Scientology may be too "out-gradient"

[Case]

The proper term is "Destructive Cult" or "Deceptive/abusive Cult."

Below is excerpted from 'Destructive Cult Defined and the Gradients of Deception: The Layers of the Scientological Onion', 1992, 1996, from the book, 'L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman?':

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

There can be such a thing as a (mostly) "benign cult"; however, a "Destructive Cult" practices deception, mind-manipulation, and varying degrees of coercion, abuse, etc.

Ok, I was just pointing out that nearly every involved 3D activity has cult-like factors. That the mainstream media and certain academics likes to throw around the word cult to certain 3D's is bias.

Most involved 3D groups could be considered a benign cult. Some groups within the CofS are deceptive, not always destructive (See CL5 Orgs/Missions), and some core groups within the CofS can get abusive and be extremely destructive (See INT/RTC). There are of course exceptions. Humans are sometimes deceptive and abusive, no matter what group they belong too.

 

[Veda]

Ok, I was just pointing out that nearly every involved 3D activity has cult-like factors. That the mainstream media and certain academics likes to throw around the word cult to certain 3D's is bias.

Most involved 3D groups could be considered a benign cult. Some groups within the CofS are deceptive, not always destructive (See CL5 Orgs/Missions), and some core groups within the CofS can get abusive and be extremely destructive (See INT/RTC). There are of course exceptions. Humans are sometimes deceptive and abusive, no matter what group they belong too.

Appreciate the observations.

If you read the links, which - including 'Manual Parallels' - are a fair amount of reading, curious as to what you think about the material presented.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I thought last lifetime and think now that people run into trouble with Scn advanced processes and with Scn in general because in many ways it is out gradient for people.

This is a theory I have, it is a thought I am playing with.

I thought this last lifetime- felt people shouldn't move beyond Dn auditing. Was a bit upset with Ron for intro'ing Scn.

This lifetime, I'm not so much let's do Dn but no Scn- but I think the bridge does not exactly totally work and I am entertaining the possibility that the OT levels aren't the way they should be.

I'm leaning toward being against calling people or oneself OTs.

I'd like to see a lot more intro and intermediate processes worked on far more. I'd like to see the "advanced/upper level" stuff gone through with a fine tooth comb (by people who would be far better at that than I) and any that remain- the titles and exaggerated claims tossed out.

I would like to hear some thoughts of others on the matter.

Fluffy, I would like to see some more rigorous research too. Down to fine-tooth combing the axioms. Geoffrey Filbert puts lots and lots of emphasis on the lower level Grades, saying they need to be done more than once. I hope that whoever tears the bridge apart and puts it back together again will take a good look at the processes that John Galusha developed to address identities. Wouldn't hurt.

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

If one runs enough Dianetics then a person eventually has a Clear cog and the NOTs case rears its head.

It didn't seem to me that there was a choice.

Then, assuming one accepts the ideas of BTs as self determined beings - A thousand people running a thousand BTs an hour for a thousand hours gives one billion dis-incarnated beings. I would imagine some of them get bored looking at daisies and get adventurous. In the last 50 or so years in which entity running has occurred how many might have started to use some of those interesting auditing commands on poor unsuspecting innocents.
Extrapolating from the NOTs data to its sociological consequences leads to an almost inevitable conclusion that we now have a planet full of people with unusual cases due to restimulations.
I've also noticed in the last 20 or so years a lot of kids who look Clear.
Pandora's box has been opened.

However I'd agree about throwing out all the delusory titles and states.
The church is going in the direction of more emphasis on status. In my days there was just a training and processing bridge. DM & Co. have added the staus/donation bridge from humble IAS member to Platinum Plated Exalted Holy Patronisimus with silver bells and a court jester's hat. The FZ needs to go the other way.

Ohhh, that makes my scalp itch! I have some personal awareness of entities and entities that like to attach to bodies already "owned" by another entity. I could mock up BTs pinpricking my body and have done so at the time I first read about BTs. My obnosis and my interpretation are two different things.

I'm pretty sure it is necessary to handle abberrative identities on the path to self-awareness or enlightenment, don't know exactly why, but do I really need to handle BTs on the path to self-awareness? Mightn't that be a dispersal? No pun intended there.

 

[Div6]

Ohhh, that makes my scalp itch! I have some personal awareness of entities and entities that like to attach to bodies already "owned" by another entity. I could mock up BTs pinpricking my body and have done so at the time I first read about BTs. My obnosis and my interpretation are two different things.

I'm pretty sure it is necessary to handle abberrative identities on the path to self-awareness or enlightenment, don't know exactly why, but do I really need to handle BTs on the path to self-awareness? Mightn't that be a dispersal? No pun intended there.

Here is a thought on that subject:

Targs, BTs , Entities, the GE, Epicentre beings are evident to be on a case if the person is on the -80 to +2 part of the tone scale by their manifest conduct, behaviour, and associations. The theta being (you) if awake is manifesting +2 to +160 behaviour, conduct and associations, if all other life is out of your space. Being awake and having these other critters around is extremely rare, however in the unlikely event you do encounter such an individual he will have the widest roller coaster from -80 to +160 you've ever seen. He'll be blowing up soviet labs knowingly one minute and be stuck in a tree begging flesh for a smooch the next, he'll advise Heads of State one week, and pump gas the next, he will be fully conscious he is living in a hell, They are pretty rare, very capable, and ignorant of their state and fate. Here you would be able to observe the effort death throes of a deity resolve quickly by getting all his fleas off, You could also let him die, which would tell you what you are, asleep, and being entity run. What one does , not what one says, identifies which of the two fundamental businesses you are in: the life business or the death business. Spot the 2 parts of the tone scale, their conduct, behaviour, and respective associations.

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

Only Baby auditors do that. The meter shows charge. It doesn't have a readout to show what the charge is.
If a bad auditor asks a question then the read might be on the auditor's TRs.
It is the job of a good auditor to communicate with the PC primarily.
The meter is an adjunct to auditing. It is something the auditor can see with peripheral vision while communicating with the PC.
It helps the auditor. It doesn't run the session on autopilot as some of these GAT morons seem to think.
99% of any session is the auditor being there with the PC. Good auditors could throw the meter out most of the time. But sometimes it helps when things get rough.

What does it mean when a PC has a stuck needle? The last time I held the cans the needle was stuck. How much credence should I give to that?

 

[Dulloldfart]

A viable process would be one that can be executed over long distances with ease. Looks like Idenics is ahead of others in this respect.

.

R3X lends itself to such, and in fact is better known for its remote application than face-to-face. It can be run without a meter if you're not happy with remote metering.

My stuff (Topical Rub & Yawn) can be done just as easily over the phone, but it is more direct if you can run it off your own computer without a remote auditor.

Paul

 

[Pierrot]

What does it mean when a PC has a stuck needle? The last time I held the cans the needle was stuck. How much credence should I give to that?

could be many things - it could be "fixed attention"

like - your attention was stuck on the needle being stuck.

 

[Alanzo]

Haven't seen your definition in a dictionary before.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

So?

Maybe whoever wrote that dictionary was never in a cult.

Example: Scientology gets you to work against your own self-interests.

It works hard at that, doesn't it? Your goals become the organization's goals. Your own goals are poo-pooed or even outright invalidated. You work against your own goals and for the goals of Scientology.

Talk to other people who have realized that they have been in other cults. You will find that the common denominator is that, prompted by the coercive teachings of their respective cuits, they found that they have been working against their own self-interests.

That's their major realization. That's their primary complaint, and that's what got them to leave.

Therefore, a cult coerces you to work against your own self-interests.

Honestly think about it.

Can you?

 

[Case]

Appreciate the observations.

If you read the links, which - including 'Manual Parallels' - are a fair amount of reading, curious as to what you think about the material presented.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

Ive just read the excerpt, and have read this type of analysis in the past too. My honest opinion is that there are truths, half truths and falsities within the excerpt.

Constructing "layers of an onion" is a clever way to describe some of the negative aspects of the church and it's history. I would add that there are layers of involvement within any big organization on the planet. For example, you have executives that often live and breathe their corporation and its aims and goals, and within the same organization you get part time staff who are much less involved in the aims and goals.

Some people don't like being apart of a big 3D, some do. Those in the SO like the idea of being part of a 3D with a big purpose. I can't knock that. Some people are more cautious in getting involved with a 3D and spend their life in front of a computer screen, on benefits, and have a general low level of 3D activity.

Some of the writing in the excerpt is very romantic, and is creative in using metaphors and analogies, which help further engage the reader. This type of language is a very strong way to persuade a reader to come to a certain conclusion. More objective writing that shows little human bias (perhaps a piece written by and edited by dozens of individuals that have to come to a consensus on the final piece) might mean a more objective piece (something like wikipedia). One individual, no matter what the subject written about, will rarely write without bias, and rarely write without effort to persuade the reader into a certain conclusion or consideration. Considering the ideological nature of scientology, this will probably produce stronger bias than the norm for analyses, for or against, as it pokes at peoples core ideological and deep-seated "nerves".

Reading about scientology online often means hearing the extreme positive, or the extreme negative. Im sure an "anti-scientology onion" could be conceived.

I suppose the onion (or levels of involvement) could be more objectively presented. Perhaps on Layer One an equal amount of text might be added about the fact that positive messages like peace and human rights should be evident in society, and that it's good that some organizations are sending that message out (whereas mainstream media channels, owned by the few, seldom present those messages and largely focus on war and destruction).

Also, mention should be made that many people report that the introductory courses do help them improve their life, and that people volunteer to offer services like free assists and dianetics sessions. I personally gave an assist to an elderly woman who had an inflammatory bone condition that had put her in pain everyday for over a decade, and with one nerve assist she had no pain for the first time in years. These types of things are not uncommon.

That the church spends a lot of resources on PR is definitely a mistake, and this gives the wider world the impression that the church is the only scientology group, when in fact they are just one group practising scientology out of dozens. The problem this creates is that scientology is not differentiated from the church. And the fact that the church now often practices what can be termed black scientology means that the society commonly mistakes black scientology practised by the church as being bonafide Scientology. Which it is not.

I think the mistake people often make when they get involved with the church is that in an attempt to remove their reactive mind, they hand over their analytical mind to the church. This is a big error.

Because LRH wrote so much, management can SELECT certain writings to persuade the individual to behave in a certain way. However, once the individual reads more scientology, and starts to really get a grasp of it (which may take some time if they aren't studying much) then most realize that the CofS' USE of scientology is in many cases being perverted. The Pilot wrote that even Class XII's only hear a third of all lectures in their training.

Most of the people in the CofS are like "elementary school" scientology students who really need to do less, study more. I think they are operating beyond their know-how, get overwhelmed and resort to black scientology as a coping mechanism.

Have you read Scientology(TM) vs Scientology(TM) by Pat Krenik? It's an excellent analysis of the church and of scientology, and is a viewpoint not often seen.

 

[Case]

So?

Maybe whoever wrote that dictionary was never in a cult.

Example: Scientology gets you to work against your own self-interests.

It works hard at that, doesn't it? Your goals become the organization's goals. Your own goals are poo-pooed or even outright invalidated. You work against your own goals and for the goals of Scientology.

Talk to other people who have realized that they have been in other cults. You will find that the common denominator is that, prompted by the coercive teachings of their respective cuits, they found that they have been working against their own self-interests.

That's their major realization. That's their primary complaint, and that's what got them to leave.

Therefore, a cult coerces you to work against your own self-interests.

Honestly think about it.

Can you?

Within my last post I wrote what I consider the big mistake many people make when getting involved with the church:

"I think the mistake people often make when they get involved with the church is that in an attempt to remove their reactive mind, they hand over their analytical mind to the church. This is a big error.

Because LRH wrote so much, management can SELECT certain writings to persuade the individual to behave in a certain way. However, once the individual reads more scientology, and starts to really get a grasp of it (which may take some time if they aren't studying much) then most realize that the CofS' USE of scientology is in many cases being perverted. The Pilot wrote that even Class XII's only hear a third of all lectures in their training."

So I think part of the responsibility is down to the individual giving their analytical mind over to the church, quitting their own goals and purposes to align with clearing the planet etc, and overall, violating their own personal integrity.

On a positive note, I think scientology is designed to help the individual change their considerations, that's what makes it so potent. An individual who has the ability to change considerations and not operate in fixed conditions, is going to be at a big advantage over those who have the same considerations throughout their whole life. The ability to operate in a freer condition (based on the ability to change considerations easily) makes life more adventurous, more of a learning process, more of an experiment and more enjoyable, IMO. This aligns closely to the axioms.

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

could be many things - it could be "fixed attention"

like - your attention was stuck on the needle being stuck.

Join me in giving that stuck needle a neutral acknowledgement.

 

[Vinaire]

R3X lends itself to such, and in fact is better known for its remote application than face-to-face. It can be run without a meter if you're not happy with remote metering.

My stuff (Topical Rub & Yawn) can be done just as easily over the phone, but it is more direct if you can run it off your own computer without a remote auditor.

Paul

Good. The robot auditor meets the qualification.

.

 

[Alan]

If it's true for you, it's fucking bollocks.

Love your sig. line Case!

 

[Alanzo]

Within my last post I wrote what I consider the big mistake many people make when getting involved with the church:

"I think the mistake people often make when they get involved with the church is that in an attempt to remove their reactive mind, they hand over their analytical mind to the church. This is a big error.

Because LRH wrote so much, management can SELECT certain writings to persuade the individual to behave in a certain way. However, once the individual reads more scientology, and starts to really get a grasp of it (which may take some time if they aren't studying much) then most realize that the CofS' USE of scientology is in many cases being perverted. The Pilot wrote that even Class XII's only hear a third of all lectures in their training."

So I think part of the responsibility is down to the individual giving their analytical mind over to the church, quitting their own goals and purposes to align with clearing the planet etc, and overall, violating their own personal integrity.

On a positive note, I think scientology is designed to help the individual change their considerations, that's what makes it so potent. An individual who has the ability to change considerations and not operate in fixed conditions, is going to be at a big advantage over those who have the same considerations throughout their whole life. The ability to operate in a freer condition (based on the ability to change considerations easily) makes life more adventurous, more of a learning process, more of an experiment and more enjoyable, IMO. This aligns closely to the axioms.

But you are avoiding the point.

The point is that cults coerce people to work against their own self-interests.

Your previous point was that all third dynamics have aspects of cults, therefore cults really don't exist.

So, with your post here, are you now saying that getting people to work against their own self-interests is good for them?

How does that work?

 

[Pierrot]

Join me in giving that stuck needle a neutral acknowledgement.

it was meant that way, even though it might have not come across as such.

Some people can produce any needle action at will, it's actually an interesting drill on its own.

That "mind over matter" thing

 

[Case]

Love your sig. line Case!

Cheers!

Alanzo -But you are avoiding the point.

The point is that cults coerce people to work against their own self-interests.

Your previous point was that all third dynamics have aspects of cults, therefore cults really don't exist.

So, with your post here, are you now saying that getting people to work against their own self-interests is good for them?

How does that work?

Not all 3Ds have cult-like aspects, but any you might be heavily involved often do. For example, I used to play for a sunday sports club, and once I did I was encouraged to do things that were in the best interests of the team, such as do extra training and workouts, go to the occasional social gathering with team mates, stuff like that. I didn't necessarily want to do those things, I just wanted to turn up and play. I was also encourage to get my family involved, as supporters and as drivers etc.

My sports club were a 3D that wanted success, and so wanted a certain level of commitment that at first I didnt feel comfortable with, but I got used to. I learnt to consider the groups best interests as well as my own. Often I found both interests were the same -winning, success etc. Sometimes not the same - it left me with less time to pursue other interests I had at the time.

In fact it was this conflict that led me to giving up playing for them.

So I don't necessarily think coercing people against their own self-interests is all that uncommon. It's part and parcel of being in a 3D, caring enough about that 3D to sometimes do things for the benefit of the group rather than oneself all the time.

The key is to have a sense of personal integrity and not violate it. Otherwise one is bound to be unhappy. I think maybe when people leave the church and start complaining that it was a cult, do so for 2 reasons; 1) it was the only 3D they have been heavily involved with in life, thus they have no real comparable experience for a 3D and somehow see it as a cult and see most other involved 3D's as not cults, and 2) they violated their own personal integrity so much that they felt victimized.

Personal integrity is a big factor here, and to the church's credit they actually teach this stuff. It's up to the individual to apply it. The CofS are in many ways like a school-club hybrid. You go there to learn about life, but they also encourage some extracurricular activities and more involvement. They might even ask you to become a "teacher" or "coach".

Btw, I don't think that working for ones own self-interests all the time is that healthy, but also I think having no personal goals and interests is unhealthy too. There needs to be a good mixture of goals and interests all the way across the dynamics for true happiness.

You asked: "So, with your post here, are you now saying that getting people to work against their own self-interests is good for them?

How does that work?"

Working AGAINST ones interests is an absolute that, for me, doesn't really exist. Having interests that too often conflict is the problem. The key is to be able to have interests that don't cause too much friction, both self-interests and group interests, and whenever possible align them together smoothly.

 

[nw2394]

What REAL measurement have you got that those who did OT1-8 went insane or crashed?

I doubt that Alan keeps any such stats.

But you have to admit that from, well, at least Dn upwards to New OT7, with the possible exception of OT1 and 6, the latter of which is actually training anyway, the emphasis is on removing negatives:

Dn = the reason I feel bad is that nasty engram
Power = the reason I'm fucked up is an engram I didn't know I had and couldn't even run with Dn.
OT2/3 = the reason I am overwhelmed is that nasty cluster.

And so on.

Now I don't think Alan is saying these things never need to be addressed. Even the Idenics crowd is not saying these things don't need to be removed somehow, even if they say that it can be handled by undercutting. So no-one is saying the negatives aren't bad and should go.

But it is a question of emphasis. Are you teaching and dictating to you PCs (or preOTs or clients or whatever word you use) through the CS instructions you issue and the crams you do on auditors and so on that the "case is bad and the reason you are fucked is all your negative case"?

Well, if that is what you put your attention, then that is what you are likely to get. People who believe they are the effect of case. Loonies to put it bluntly.

One has to understand that in all the vast history of - well - however many universes there have been - there is an absolute ocean of time and that means that there has been an ocean of opportunity to fuck things up over and over again. So, while there cannot be an infinity of negative case (or there would be no point in trying to do any auditing, positive or negative), there is a truly stupendous amount of it. So much that it has overwhelmed your PC over and over again. So, if all you do is process the negative you are certain to plow him or her into these messes. And though you may run this stuff for a few hours or years, all you're likely to do is leave the PC in a mess. People say, "ah, well I've been running NOTs for 25 years now, you would think I would have come to the end of it by now". No, stupid, No. You could be there for a millenium running the messes you've accumulated and still not get to the end of it, given the vastness of time.

***OR*** the CS, the auditor, the practitioner, the facilitator (or again whatever word you use), can START from the viewpoint that this person sitting in front of me is - well - yeah sure they seem to have quite a few mess ups stuck to them - BUT, they are still going. Isn't that a wonderful, strange, almost magical thing. They should be dead, but they're not - this person is operating a body, feeding it, raising a family, making plans, defending thier turf and all sorts. SO, just maybe, if we can lever this person over to a little more cause and, yeah maybe dispose of a few of the messes along the way then just think of what they might be capable of.

Now, there is an additional factor of being in a safe space. You cannot expect anyone to talk freely and get things off their chest and calmly view it all in an environment that is hostile. That is exactly the sort of thing that the CoS is doing with their heavy ethics. It is really quite remarkable that anyone still gets any sort of useful TA there now. In fact, where it does happen it is a testimony to both the good nature of the auditor, the sheer willingness on the part of the PC and the workability of what Hubbard and his co-workers left us.

So, it is not that Hubbard was wrong. He wasn't. In fact he was fantastically right most of the time. Nor is the Bridge wrong. It isn't. In fact it is more right that one can easily summarise.

But there is the question of emphasis. If you sit there grimly saying that you are going to somehow vanquish your BT case, I dare say it can be done. But you are in for a long, heavy ride. I'll check back with you in a thousand years to see how you're doing.

Or you can say, hell I am a wonderful, benign deity. Sure I'll knock a few of these engrams out of my way as I make progress. But I sure won't lose sight of the fact that what I actually want is to live better, I won't lose sight of my own innate goodness, my own innate causativeness. And nor will I lose sight of it in those whom I have opposed for so long either.

You might find your interpretation of Hubbard's work is quite different if you approach it from that angle.

Nick

 

[nw2394]

The key is to have a sense of personal integrity and not violate it. Otherwise one is bound to be unhappy. I think maybe when people leave the church and start complaining that it was a cult, do so for 2 reasons; 1) it was the only 3D they have been heavily involved with in life, thus they have no real comparable experience for a 3D and somehow see it as a cult and see most other involved 3D's as not cults, and 2) they violated their own personal integrity so much that they felt victimized.

I think you spoke well there.

Nick

 

[Alanzo]

Cheers!

Not all 3Ds have cult-like aspects, but any you might be heavily involved often do. For example, I used to play for a sunday sports club, and once I did I was encouraged to do things that were in the best interests of the team, such as do extra training and workouts, go to the occasional social gathering with team mates, stuff like that. I didn't necessarily want to do those things, I just wanted to turn up and play. I was also encourage to get my family involved, as supporters and as drivers etc.

My sports club were a 3D that wanted success, and so wanted a certain level of commitment that at first I didnt feel comfortable with, but I got used to. I learnt to consider the groups best interests as well as my own. Often I found both interests were the same -winning, success etc. Sometimes not the same - it left me with less time to pursue other interests I had at the time.

In fact it was this conflict that led me to giving up playing for them.

I think we're having a problem with the word "coerce".

co·erce· (kō ʉrs′)
transitive verb

1. to restrain or constrain by force, esp. by legal authority; curb
2. to force or compel, as by threats, to do something
3. to bring about by using force; enforce

Etymology: ME cohercen < OFr cohercier < L coercere, to surround, restrain < co-, together + arcere, to confine:

Your sports club did not tell you that without them you would never reach spiritual freedom, tell all your family and friends to disconnect from you and expel you forever.

Did they?

Did they have policies that told the other members you were either degraded or a criminal and send out PIs to find your crimes, so that you could be shuddered into silence if you ever uttered a bad word about them?

If your wife got pregnant, would they force you to get an abortion because they would not want you distracted from the work they were using you for?

These are the differences between the 3rd dynamic you are holding up - your soccer team - and Scientology, a cult.

A cult is different than a soccer team.

I'm wondering why you can't see that....

Do you have a bias in your thinking?

Are you capable of the self inspection necessary to determine if you have a bias getting in your way here?