The E-Meter As A Delusion Facilitator

[Dulloldfart]

Have I answered your question?

Yup, good enough. Thanks very much.

Paul

 

[Vinaire]

Very good. The best thing to do is to point out somebody's ad hominem against you nicely and not scream at them.

It is better not to make the other person wrong for indulging in ad hominem. Simply point it out to them. Stick to facts and do not indulge in opinions.

And do not indulge in ad hominems yourself.

Thank you for your duplication. You pass.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Yes. This is what I have said before.

A model process structure could probably have all sorts of variations in "content" and produce results. With the important part being the elements of the procedure rather than the content.

So I think a good experiemnet would be to used nonsense words and tell someone that these words (or phrases) when "run" get to certain significant areas of "charge". Present a structure (procedure) to follow. Suggestion, and the participants mind would do the rest.

Or, to put it another way; 'The medium is the message'

The *content* of Scientology is arbitrary; the *structure* of Scientology is the 'active ingredient'.

Zinj

 

[lionheart]

Perhaps you should define "implantology" as I've never heard of it outside your posts.

It was defined in the sentence you quoted in which I used it! "implantology (dealing with implants) levels"

Well, I didn't say "any" and I don't think that Mark did, either. As far as "credence" goes, the above sentence is incomplete- you don't say "credence" about WHAT. I give the emeter credence in that I think it does what it's supposed to. I think it works as a tool, a guide, to something already there. I think it's only a tool and that the pc and auditor do the real work. And the pc's data is senior, if there's a conflict. If what he said didn't matter, all processes would be done without soliciting or writing down any itsa, responses, or cogs from the pc. So yeah, I give the meter credence. It exists, it has a dial, it has a needle, it has a tone arm, it measures things, it reads. But it's just a tool. The pc is what truly has credence with me and with every single auditor I ever met and heard of.

You originally said:

Of course metering matters to an extent, but Scn'ists really don't feel the meter tells them anything. It's supposed to be about the pc on the other side of the meter, and that I got from LRH's materials.

My Bold. But we've beaten this to death now and have clarified what we each meant. And I think the three of us have all agreed that the meter reaction alters the path of the session or sessions, so therefore meter reaction tells scientologists something which they use in sessions.

I have no problem with being asked for elucidation. I just find some of the scolding from folks like you and FreeToShine to not fit the bill-scolding, finding fault with, dragging the person's ideology in and then saying that he or she is posting from that standpoint and isn't speaking the truth about Scn, does not qualify as "questioning process", unless one happens to be a member of the Spanish Inquisition.

Ah nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Oh, then, there must be some other reason you inveigh against Freezoners, indie Scn'ists and the Freezone in general.

Exactly, so why not ask me instead of assuming you know why? I've given the answer in these recent posts. I believe I have been consistant over the past two years.

Funnily enough, originally I was hammered on here by posters because I was too pro-scn saying I had had gains! That was a real no-no to say that back then. Then I got criticised by FZers for being disloyal to Scn and criticisng Scn when I had had gains from it! Now I'm criticised for criticising Scn tech and accused of attitudes that are not mine.

All the best.

Let's get back to discussing if the meter contributes to any delusion in scientologists.

 

[Zinjifar]

Scientologists are trained to deliberately downplay and 'demystify' the e-meter in public in order to conceal the actual nature of Scientology. However, within Scientology the e-meter is a 'religous artifact' with unspoken power and importance.

All we're seeing here is the 'public PR' shore story conflicting with the actual usage.

Zinj

 

[lionheart]

Scientologists are trained to deliberately downplay and 'demystify' the e-meter in public in order to conceal the actual nature of Scientology. However, within Scientology the e-meter is a 'religous artifact' with unspoken power and importance.

All we're seeing here is the 'public PR' shore story conflicting with the actual usage.

Zinj

You've been reading my posts - you cheeky little monkey!

I said it was a shore story about 8 pages ago!

But you say it so well!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Funnily enough, originally I was hammered on here by posters because I was too pro-scn saying I had had gains! That was a real no-no to say that back then. Then I got criticised by FZers for being disloyal to Scn and criticisng Scn when I had had gains from it! Now I'm criticised for criticising Scn tech and accused of attitudes that are not mine.

I can believe it. I noted the presence on the board of many virulent "anti-anything-to-do-with-the-subject-of-scientology-ists" when I first joined ESMB. Fail to slam any mention of scientology and you were immediately "shot as a suspected enemy sympathizer".

I also noticed there are nowhere near as many individuals who admit to being continuing users of scientology tech. Those who are here don't tend to be as doctrinaire in their approaches either, unlike some of the worst of the critics.

My only genuine critique of your views is what I take as a tendency to inveigh too broadly against the freezone or the subject of scientology (as distinct from the Co$ and cult practices).

The FZ is too far ranging a collective for such simplistic categorizations. Within the freezone everyone associated with it to some degree considers himself to be using the spiritual technology of scientology to assist self & others. The FZ runs the gamut from total revision to robotism with quite a bit of "peculiar" thrown in.

Your views of the subject of scientology reflect your own experiences. Mine were different.

All the best.

Same to you.

Let's get back to discussing if the meter contributes to any delusion in scientologists.

To which my view is "no".

Delusional scientologists acquire their delusions as a result of their own individual misconceptions. This is a characteristic shared with delusional non-scientologists also. Such require no support from externalities such as meters to support those delusions. When their misconceptions are corrected their delusions end.

[n.b. Auditing as well as education can be helpful in correcting those individual misconceptions. ]

Scientologists who are not delusional in their thinking are not seduced by the indication phenomena of meters into a delusional state. Their conceptual understanding of a meter's correct usage is not faulty and hence not prone to support delusional ideas.

QED

Mark A. Baker

 

[Carmel]

DB...

<snip>
Delusional scientologists acquire their delusions as a result of their own individual misconceptions. This is a characteristic shared with delusional non-scientologists also. Such require no support from externalities such as meters to support those delusions. When their misconceptions are corrected their delusions end.

[n.b. Auditing as well as education can be helpful in correcting those individual misconceptions. ]

Scientologists who are not delusional in their thinking are not seduced by the indication phenomena of meters into a delusional state. Their conceptual understanding of a meter's correct usage is not faulty and hence not prone to support delusional ideas.

Agreed.

As I said in an earlier post, the e-meter doesn't 'put' anything there, it just helps detect what 'is' there, and that sometimes includes a pc's delusions that he or she sees as 'real'.

 

[Vinaire]

Agreed.

As I said in an earlier post, the e-meter doesn't 'put' anything there, it just helps detect what 'is' there, and that sometimes includes a pc's delusions that he or she sees as 'real'.

What does a pc see really?

I am investigating this on the "Effort to Simplify" thread in the area of recalls. That is turning out to be quite an interesting subject.

.

 

[lionheart]

I can believe it. I noted the presence on the board of many virulent "anti-anything-to-do-with-the-subject-of-scientology-ists" when I first joined ESMB. Fail to slam any mention of scientology and you were immediately "shot as a suspected enemy sympathizer".

I also noticed there are nowhere near as many individuals who admit to being continuing users of scientology tech. Those who are here don't tend to be as doctrinaire in their approaches either, unlike some of the worst of the critics.

When I first joined ESMB when it first started, the majority or loudest collective voice was generally a very anti-voice. So much so that even as a critic, when I said I got gains from Scn I was slammed noisily.

Now there are still relatively few Scn practitioners on ESMB, but the overall voice on ESMB is much more pro-scn than it used to be.

Of course these are generalisations, but the pervading "feel" and atmosphere does change over time. I just wanted to point out the irony that although now I am rather pilloried for being an extreme critic, the broadly same stance by me two years ago was pilloried for daring to suggest anything good was experienced by me when I was in the CofS.

I think this is ironic.

My only genuine critique of your views is what I take as a tendency to inveigh too broadly against the freezone or the subject of scientology (as distinct from the Co$ and cult practices).

The FZ is too far ranging a collective for such simplistic categorizations. Within the freezone everyone associated with it to some degree considers himself to be using the spiritual technology of scientology to assist self & others. The FZ runs the gamut from total revision to robotism with quite a bit of "peculiar" thrown in.

Your views of the subject of scientology reflect your own experiences. Mine were different.

And my only genuine critique of your answers is that they can be somewhat evasive or sometimes so oblique as to barely qualify as an answer.

I agree with Zinj on this thread that we are looking at a shore story versus the actuality. This is my opinion and I am not "screaming" or "shouting". I am just saying what I think. This is what I meant earlier in this thread when I talked about scientologists buying and repeating the shore story about the meter. I believe you are able to take criticism like this. Just as I can take your criticism of me and I do honestly consider what you say.

I think I understand why you answer the way you do, but don''t expect me to just accept that without question.

If I am too generalised in my depiction of the FZ, you tell me so and I try to get more specific. But again I notice you have still not answered the very specific question: do you personally use the meter to date incidents?

Also although the FZ is a disparate set of individuals and groups, this does not make them exempt from general criticism of Scn tech, which they all espouse in some variation or another.

As regards this thread. If a FZ group or individual exists that does not use the meter and its reads to influence the actions run on a PC please tell us about that individual or group. That would be relevant to this thread. But I suspect there is no such FZ group or individual. Therefore it seems to me to be legitimate to criticise the so-called FZ scientologists for dependence on the meter.

I believe you that some give the meter less credence, some apply more skill in granting beingness to the PC and that conversly others evaluate more strongly. I get that. But they all use the meter don't they? They all therefore to some degree or another alter the actions run on the PC based upon what the meter does.

Delusional scientologists acquire their delusions as a result of their own individual misconceptions. This is a characteristic shared with delusional non-scientologists also. Such require no support from externalities such as meters to support those delusions. When their misconceptions are corrected their delusions end.

[n.b. Auditing as well as education can be helpful in correcting those individual misconceptions. ]

Scientologists who are not delusional in their thinking are not seduced by the indication phenomena of meters into a delusional state. Their conceptual understanding of a meter's correct usage is not faulty and hence not prone to support delusional ideas.

QED

Mark A. Baker

Agreed.

As I said in an earlier post, the e-meter doesn't 'put' anything there, it just helps detect what 'is' there, and that sometimes includes a pc's delusions that he or she sees as 'real'.

In response to Mark's last point and Carmel's, let me pose a hyperthetical, but I think quite real, auditing scenario and maybe we can discuss if a delusion is facilitated or encouraged. I recognise that different people are more or less suggestible. But the above idea that the meter detects what "is" there can be looked at and critiqued.

So here goes:

Auditor doing a Dianetic correction list on a PC who has bogged on an R3R chain and got confused over some hazy pictures.

Auditor assesses from the correction list: "Is the incident really an implant?" LF on the meter.

Auditor looks at the pc and asks questioningly "is the incident really an implant?"

PC remembers Ron's definition of the words "electronic implant" "a painful and forceful means of overwhelming a PC with significance" The words had always been a bit mysterious to the PC and on his DN CS1 the auditor had cleared him on it until he sort of grasped the concept but not with much reality.

PC remembers sections of the book "Have You Lived Before This Life" which he read after he started his Dianetic auditing and he remembers the confusing electronic incidents described in there. He also remembers a tape or two where Ron talked about implants.

PC realises from the auditor's repetiton of the question that it must have read on the meter. He wonders if this hazy incident may be hazy and unreal because it consists of pictures and confusing concepts that may have been forced on him as described by Ron.

This makes sense to the PC and explains for him why it was difficult to run as an ordinary Dianetic incident.

"Yes!" says the PC in relief at this realisation that explains the bog he experienced. The realisation makes him feel relieved and somehow lighter.

Auditor notes down that the TA blows down on this recognition so feels happy also that truth has been realised.

"I'd like to indicate that the incident is really an implant!" says the auditor.

The PC feels even more relieved at this "truth" discovered. GI's but suddenly he feels intrigued again. Just what are these implant things? Maybe at last this is an opportunity for him to understand and experience one for himself and why would someone "implant" him like that and, and ...

Auditor notices indicators have gone out. Needle has tightened and TA is rising again.

"We'll date that incident now ..." he says. Consulting the PC and and the meter he asks "was it more than a thousand years ago, less than a thousand years ago?" He notices "more than" reads. "was it more than a thousand years ago?" he asks the Pc while granting him beingness with excellent TRs.

Ah the meter read on more than a thousand years, thinks the PC "Yes! I think it was!" agrees the PC, feeling excited.

"Good" says the auditor. "I'd like to indicate it was more than a thousand years ago." He says agreeing with the PC.

"Was it more than ten thousand years ago, less than ten thousand years ago?" He notices "more than" reads. "was it more than ten thousand years ago?" he asks the Pc while granting him beingness with excellent TRs.

PC knows the meter has indicated it was more than ten thousand years ago. "yes! I'm sure it was a long time ago!" It makes more sense somehow to the PC now. "The "bastards!" he laughs.

The auditor sees the TA blows down, the needle floats, auditor pauses and PC says "I used to have nightmares when I was a kid, now I know where they came from!"

PC feels relieved and that he understands himself better now. Auditor indicates the F/N and says "End of session".

PC goes to the examiner and originates "I've just discovered I am an imortal being!" glowing and smiling broadly. "Your needle is floating" says the examiner and maybe the examiner smiles, sharing the PC's win.

I know auditing practice varies slightly over the years, but I think most auditors and PCs would recognise the above as a reasonable depiction of a Dianetics session and a PC's out of session education.

So, what was "there", before the meter reads were fed to the PC? Does the PC feel better because "truth" has been revealed or does he feel better, because a mystery has been explained? And does he feel better because he feels he has had proof of his immortality? What did the original read on "is the incident really an implant" actually signify? Did it mean there was an implant or did it mean that the PC had a mystery suggestion implanted in his thinking by Hubbard's description of such things?

Was the hazy incident an implant or was the PC putting a hazy incident there because of what he'd read about them?

What was validated by the meter? Truth or a suggested delusion?

Did the reads on dates mean the dates were "true" or did the read on dates mean that the PC had been educated into believeing such dates?

Is the meter a delusion facilitator?

 

[AnonOrange]

If you see a public "stress table" with e-meter ...

There is something that needs to be done whenever you encounter a stress table. It's best done with two people and requires a tiny bit of preparation.

I don't want to post this online, but PM me and if I recognize you as a frequent contributor to this board, I will tell you. Sorry to be so discrete, but it's important to keep this secret for now.

Thanks.

 

[Free to shine]

Oh my goodness LH - were you a fly on the wall during my Dianetics sessions?

That's exactly the sort of thing that happened. I can't talk as an advanced auditor, having only studied Dianetics auditing, but I can certainly talk from the viewpoint of a PC, and your example is spot on.

As a PC you want to achieve the stated end result, get where you are going on the "Bridge". So many actions are not what you actually need, yet they have to be done and the correct result achieved before you can get on with what really interests you ( if ever you do). So if something in a session goes haywire and the auditor is looking at you to confirm a meter read that would explain it - what happens? You tend to agree. And the "win" can often be relief that this particular auditing is over! Or if you have doubt about a date, wow - the meter is reading on this date so it must be so! The auditor + meter are there to help you confront your 'bank' after all - they must know what they are doing as your own 'case' is below your awareness, right?

Thanks for taking the time for all your input in this discussion.

 

[lionheart]

Oh my goodness LH - were you a fly on the wall during my Dianetics sessions?

That's exactly the sort of thing that happened. I can't talk as an advanced auditor, having only studied Dianetics auditing, but I can certainly talk from the viewpoint of a PC, and your example is spot on.

As a PC you want to achieve the stated end result, get where you are going on the "Bridge". So many actions are not what you actually need, yet they have to be done and the correct result achieved before you can get on with what really interests you ( if ever you do). So if something in a session goes haywire and the auditor is looking at you to confirm a meter read that would explain it - what happens? You tend to agree. And the "win" can often be relief that this particular auditing is over! Or if you have doubt about a date, wow - the meter is reading on this date so it must be so! The auditor + meter are there to help you confront your 'bank' after all - they must know what they are doing as your own 'case' is below your awareness, right?

Thanks for taking the time for all your input in this discussion.

It occurred to me on this thread that the criticism I was getting was implying I didn't know what I was talking about as regards the tech.

I realised I hadn't talked much about what I actually achieved as an auditor, so I thought I would talk about it a little, which goes against the grain to do the Scn status thing, but I was a good auditor, better than any other I met or had audit me!

Just before I was declared I was asked by Flag to write up why my tech department was so successful with 100% re-sign-up rate. I knew my stuff on the tech.

The sample session I wrote up above was an accurate example of how I helped people verify their delusions!

Besides which, yes I was a fly on your auditing room wall, the meter told me I was running multiple bodies at that time! Or maybe I was your auditor! Actually, no I wasn't your auditor. I never would have accepted relief the auditing was over as an EP. I'm sorry your auditing experience included such a dreadful thing.

The whole theory of the meter at lower levels is that it "measures just below the PC's awareness". Another way of wording those words of Ron's would be that the meter helps the PC become aware of what he was not aware of before the meter read.

The question is whether what the PC becomes "aware" of is true or suggested, or delusion, or evaluated, or implanted by the subject of Scn.

I can only recall one Ron clarification as regards the meter at higher levels where he says a read on a clear can mean "no". Anyone else know of any other differences that Ron said about the meter at higher levels?

From what I know of the implantology (dealing with implants) levels it appears that the meter is used in the same way as lower levels. i.e. indicating "charge" or in cases like dating indicating "yes".

In Ron's "Targs" session from 1952 he and Mary Sue were using the meter as a truth detector. That's the only other Ron reference that I can recall right now. Were those "awarenesses" that Ron used the meter to verify in that session delusional? Those meter verified "awarenesses" are the foundation of his later implants and OTIII tech.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Scientologists are trained to deliberately downplay and 'demystify' the e-meter in public in order to conceal the actual nature of Scientology. However, within Scientology the e-meter is a 'religous artifact' with unspoken power and importance.

All we're seeing here is the 'public PR' shore story conflicting with the actual usage.

Zinj

I never ever received any such training in CofS or after I left. So, no. I didn't post a public PR shore story.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I agree with Zinj on this thread that we are looking at a shore story versus the actuality.

"Shore story" implies that when I posted when I posted I was either lying or that I'd been told to say and think that. Neither is the case.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Agreed.

As I said in an earlier post, the e-meter doesn't 'put' anything there, it just helps detect what 'is' there, and that sometimes includes a pc's delusions that he or she sees as 'real'.

But they'd be his or her "delusions"- if delusions they are. It's not a case of the meter putting anything there or the auditor putting anything there. One takes the pc's data. Even psychologists (the dreaded "eeevil psychs", ya know) don't quash or contradict (notice I don't say "invalidate"- LOL!) their patients when they (the patients, I mean) claim that they've been and done people/deeds/etc that clearly never existed.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

It was defined in the sentence you quoted in which I used it! "implantology (dealing with implants) levels"

Still don't know what you mean.

My Bold. But we've beaten this to death now and have clarified what we each meant. And I think the three of us have all agreed that the meter reaction alters the path of the session or sessions, so therefore meter reaction tells scientologists something which they use in sessions.

No, I do not think the emeter alters the path of the session or sessions, unless it's an assessment that's being run. So, no, all three of us don't agree on that one.

Exactly, so why not ask me instead of assuming you know why? I've given the answer in these recent posts. I believe I have been consistant over the past two years.

Our previous exchanges were quite telling. 'Nuff said.

 

[me myself & i]

But they'd be his or her "delusions"- if delusions they are. It's not a case of the meter putting anything there or the auditor putting anything there. One takes the pc's data. Even psychologists (the dreaded "eeevil psychs", ya know) don't quash or contradict (notice I don't say "invalidate"- LOL!) their patients when they (the patients, I mean) claim that they've been and done people/deeds/etc that clearly never existed.

Nonsense.

Psychology exists to help delusional individuals recognize their delusions (if possible) in order that that individual may function in society. Scientology exists to create and perpetuate delusions (if possible) in order that that individual may function in scientology.

In all of your years and years and years of (nauseating) speech about the inherent value of scientology, you have yet to show any of us, one single solitary true leader of the world, in any field of endeavor whatsoever, that is a scientologist. Excepting of course, yourself.

Which confirms your rightful status as a scientologist.

mm&i

P.S. for newbies or lurkers, Fluffy has put me on ignore, and made it known to the entire free ESMB world of her decision to do so. Thus she won't be allowing herself to even read my response to her post.

Now there's scientology enlightenment in action.

LOL!

LOL!

 

[Ted]

Just before I was declared I was asked by Flag to write up why my tech department was so successful with 100% re-sign-up rate. I knew my stuff on the tech.

The question is whether what the PC becomes "aware" of is true or suggested, or delusion, or evaluated, or implanted by the subject of Scn.

I can only recall one Ron clarification as regards the meter at higher levels where he says a read on a clear can mean "no". Anyone else know of any other differences that Ron said about the meter at higher levels?

100% sign-up rate earns you a declare!? That seems to be standard admin.

But, to answer your question: On a BC lecture LRH said an OT would have to say the meter will read before it reads.


--
Ted

 

[Ted]

Is the meter a delusion facilitator?

Given your very real example of a Dianetic session, I would say, "Yes," to your question.

I would add that the meter is also a control facilitator. Whether that control is good or bad depends on the expectations and desires of the people involved.

The more an auditor and pc push into the so-called case, the greater the opportunity for stirring up BPC. The meter is very useful in getting into the charged areas. It is very useful in getting out of them. Realities on highly charged areas often start in delusion (dub-in and other unrealities).

In a Scientology organization the pc has expectations and desires gained through reading books, talking to registrars, other pc's, and so on. The auditor has expectations derived by studying the same books, HCOB's, C/S instructions, his own experience as a pc, etc.

The above I call "setups." In this sense, a setup is not inherently devious although it might be. I mean, anyone who is going to do a craftsmanlike job or a performance has to have some sort of setup before the work begins.

The desires and expectations of all involved (including that of any SP) merge in that unit of time called a "session."

We can wonder if there would be so much charge without the setups provided by Scientology, its people, and the pc's connections, but that is another subject.

--
Ted