not a therapy.

I find most of the expanded grades to also be quite "therapeutic".

I know, some people here on ESMB really want to be able to have certain generalities be true (on both sides).

You appear to be confusing "therapeutic" with "therapy". A cup of tea can be therapeutic, but its hardly therapy. L Ron Hubbard went out of his way to distance Scientology from "therapy" when he realised the implications of having to prove his thesis and so ducked behind the nebulous "religion" cloak - and reaped the tax / legal benefits.

 

[Gadfly]

I have never claimed NOTHING about Scientology is "therapeutic".

You appear to be confusing "therapeutic" with "therapy". A cup of tea can be therapeutic, but its hardly therapy. L Ron Hubbard went out of his way to distance Scientology from "therapy" when he realised the implications of having to prove his thesis and so ducked behind the nebulous "religion" cloak - and reaped the tax / legal benefits.

Okay, I will rephrase it. Some aspects of Scientology function as THERAPY.

Just because Hubbard played with significances, trying to present Scientology as a religion while downplaying any "therapy" angle (mainly for legal purposes), does not necessarily mean that some aspects of it do not and cannot be USED as a form of "therapy".

Hubbard may have claimed that it wasn't "therapy", but since when do we believe ANYTHING Hubbard said?

I stand by my statement that YOUR statement is invalid. It's too general.

 

[Infinite]

Okay, I will rephrase it. Some aspects of Scientology function as THERAPY.

Just because Hubbard played with significances, trying to present Scientology as a religion while downplaying any "therapy" angle (mainly for legal purposes), does not necessarily mean that some aspects of it do not and cannot be USED as a form of "therapy".

I stand by my statement that YOUR statement is invalid. It's too general.

Can't agree. My statement is the same as saying: the Mafia is not a therapy. Sure, there can be therapeutic parts to being in the Mafia, the comaraderie being one example, but the Mafia is not a therapy.

 

[Bill]

Well, you can claim all you want that NOTHING about Scientology is "therapeutic".

But, even though I detest a great deal about how Hubbard put his subject and organization together, some of the auditing and TRs were VERY "therapeutic" for me.

Dianetics can and does function as a therapy. So do various assists for "losses". ARC X handlings function as a sort of therapy.

Sorry, this statement is NOT true, neither subjectively for many people, and not objectively if one studies certain aspects of the larger subject honestly and carefully:

Scientology is not a therapy.

I find most of the expanded grades to also be quite "therapeutic".

I know, some people here on ESMB really want to be able to have certain generalities be true (on both sides).

Also, I am pretty sure that there are licensed therapists out there who use "past life regression". In fact, also, the majority of "alien abduction" events have been recounted in "hypnotic regression" (though granted the techniques are VERY susceptible to suggestion by the hypnotist), having been performed by licensed psycholgists.

The field of modern psychology embraces what was considered quite strange and even esoteric twenty or thirty years ago. Many modern psychologists use visualization and affirmation techniques that come straight from the same sources Hubbard studied (magick, the occult, meditation, eastern philosophy, etc.).

Any bit of Scientology that can predictably, reliably and commonly produce a specific, beneficial result could reasonaly be called "theraputic" and "workable". If just receiving auditing over time makes a person "feel better", I would not consider that particularly theraputic as it tends to make the person emotionally dependent on Scientology without any true benefit.

In all this debate, it is my hope that, if any part of Scientology is truly beneficial, that it won't be thrown out with the bath water. (But, as some have said, not much of value would be lost if that did happen).

Bill

 

[Claire Swazey]

Not really. Scientology is not a therapy so the comparison fails on the apples/oranges basis. Next, furthering does not equate to creation. Also, and so far as this instance is concerned, if a person does not believe in past lives, no psychologist is going to put the client on a lie detector and then encourage the client to imagine past lives.

Nah. It is a therapy. Just not an accredited one.

Not all auditing is metered. Prior to OTIII, no one is asked to believe in past lives.
And, yes, furthering or encouraging someone in a delusion does lead to creation of that and future ones.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Any bit of Scientology that can predictably, reliably and commonly produce a specific, beneficial result could reasonaly be called "theraputic" and "workable". If just receiving auditing over time makes a person "feel better", I would not consider that particularly theraputic as it tends to make the person emotionally dependent on Scientology without any true benefit.

In all this debate, it is my hope that, if any part of Scientology is truly beneficial, that it won't be thrown out with the bath water. (But, as some have said, not much of value would be lost if that did happen).

Bill

It occurs to me that some of the thoughts behind debate about Scn being or not being a therapy (and also some of the thoughts behind Scn being or not being religious) pertain to possible validity.

So I want to say that something can be a bad therapy and still be a therapy. (the same benchmark could be applied to the religious conundrum.)