Scientology is all bad

[Veda]

Of course Scn posits the belief in other lives. And it is in books and is mentioned on taped lectures all the time. I know that, we all know that. But auditing questions- before you get to the ridiculous Incident II mishmosh- do not push a person into it.

-snip-

From the "Dianetic Past Life Remedy":

"What attitudes would make one unwilling to go earlier than this life?

"You get the best reading item, check for interest and run the item R3R. You re-access, check for interest and R3R. Continue to reassess and add to the list until the list is exhausted.

"Repeat the steps listing (separately and in this order) for emotions, sensations and pains that 'would make one unwilling to go earlier than this life'.

"Somewhere along the line, the pc will go earlier than this life."


5) From OT 2:

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

....

"They are implant incidents...

"Trillions, 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.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by Bill
You keep trying to stop any discussion of Scientology from including statements made by Hubbard -- as if what Hubbard said had nothing to do with Scientology and must be discounted entirely.

You're not supposed to notice that!

You are resisting being handled by a Scientologist.

Please try to cooperate.

What you two resistive cases have not understood is that only Mark Baker knows what the real Scientology is. Even Ron did not know which tech was the good tech and which was the bad tech.

Mark also offers his services as an entertainer to come to beach parties and amuse & enlighten guests by identifying which grains of sand are real sand and which grains of sand are not really sand. (Wearing a clown outfit as depicted in the promo piece is not included in the price of Mark's basic entertainment package).

Party guests are amazed that he can do such supernormal feats because even after microscopic inspection, guests still cannot tell the difference.

It's a knowingness thing. Get back on your Bridge people!

 

[Jquepublic]

Gee, I dunno. I've never been to a Psychologist, so I don't know what they do. I would hazard a guess that if a psychologist's patient were to tell him " I was the Capt of a Starliner 45 million years ago", that the psychologist might institutionalize him ( if they do that), or put the patient on some drugs.

But that's an uneducated guess. I have no idea what they do. Do you? Have you consulted with one?

I do know what a Scientologist would do, however. The Scientologist would acknowledge the PCs origination, and continue with the process.

phenomanon

Psychologists only recommend institutionalization in cases where they deem the patient to be a serious threat to himself or others, AFAIK. If they locked up everyone with an odd notion in his or her head...well, let's just say my drive to work would be MUCH less stressful in the mornings! Provided, of course, that I wasn't included in the institutional roundup.

A good psychologist is going to search for meaning in whatever the patient presents, with an eye toward resolving the inner conflicts resulting in whatever break from the norm is evident.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Relax. No one is accusing anyone of anything "sinister."

I think that believing that those of opposing views are trying to "handle" rather than discuss/debate is pretty negative. Left side or not...

 

[Claire Swazey]

From the "Dianetic Past Life Remedy":

"What attitudes would make one unwilling to go earlier than this life?

"You get the best reading item, check for interest and run the item R3R. You re-access, check for interest and R3R. Continue to reassess and add to the list until the list is exhausted.

"Repeat the steps listing (separately and in this order) for emotions, sensations and pains that 'would make one unwilling to go earlier than this life'.

"Somewhere along the line, the pc will go earlier than this life."


5) From OT 2:

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

....

"They are implant incidents...

"Trillions, 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.

Can't help but notice that one of the things above is from the OT levels.

As to the Dianetic one, of course Hubbard thought there were other lives and that a person should be able to bring them up.

 

[Veda]

Can't help but notice that one of the things above is from the OT levels.

As to the Dianetic one, of course Hubbard thought there were other lives and that a person should be able to bring them up.

Yes, OT 2 comes before OT 3, and Dianetics comes before the OT levels.

 

[Student of Trinity]

You keep trying to stop any discussion of Scientology from including statements made by Hubbard -- as if what Hubbard said had nothing to do with Scientology and must be discounted entirely.

This really continues to boggle my mind.

I'm much more inclined to agree with your view of Scientology than with Mark's, Bill, but in fairness I think we should recognize that Mark's view is at least coherent. If people discuss relativity, the fact that Albert Einstein said or did not say something doesn't matter a damn. Some of the stuff he wrote along the way to the final version was quite wrong, and there are a few minor points that weren't clarified until after his death, so he himself never understood them. Einstein discovered the theory, and we can label the theory conveniently by referring to it as his theory, in the sense that it is the the theory that he discovered; but it exists quite independently of him, and he has absolutely zero authority over it.

Not every subject is like that, of course. Kantian philosophy is defined by Kant's own views. Freudian psychology is mostly defined by Freud's own views, but I think that to some extent it exists as a subject in itself, so it's somewhere in between Kantian philosophy and Einsteinian relativity in this respect.

Mark Baker doesn't care what Hubbard said about Scientology, even though he thinks that Hubbard discovered it, because he thinks that Scientology is an objective subject in its own right, like Einsteinian relativity, rather than a personal ideology, like Kantian philosophy. I myself don't buy this, but that's his view, and it's at least not obviously incoherent or inconsistent.

I'd be very interested in any discussion you can provide about why Scientology doesn't count as an objective subject, but is only defined by Hubbard's dicta. I think that's a case that has to be made, not one that can be assumed as self-evident, but I'm inclined to think it probably can be made, and I'm interested in that. I'm much less interested in the who-owns-the-dictionary quarrel about whether or not Mark should be allowed to continue calling his favorite subject Scientology, or should rather be obliged to re-name it Bakerology. I asked once, here, whether people with views like his would be prepared to give up the 'Scientology' label, since labels don't matter anyway, just as a PR measure against the CofS. He declined; I can't force him; I don't see any point in further fighting about terminology.

 

[Bill]

I'm much more inclined to agree with your view of Scientology than with Mark's, Bill, but in fairness I think we should recognize that Mark's view is at least coherent. If people discuss relativity, the fact that Albert Einstein said or did not say something doesn't matter a damn. Some of the stuff he wrote along the way to the final version was quite wrong, and there are a few minor points that weren't clarified until after his death, so he himself never understood them. Einstein discovered the theory, and we can label the theory conveniently by referring to it as his theory, in the sense that it is the the theory that he discovered; but it exists quite independently of him, and he has absolutely zero authority over it.

Not every subject is like that, of course. Kantian philosophy is defined by Kant's own views. Freudian psychology is mostly defined by Freud's own views, but I think that to some extent it exists as a subject in itself, so it's somewhere in between Kantian philosophy and Einsteinian relativity in this respect.

Mark Baker doesn't care what Hubbard said about Scientology, even though he thinks that Hubbard discovered it, because he thinks that Scientology is an objective subject in its own right, like Einsteinian relativity, rather than a personal ideology, like Kantian philosophy. I myself don't buy this, but that's his view, and it's at least not obviously incoherent or inconsistent.

I'd be very interested in any discussion you can provide about why Scientology doesn't count as an objective subject, but is only defined by Hubbard's dicta. I think that's a case that has to be made, not one that can be assumed as self-evident, but I'm inclined to think it probably can be made, and I'm interested in that. I'm much less interested in the who-owns-the-dictionary quarrel about whether or not Mark should be allowed to continue calling his favorite subject Scientology, or should rather be obliged to re-name it Bakerology. I asked once, here, whether people with views like his would be prepared to give up the 'Scientology' label, since labels don't matter anyway, just as a PR measure against the CofS. He declined; I can't force him; I don't see any point in further fighting about terminology.

You have misunderstood my point a bit.

I have no objection to Mark deciding which parts of Scientology are "good" and which are "bad". I have no objection to Mark rejecting Hubbard's version of Scientology. I have no objection to Mark, or anyone, practicing their own version of Scientology.

What I object to, and have made plain, is when we are having a discussion of Scientology, Mark pops in and says "That's not Scientology!"

I wouldn't mind if Mark said, "That isn't the form of Scientology I practice!" but he doesn't.

I wouldn't mind if Mark said, "I think there are good parts of Scientology!" but that isn't his point.

He says that we are wrong about the evils, mistakes and/or failures of Scientology because "That isn't Scientology!" He does not properly qualify this as his version of Scientology, he just says "Scientology" and that we are completely wrong about it.

No, when we are discussing Scientology, we are discussing Scientology as Hubbard created it, not as Mark A. Baker modified it.

Bill

 

[Infinite]

. . . <smip> . . . I'd be very interested in any discussion you can provide about why Scientology doesn't count as an objective subject, but is only defined by Hubbard's dicta. I think that's a case that has to be made, not one that can be assumed as self-evident, but I'm inclined to think it probably can be made, and I'm interested in that . . .

A fundamental document within Scientology is KSW1. In there you will find the following statements:

" . . . In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to "eat crow" . . . "

and

" . . . Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable - only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. . . . "

KSW is central Scientology scripture and, to me, indicates that Scientology is defined excusively by L Ron Hubbard dicta.

 

[phenomanon]

That does not encourage anyone to run past lives. Nor does it discourage it. Asking for earlier similars (which is a Dianetic command, by the way) just means is there an earlier similar event. If someone truly did not believe in any way that he'd lived before, he would only come up with recollections from the one lifetime. Nor does all auditing ask for earlier events.

But....dig it>>> even in Self Analysis, the PC is asked to recall the Earliest Time that he can when ( such and such from the SA book).

Any major process, including Life Repair, and Grades, is not run until Rudiments are put in. Each Rudiment is run to F/N. The C/S for that is " Fly a Rud". " If no F'N ( on the Ruds question asked) run Es to F/N". IOW, run Earlier Similar on Ruds question until the Rud F'Ns.

You said that you were a Course Sup and an Auditor. Then you must know this.
If a person did not believe that he had lived before, and he read a Dn or Scn book, he would have "the Cognition" that he had lived before. That's what gets a lot of ppl hooked.

Prior to @ 1978 when the Grade Chart was changed to place Dianetics above the Grades, the majority of PCs ran past lives on their Dn auditing. If not, they were run on the Past Life Remedy. Then, in running their Grades, their 'track' was open and they had the opportunity to run Grades whole track. And they did. That ability was blunted when LRH put Dn above Grades processing.

Look. I'm not trying to make myself right, nor to make you wrong. I really don't understand how you can believe what you are saying.

I also am not interested in getting tangled up in some off topic discussion about psychology, so I will exit this exchange with you and return to the subject of the thread " Scientology is all Bad".

phenomanon

 

[Veda]

-snip-

Mark Baker doesn't care what Hubbard said about Scientology, even though he thinks that Hubbard discovered it, because he thinks that Scientology is an objective subject in its own right, like Einsteinian relativity, rather than a personal ideology, like Kantian philosophy. I myself don't buy this, but that's his view, and it's at least not obviously incoherent or inconsistent.

I'd be very interested in any discussion you can provide about why Scientology doesn't count as an objective subject, but is only defined by Hubbard's dicta. I think that's a case that has to be made, not one that can be assumed as self-evident, but I'm inclined to think it probably can be made, and I'm interested in that.

-snip-

Rather than us entertaining you, how about you and Baker having the discussion, and we'll watch and be entertained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRKvpZ7PjE

 

[phenomanon]

Psychologists only recommend institutionalization in cases where they deem the patient to be a serious threat to himself or others, AFAIK. If they locked up everyone with an odd notion in his or her head...well, let's just say my drive to work would be MUCH less stressful in the mornings! Provided, of course, that I wasn't included in the institutional roundup.

A good psychologist is going to search for meaning in whatever the patient presents, with an eye toward resolving the inner conflicts resulting in whatever break from the norm is evident.

OK. Thanks.

I studied Psychology in school, and Abnormal Psychology as well, but that doesn't mean that I know exactly what they do.

I like your explanation, and I accept it as a true goal of the Psychologist.

phenomanon

 

[shadow]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Psychology is a nice intro to psychology. My spouse, who was in scn from an early age (was on the apollo in '69 as a kid), and was inactive most of his life, while dealing with family who were all active in scn, asked me to find him a good intro book. He decided that he had heard so much negative said about psychiatry and psychology from people who had no clue, he should look into the subject himself. He really liked the book, and it confirmed his suspicions that psychology has grown/evolved toward evidence based practices, unlike scn which is stuck in the '50s (imbedded with the ignorance and paranoia of the time).

Now he wants a primer on psychiatry, so he can see the development of medications as they were added to treatment options for mental disorders.

 

[Bill]

I'd be very interested in any discussion you can provide about why Scientology doesn't count as an objective subject, but is only defined by Hubbard's dicta. I think that's a case that has to be made, not one that can be assumed as self-evident, but I'm inclined to think it probably can be made, and I'm interested in that.

As for this aspect, which I was not addressing, i do have some thoughts.

First, this is reversed. Why should anyone need to "make the case" that Scientology is not an objective subject? Of course it isn't but if Mark, or someone else, wants to claim that it is, it is up to them to prove that there are absolute, proven facts that form the foundation of this "cosmic Scientology".

If Scientology was an "objective subject", there must be solid FACTS that it is based on. It can not be objective without proof and facts of its foundational principles. Scientology lacks all proof and any facts.

"Reactive mind"? Unproven. "Engrams"? Unproven. "Axioms"? Unproven. "Case gain attributed specifically and only to Scientology"? No proof. "Thetans"? No proof. "Past lives"? Unproven. And on and on.

Go through all the foundational claims of Scientology and you will find that not one single claim has been proven.

Until Mark, or anyone else, provides solid evidence of any of Scientology's foundational claims, Scientology remains only opinion and conjecture. It is up to the believers to provide proof if they want to claim it is "objective". It is NOT up to me to prove otherwise.

Bill

 

[PirateAndBum]

A fundamental document within Scientology is KSW1. In there you will find the following statements:

" . . . In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to "eat crow" . . . "

and

" . . . Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable - only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications. . . . "

KSW is central Scientology scripture and, to me, indicates that Scientology is defined excusively by L Ron Hubbard dicta.

Yes, but both those statements are lies!

 

[Demented LRH]

Hubbard's Tech is full of contradictions, which makes definition of Scientology impossible. No one knows what Scientology is, and what it is not.
The best we could do is to keep the list of Scientology contradictions growing, which is a very easy and pleasant undertaking, at least for some.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Gee, I dunno. I've never been to a Psychologist, so I don't know what they do. I would hazard a guess that if a psychologist's patient were to tell him " I was the Capt of a Starliner 45 million years ago", that the psychologist might institutionalize him ( if they do that), or put the patient on some drugs.

But that's an uneducated guess. I have no idea what they do. Do you? Have you consulted with one?

I do know what a Scientologist would do, however. The Scientologist would acknowledge the PCs origination, and continue with the process.

phenomanon

Hmm - you could have simply answered your own questions by doing some basic reading.

Someone saying something like most scientologists babble in session would not get much traction with any psychologist. They are much less interested in the fantasies unless those fantasies dictate actions in the real world.

You would have also found that psychologists normally do not prescribe drugs as they are not licensed physicians, nor do they usually have admitting privileges to hospitals (something that is required for institutionalization) - I say "usually" because there are physicians who also hold psychology degrees.

So the difference between a psychologist and a scientologist would be that a psychologist would recognize the drivel in an auditing session as guided fantasy and not of much use, whereas Scientologists cannot see a person dying of a mental illness in their midst even at the "mecca of technical perfection".

Which pretty much makes scientology not just worthless but harmful.

 

[guanoloco]

Hmm - you could have simply answered your own questions by doing some basic reading.

Someone saying something like most scientologists babble in session would not get much traction with any psychologist. They are much less interested in the fantasies unless those fantasies dictate actions in the real world.

You would have also found that psychologists normally do not prescribe drugs as they are not licensed physicians, nor do they usually have admitting privileges to hospitals (something that is required for institutionalization) - I say "usually" because there are physicians who also hold psychology degrees.

So the difference between a psychologist and a scientologist would be that a psychologist would recognize the drivel in an auditing session as guided fantasy and not of much use, whereas Scientologists cannot see a person dying of a mental illness in their midst even at the "mecca of technical perfection".

Which pretty much makes scientology not just worthless but harmful.

...this Mick Wenlock...the Force is strong in this one!

 

[Claire Swazey]

But....dig it>>> even in Self Analysis, the PC is asked to recall the Earliest Time that he can when ( such and such from the SA book).

Any major process, including Life Repair, and Grades, is not run until Rudiments are put in. Each Rudiment is run to F/N. The C/S for that is " Fly a Rud". " If no F'N ( on the Ruds question asked) run Es to F/N". IOW, run Earlier Similar on Ruds question until the Rud F'Ns.

You said that you were a Course Sup and an Auditor. Then you must know this.
If a person did not believe that he had lived before, and he read a Dn or Scn book, he would have "the Cognition" that he had lived before. That's what gets a lot of ppl hooked.

Prior to @ 1978 when the Grade Chart was changed to place Dianetics above the Grades, the majority of PCs ran past lives on their Dn auditing. If not, they were run on the Past Life Remedy. Then, in running their Grades, their 'track' was open and they had the opportunity to run Grades whole track. And they did. That ability was blunted when LRH put Dn above Grades processing.

Look. I'm not trying to make myself right, nor to make you wrong. I really don't understand how you can believe what you are saying.

I also am not interested in getting tangled up in some off topic discussion about psychology, so I will exit this exchange with you and return to the subject of the thread " Scientology is all Bad".

phenomanon

I wasn't really emphasizing psychology all that much, so don't hang that on me. Also, I notice you went on to respond to someone else's discussion of psychology. So I really don't think your closing comment is relevant to our exchanges whatsoever.

As to the comment in the beginning of your post, I think I covered that. If there're no past lives or belief in same, nobody's gonna go back further than this lifetime. Asking someone to go earlier doesn't automatically mean they have to come up with past lives. It's done til they cog, not til they cough up a past life recall.

 

[Smilla]

Scientology - The Science of Knowing How to Know, as sold by Hubbard, doesn't exist.

Hubbardism does exist.

Hubbardites think they are Scientologists, but there are no Scientologists, because there is no Scientology.

They are Hubbardites.