The Phoenix Lectures

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Mostly I'm here because I'm a Scientology watcher.
Pretty much everything gets reported here.

I don't see the tech as intrinsically evil. Its not perfect
and has gone off the rails in some places. As time has
progressed its been used with less than benign purposes,
mostly connected to being driven by monetary standards.
What I've written about in this post is something that happened more than 40 years ago when I did grade 4. This was
delivered as free student auditing as were all the grades.
Delivered with only the intention of enhancing me. This is
the intention common in the freezone and I know many who
have befitted. I pretty much reject the Admin, and I studied all of it, and consider command intention in Scn is evil.
I've spent 7 years regularly protesting with Anon and for
17 years or so written many posts castigating CO$. I am
unusual in that I didn't have bad experiences while associating with CO$. When I had one I left for good. Some years later
I found the internet and was shocked by the stories I read.
As expected, you do not understand what I am saying. That's OK since you continue to give me the opportunity to make my points.

You talk about the "intention" of various practitioners as if this meant something. Of course their intention is to do good. Unfortunately, that is part of the trap. If someone's intention is to do good, you think, certainly that's going to happen. That isn't true.

And, once again you talk about vague "benefits". "... many who have benefited". How long did these "benefits" last? Exactly what happened? How are these "benefits" different from what happens naturally from living and learning? How many people became believers, trapped in the endless quest to become one of Hubbard's homo novis? You never say. You never seem to even look at the "tech" in this way.

Note that "feeling great" for a few minutes or a few hours is not a benefit. At best, it is a side effect.

You seem to think that becoming a believer in Hubbard's never-to-be-achieved higher states is a good thing. I think what someone believes is their business but actively working to get others trapped in Hubbard's promises is evil, regardless of your intentions.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Mostly I'm here because I'm a Scientology watcher.
Pretty much everything gets reported here.

I don't see the tech as intrinsically evil. Its not perfect
and has gone off the rails in some places. As time has
progressed its been used with less than benign purposes,
mostly connected to being driven by monetary standards.
What I've written about in this post is something that happened more than 40 years ago when I did grade 4. This was
delivered as free student auditing as were all the grades.
Delivered with only the intention of enhancing me. This is
the intention common in the freezone and I know many who
have befitted. I pretty much reject the Admin, and I studied all of it, and consider command intention in Scn is evil.
I've spent 7 years regularly protesting with Anon and for
17 years or so written many posts castigating CO$. I am
unusual in that I didn't have bad experiences while associating with CO$. When I had one I left for good. Some years later
I found the internet and was shocked by the stories I read.


Terril, you have admitted on a number of occasions that (despite your many decades participating in or promoting "Ron's Tech") that you never actually studied the auditing tech and advanced up the training side of the Grade Chart.

Let me help you out here for a moment. If I had been C/Sing a PC who never thinks the tech works, I would use Ron's "HIDDEN STANDARD" remedy. To wit, they would be run on a process in session consisting of one command:

"WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN TO YOU
TO KNOW THAT SCIENTOLOGY WORKED?"

However, if I was C/Sing your case now (2017), I would order the opposite remedy. It's run on PCs who always thinks the tech works.


"WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN TO YOU
TO KNOW THAT SCIENTOLOGY DIDN'T WORK?"


Seriously, Terill, WTF would have to happen for you to figure out that Scientology is a cruel hoax? I am guessing that even if Dr. Hubbard himself came back "on this planet" and issued a statement "in writing' where he admitted that it was all a fraud, you'd respond by sending an "orders query" uplines, where you would challenge Source's confession as being "non-standard".

All true-believers, dupes & marks would have a defining moment if Hubbard "got off" the "O/W" that he personally profited by hundreds of millions of dollars by defrauding countless victims by selling them imaginary rubbish. Let's see how they would react. . .

STATEMENT ISSUED IN WRITING BY DR. HUBBARD: "Well, to be honest, I must pulled all this ridiculous Scientology technology out of my ass. There is no Clear. There is no OT. There is no Total Freedom. The man on the cross---there was no Christ. The man on the org board---there was no Source." -L. Ron Hubbard, Commodore

REACTION OF SCIENTOLOGIST: "Wow! I just read, M9'd and clay-demo'd Ron's newest breakthrough! Unbelievable! I just couldn't stop grinning and laughing and cogniting! That new issue totally handled my ruin that I have been trying to handled since I first got on the Bridge! Just from reading that, I had more case gain in this moment than the entire cumulative case gain I have had in Scientology for the past 40 years! I want to thank the Commodore, to whom I will eternally be grateful. I can't wait to do my next action on the Bridge to Total Freedom!" -Billy Blowdown, OT VIII

.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
As expected, you do not understand what I am saying. That's OK since you continue to give me the opportunity to make my points.

You talk about the "intention" of various practitioners as if this meant something. Of course their intention is to do good. Unfortunately, that is part of the trap. If someone's intention is to do good, you think, certainly that's going to happen. That isn't true.

And, once again you talk about vague "benefits". "Many who have benefited". How long did these "benefits" last? Exactly what happened? How are these "benefits" different from what happens naturally from living and learning? How many people became believers, trapped in the endless quest to become one of Hubbard's homo novis? You never say. You never seem to even look at the "tech" in this way.

You seem to think that becoming a believer in Hubbard's never-to-be-achieved higher states is a good thing. I think what someone believes is their business but actively working to get others trapped in Hubbard's promises is evil, regardless of your intentions.
Yes. And whose to say that DM and any of his minions don't firmly believe that they are trying to do the right thing?

In a nod to Godwin, I'm picturing a doctor or scientist who worked on genetics for the Nazis and many years later is still working in genetics and has a picture of himself with his old war era project team mates on the office wall hung in a place of honor behind his desk. Clearly there were some valid technical aspects of the project that might feasibly be of some benefit or interest to humanity but he still hasn't made the association with the evil of what was actually done in the name of genetics in his own mind enough to realize that it's time to relegate the picture to storage and he continues to share nostalgic stories of the good ol days with his patients and peers as they give each other half glances to check each other's reactions.

I'm not trying to call anyone a Nazi here but that is kind of where things are now. If you go around spouting the benefits of Scientology as far as a lot of people are concerned you are probably viewed as someone like this. It does help to sneak in a few qualifiers like; I'm not part of organized Scientology, I demonstrated against the abuses of the Church, some of the policies and tech are harmful, - but it still doesn't dispel the notion that there is still something very disturbing about this remaining appreciation for LRH and Scientology.

However, there are lot's of different kinds of people who read this forum and it is probably good for them to see the various mindsets of people who have been in Scientology.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
This is one of the best-written rationales for why techies are attacked here on ESMB that I have seen. This is far better than the rabid and visceral "because Hubbard was a fat con artist" type responses that are usually given. Of course, the implication of what you say is that Hubbard WAS a con artist, but that's besides the point.

W.
I agree with you in theory but I don't believe a new ''techie'' would be seriously attacked here unless they were being deliberately provocative, hurtful or offensive, they may find opposition to their ideas regarding hubbard and scientology but that is a very different thing.

Terril has being coming here promoting scientology and his beloved hubbard at us for almost 10 years though, he's mostly ignored these days but over the years many of us have put enormous effort into reponses to him (myself included) ... it has made not a jot of difference and it clearly never will, he apparently still sees ESMB as his personal marketplace for new meat and has the skin of a rhinoceros (as most scientologists do until they snap out of it, lose the "TR's" and start to become themselves again).

For the sake of the newbies (and we have a lot of them recently, which is fantastic!) I will try to either hang onto my patience or refrain from posting at all when Terril is here promoting scientology.


;)
 

Wilbur

Patron Meritorious
Yes. And whose to say that DM and any of his minions don't firmly believe that they are trying to do the right thing?

In a nod to Godwin, I'm picturing a doctor or scientist who worked on genetics for the Nazis and many years later is still working in genetics and has a picture of himself with his old war era project team mates on the office wall hung in a place of honor behind his desk. Clearly there were some valid technical aspects of the project that might feasibly be of some benefit or interest to humanity but he still hasn't made the association with the evil of what was actually done in the name of genetics in his own mind enough to realize that it's time to relegate the picture to storage and he continues to share nostalgic stories of the good ol days with his patients and peers as they give each other half glances to check each other's reactions.

I'm not trying to call anyone a Nazi here but that is kind of where things are now. If you go around spouting the benefits of Scientology as far as a lot of people are concerned you are probably viewed as someone like this. It does help to sneak in a few qualifiers like; I'm not part of organized Scientology, I demonstrated against the abuses of the Church, some of the policies and tech are harmful, - but it still doesn't dispel the notion that there is still something very disturbing about this remaining appreciation for LRH and Scientology.

However, there are lot's of different kinds of people who read this forum and it is probably good for them to see the various mindsets of people who have been in Scientology.
I personally don't like it when people just shout the equivalent of "Nazi" or some other unthinking pejorative when someone on the board says they still believe in the tech, but not the 'church'. To my mind, it's the same mindset as a Scientologist saying you are an SP if you criticise the church. The only difference is the identity of the 'in' group. I think people should be free to believe in the tech (of auditing as a personal betterment tool, that is, not of fair game etc). If others think that such people are misguided, naive, not yet evolved enough to realise it's bullshit, etc., then that's OK, but they should be allowed to have those beliefs anyway. It's really quite arrogant when a person "knows they are right" and refuses to acknowledge that the other person also thinks they are right. Ramming one's own beliefs (no matter how well-informed you think they are) down others' throats is bad form, in my opinion, regardless of whether those beliefs are in Scientology tech, or in the nonsensicality of Scn tech. I'd like to see people focus on addressing the issues with the organisation (fleecing people, fair game, etc), and leave people to decide for themselves whether Scn tech is their path to enlightenment.

W.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
I personally don't like it when people just shout the equivalent of "Nazi" or some other unthinking pejorative when someone on the board says they still believe in the tech, but not the 'church'. To my mind, it's the same mindset as a Scientologist saying you are an SP if you criticise the church. The only difference is the identity of the 'in' group. I think people should be free to believe in the tech (of auditing as a personal betterment tool, that is, not of fair game etc). If others think that such people are misguided, naive, not yet evolved enough to realise it's bullshit, etc., then that's OK, but they should be allowed to have those beliefs anyway. It's really quite arrogant when a person "knows they are right" and refuses to acknowledge that the other person also thinks they are right. Ramming one's own beliefs (no matter how well-informed you think they are) down others' throats is bad form, in my opinion, regardless of whether those beliefs are in Scientology tech, or in the nonsensicality of Scn tech. I'd like to see people focus on addressing the issues with the organisation (fleecing people, fair game, etc), and leave people to decide for themselves whether Scn tech is their path to enlightenment.

W.
I agree. A person's belief is their belief. In general, if a person chooses Hubbard's "tech", that's fine -- BUT -- I believe strongly that people should be fully informed about this "tech". And by "fully informed" I mean:
  • It doesn't do what is promised at all.
  • The actual "benefits", if any, are quite mundane and more easily obtained in other ways, safer ways.
  • The states of "Release", "Clear", "OT" and homo novis are fictitious and cannot be attained via Hubbard's "tech".
  • The quest to attain the higher states that Hubbard promises can be, and often is, a trap.
  • People sometimes feel a kind of euphoria at the end of a session. This is mistaken as a sign that "progress" has been made. The feeling is short-lived and no "progress" is ever made.
  • Ultimately, getting involved in Hubbard's "tech" is a waste of time and, for some, a waste of a lifetime.
 

EZ Linus

Cleared Tomato
Yes, no one knows how long that brain endorphin rush will last.
It could be days or only minutes.

And if the F/N does not happen with the examiner in Qual then the C/S will try to find something wrong with the auditing session and then send the auditor to cramming in Qual (really because the endorphin effect did not last long enough).
Yes, I too agree with Big Blue on this. I've had quite the experiences with being sent to cramming because the EP didn't last long (like as long as it took in the time it took me to walk down the stairs from the course room (or the HGC) to the examiner's at AOLA. And then they want that damn success story too! What the hell? It's Scientology that wants the "proof" from you that you are "winning." It all feeds the continual mindfuck--the idea that Scientology "works," is giving you gains, is "scientific," and is making you feel euphoric. Those are all just endorphins you know. That is so correct! That's what makes you decide (a lot like a drug addict) that "this is the shit!"

When a person makes a decision, the brain’s limbic system generates an emotional response. The pre-frontal cortex works a lot like a computer. It normally produces rational thinking, but add that dopamine into the brain’s reward center and it will start transmiting these signals to relate with feeling happy and exposing you to this "reward," as well as tons of social acceptance you get in the group. Feeling these rewards mean there are biological reasons that people respond so intensely to what peers think of them. It makes their decisions to do things that they would never do on their own or otherwise. It's peer pressure gone mad. It's a huge piece of the brainwashing puzzle: Reciprocation, peer pressure, surrendering control, rewards and punishments, life or death existence...and on it goes. :(

I haven't been really keep in/up with this thread because it's been super sidetracked with Terril's "situation," and I just think there are so many wasted words there. I don't want to add any. I just wanted to maybe point that out for those of you that are trying to get him to "realize" something. I mean, maybe it's not wasted. I don't know. I do believe if Hubbard was still alive and told him himself that it was all a con he made up as he went along, it still would not convince him of anything. There are plenty of people that continued to believe in that guru that finally revealed himself in the hoax he participated in with James Randi. People believe what they want (need to) sometimes.
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
I personally don't like it when people just shout the equivalent of "Nazi" or some other unthinking pejorative when someone on the board says they still believe in the tech, but not the 'church'. To my mind, it's the same mindset as a Scientologist saying you are an SP if you criticise the church. The only difference is the identity of the 'in' group. I think people should be free to believe in the tech (of auditing as a personal betterment tool, that is, not of fair game etc). If others think that such people are misguided, naive, not yet evolved enough to realise it's bullshit, etc., then that's OK, but they should be allowed to have those beliefs anyway. It's really quite arrogant when a person "knows they are right" and refuses to acknowledge that the other person also thinks they are right. Ramming one's own beliefs (no matter how well-informed you think they are) down others' throats is bad form, in my opinion, regardless of whether those beliefs are in Scientology tech, or in the nonsensicality of Scn tech. I'd like to see people focus on addressing the issues with the organisation (fleecing people, fair game, etc), and leave people to decide for themselves whether Scn tech is their path to enlightenment.

W.

This board is for people to chat about issues they have (or are working through) as a result of having been a member of the cofs or because they have an interest in it. You won't always get a perfectly written, logical response because when people leave the cult and start to relax they often re-discover emotion ... and that's a very positive step on the road to recovery that nobody should ever forget.

People have been damaged in many ways by scientology and I will never again be lectured to by someone trying to tell me scientology "works" no matter how determined and polite they are about it, though I may choose to just stay away from the thread and often do ... but of course they are free to believe whatever they like for as long as they like.

We are a tolerant group overall (I see very little arrogance) and for many of us it was incredibly refreshing (mind blowingly so) when we found ESMB to observe people thrashing things out without trying to be too careful about "invalidating" someone and especially someone who is here for marketing purposes, it was why many of us felt comfortable joining.

Long may it continue.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
I personally don't like it when people just shout the equivalent of "Nazi" or some other unthinking pejorative when someone on the board says they still believe in the tech, but not the 'church'. To my mind, it's the same mindset as a Scientologist saying you are an SP if you criticise the church. The only difference is the identity of the 'in' group. I think people should be free to believe in the tech (of auditing as a personal betterment tool, that is, not of fair game etc). If others think that such people are misguided, naive, not yet evolved enough to realise it's bullshit, etc., then that's OK, but they should be allowed to have those beliefs anyway. It's really quite arrogant when a person "knows they are right" and refuses to acknowledge that the other person also thinks they are right. Ramming one's own beliefs (no matter how well-informed you think they are) down others' throats is bad form, in my opinion, regardless of whether those beliefs are in Scientology tech, or in the nonsensicality of Scn tech. I'd like to see people focus on addressing the issues with the organisation (fleecing people, fair game, etc), and leave people to decide for themselves whether Scn tech is their path to enlightenment.

W.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. Trying to imply someone is a Nazi is a joke anymore since it's become a game of who plays the card first. So pick any group that uses a technology that has merit and potential for good, for evil purposes. Most people are sensible enough to isolate those elements that they consider to be workable or beneficial from those that aren't AND to distance themselves from association with that group.

It is relatively easy to overlook someone not doing this when they are not knowledgeable about the evil things that were done, such as is often the case with Scientologists who have not been on staff, but I think society is losing patience with this in the case of Scientology. Do we care if Muslims believe Muhammad rode a flying horse to Jerusalem? Not really, but that belief ties in with the Islamic goal of conquering Jerusalem. It is not realistic to expect that people make these kinds of distinctions with Scientology any more. Believing in things like Xenu and BTs has caused real harm. It isn't just a silly Scientology fairy tale.

Ironically, on this forum we may be sophisticated enough to understand these nuanced issues and maybe that is why some people may feel comfortable touting elements of Scientology that they consider to be beneficial here, even in consideration of the caveats, but I suspect the places where someone can do this are vanishing right along with Scientology itself - the fact that Scientologists in good standing aren't allowed to have intellectual discussions about Scientology notwithstanding.

I held LRH and Scientology with a degree of respect for a long time even after not having anything more to do with the organization but now as I review every aspect of it that I might find myself still using I find it extremely difficult to defend and I find it virtually unreadable knowing how the stuff I'm reading is actually interpreted and applied in real life. In order to defend any element of Scientology you must be willing to cut the process of defining causality short.

But I have consistently said that there should be more patience with people who talk up some things about Scientology here because I think it is important for everyone who reads the forum to understand how Scientology influences people and I still feel that way and I don't think this thread is an exception. There were a number of disappointing instances where people were kind of run off before they got to flesh out their line of thinking and if things keep going the way they are we may look forward to the times when someone still does that as a kind of novelty.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
For the sake of the newbies (and we have a lot of them recently, which is fantastic!) I will try to either hang onto my patience or refrain from posting at all when Terril is here promoting scientology.

;)
Oh yeah?????
Tell my why.....

You're a big girl... and you usually display a flawless logic based on facts, twhich you should keep sharing with generosity ;) , and be proud to stand by your take on Hubtard and his scamology...I am convinced newbies and lurkers appreciate reading you ..they come here to read truth and facts ...(they may get of release to read how $cientology is a scam and the pseudo-wins are so childish, stupid and out of reality..like in a collective mental illness...as we got when we read the first time here...)

I never read anything offensive you ever wrote... (to the opposite of me...lol)

IMHO, the real offensive content that may be displayed on ex-$cientology boards is happening because some people keep fooling naive people and promoting an evil brainwashing pseudo tech that only destroys human beings true nature , in order to introduce in their brain wrong concepts resulting in their ego inflating (almost exploding). This , unfortunately results in becoming dependant of what some (either delluded or charlatan people) still call ''Therapy'' , or ''religion'' even though it (auditing) has nothing of a therapy neither of a religious confessional.....it has all of a scam, a lie detecting procedure (to be used for further blackmail) a fraud and an evil technology which only succeed (in the reality) to destroy lives, mental health, families and children's futur.

The truth came out because , a few decades ago, few people were courageous and brave to stand alone in speaking out , spilling the beans, against thousands of offended delluded cult followers (we were part of :cool: before we've been enlightened...)

So let's keep on going.. :hifive::clap2:
:bravo:

occupy-wolf-st.jpg

:p:D
 
Last edited:

Free Being Me

Crusader
I personally don't like it when people just shout the equivalent of "Nazi" or some other unthinking pejorative when someone on the board says they still believe in the tech, but not the 'church'. To my mind, it's the same mindset as a Scientologist saying you are an SP if you criticise the church. The only difference is the identity of the 'in' group. I think people should be free to believe in the tech (of auditing as a personal betterment tool, that is, not of fair game etc). If others think that such people are misguided, naive, not yet evolved enough to realise it's bullshit, etc., then that's OK, but they should be allowed to have those beliefs anyway. It's really quite arrogant when a person "knows they are right" and refuses to acknowledge that the other person also thinks they are right. Ramming one's own beliefs (no matter how well-informed you think they are) down others' throats is bad form, in my opinion, regardless of whether those beliefs are in Scientology tech, or in the nonsensicality of Scn tech. I'd like to see people focus on addressing the issues with the organisation (fleecing people, fair game, etc), and leave people to decide for themselves whether Scn tech is their path to enlightenment.

W.
Speaking of arrogance, your constant pontificating as to how Ex's are supposed to criticize the $cio-cult is wearing thin. Enabling & coddling $cio cult-think helps no one that's sincerely interested in exploring cult recovery ridding themselves of Elcon's manipulations.
I agree with you in theory but I don't believe a new ''techie'' would be seriously attacked here unless they were being deliberately provocative, hurtful or offensive, they may find opposition to their ideas regarding hubbard and scientology but that is a very different thing.

Terril has being coming here promoting scientology and his beloved hubbard at us for almost 10 years though, he's mostly ignored these days but over the years many of us have put enormous effort into reponses to him (myself included) ... it has made not a jot of difference and it clearly never will, he apparently still sees ESMB as his personal marketplace for new meat and has the skin of a rhinoceros (as most scientologists do until they snap out of it, lose the "TR's" and start to become themselves again).

For the sake of the newbies (and we have a lot of them recently, which is fantastic!) I will try to either hang onto my patience or refrain from posting at all when Terril is here promoting scientology.


;)
Regarding newbies, Ex's speaking their minds about Elcon, Slappy and $cientology delving into the nuts and bolts of cultist deception is precisely why I kept reading threads here. By all means, if you have something to say don't hold your tongue, speak up.

:gathering:

:scnsucks:
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Scientology apologists remind me of the OJ juror, who, during deliberations, kept thinking “Yeah he had Nicole’s blood on his shoes, but on the other hand he won the Heisman.”
 

Wilbur

Patron Meritorious
Speaking of arrogance, your constant pontificating as to how Ex's are supposed to criticize the $cio-cult is wearing thin. Enabling & coddling $cio cult-think helps no one that's sincerely interested in exploring cult recovery ridding themselves of Elcon's manipulations.

Regarding newbies, Ex's speaking their minds about Elcon, Slappy and $cientology delving into the nuts and bolts of cultist deception is precisely why I kept reading threads here. By all means, if you have something to say don't hold your tongue, speak up.

:gathering:

:scnsucks:
Yes, and the constant harping about "Scientology is so damaging that we're not allowed to talk about it in anything but prescribed critical terms sanctioned by those of us who were stupid enough to waste 20 years of our life in the sea org" is wearing thin with me also.

I think I'm done with this board. It's starting to bore me.
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
Yes, and the constant harping about "Scientology is so damaging that we're not allowed to talk about it in anything but prescribed critical terms sanctioned by those of us who were stupid enough to waste 20 years of our life in the sea org" is wearing thin with me also.

I think I'm done with this board. It's starting to bore me.
fNKnczQ.jpg
I didn't post that statement however if you want to get mileage out of concocting a strawman argument when challenged on your cult apology shtick then knock yourself out. Above is your Golden Flounce Award. lol.

People landing here are trying to figure out what happened to them, what did they join, what did $cientology do to them while manipulating them, and a lot of other questions in the mind-fuck maze of Elcon's cult, are searching for an exit to live a cult free life. I see no point in making that harder for them than it already is with misleading pro-cult rhetorical bullshit semantics and sophistry.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
But I have consistently said that there should be more patience with people who talk up some things about Scientology here because I think it is important for everyone who reads the forum to understand how Scientology influences people and I still feel that way and I don't think this thread is an exception. There were a number of disappointing instances where people were kind of run off before they got to flesh out their line of thinking and if things keep going the way they are we may look forward to the times when someone still does that as a kind of novelty.
I'm not sure what you mean by "there should be more patience with people who talk up some things about Scientology here". What would that look like?

Someone comes here and says "the CoS is bad but Scientology is good". What are we supposed to say? "You are right! Scientology is good!"? Is that your picture of how we should respond? If not, how would you like people here to respond to someone's "Scientology is good" statement?
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm not sure what you mean by "there should be more patience with people who talk up some things about Scientology here". What would that look like?

Someone comes here and says "the CoS is bad but Scientology is good". What are we supposed to say? "You are right! Scientology is good!"? Is that your picture of how we should respond? If not, how would you like people here to respond to someone's "Scientology is good" statement?
I think we should draw them out so people can get to see the line of thinking - at least not blow them away too quickly.

It is good for people to see how intransigent they are, how effective Scientology is at fixing thought processes. I think we are getting more sophisticated or diplomatic about how to do this. To put it another way, I think it is better to let the discussion show how people think and why instead of focusing on what they think and shutting them down for that.

I think this thread has been pretty good about that. I liked the Phoenix Lectures. As I've said I still have them. But in all those years of trying to use all that to think with I never asked myself the single most important question - what if it is all complete bullshit? What if there are no such things as thetans? Asking a question of oneself like that gives you the opportunity to do a complete reset. When you have someone who has followed the critical discussion online for many years and knows the facts but still pushes this stuff, it's good for people to see how that plays out too.

Too wonkish? Did I do a flyby?

 

Terril park

Sponsor
Terril, you have admitted on a number of occasions that (despite your many decades participating in or promoting "Ron's Tech") that you never actually studied the auditing tech and advanced up the training side of the Grade Chart.

Let me help you out here for a moment. If I had been C/Sing a PC who never thinks the tech works, I would use Ron's "HIDDEN STANDARD" remedy. To wit, they would be run on a process in session consisting of one command:

"WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN TO YOU
TO KNOW THAT SCIENTOLOGY WORKED?"

However, if I was C/Sing your case now (2017), I would order the opposite remedy. It's run on PCs who always thinks the tech works.


"WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN TO YOU
TO KNOW THAT SCIENTOLOGY DIDN'T WORK?"




.
I'm an interned auditor on NED I've studied all the grades
and for 17 years been exposed to conversations re tech with those highly trained including class XIIs.

I know without doubt that scientology can work. Its obvious
it doesn't always do so. About 50% of my auditing in COS
was irrelevant but there were many sessions that were revelatory. I know very many who had good results including
some of my PCs
It is thus impossible for me to know that it can't work.

If the many schools of psychotherapy have some workability
why not Scn?
 

pineapple

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'm not sure what you mean by "there should be more patience with people who talk up some things about Scientology here". What would that look like?

Someone comes here and says "the CoS is bad but Scientology is good". What are we supposed to say? "You are right! Scientology is good!"? Is that your picture of how we should respond? If not, how would you like people here to respond to someone's "Scientology is good" statement?
It may take a while for someone to get from "CoS is bad" to "Scn is bad." (It did for me.) Better to take it on a gradient -- one of the few things in scn that isn't complete bullshit. If the person can see that CoS is bad, that's a start. Now get them to see that there are some things in the tech that don't work as described, or at least not all the time. If I were cooking up a squirrel process, I might recommend:

Tell me something about scn that is good.
Tell me something about scn that is not so good.​
To insist that someone who's just getting out accept an unequivocal "scn is bad" may only encourage them to see you as the SP that CoS wants them to see.
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Terril,

I respect you for continuing to show up here even though you regularly get challenged on your beliefs. Most Scientology-believers don't persist. That is actually admirable.

However, I'm not sure you understand why I, for one, will continue to jump on any statement you make about the "workability" of Hubbard's "tech".

It isn't just that I'm out and therefore just hate Scientology because of what I've been through.

I've been trained. I've been Sea Org. I understand the "tech". The "tech" isn't just useless, as I've stated. It is evil. I know you don't agree. You only see benefits.

I see a cleverly designed trap: Huge, amazing promises of higher states of being -- a temporary feeling of euphoria -- no actual, permanent, significant improvement -- but "the next step, or the one after that, will surely give me the promised 'higher state'."

Once on that treadmill, the believer is trapped. "I didn't get to homo novis yet, but I will, I will!" The believer is trapped and cannot step back and say "I haven't gotten what was promised -- it doesn't work". No, the believer thinks the "next step" will do it. Because he or she believes so strongly, they must blind themselves to reality. The longer it goes on, the farther from reality a person gets.

Sure, the prices might be much lower in the independent field, but the trap is the same. That's what's wrong. That is why I continue to challenge anyone who only talks about the alleged "benefits" of Hubbard's "tech".
Bill, I respect you and your opinion. I don't know the details of your experience but it does seem clear the tech is used differently in the sea org; used to invalidate all else and make scilon clones, gang bang sec checks etc.

My experience is in some way similar, after all as I have reported I hold Greg Wilhere and CoS culpable of the wrongful death of my firstborn son. But also very different. I do think lasting gain can from receiving auditing but the truly lasting gain comes from training; from gaining knowledge and ability and I've used often and well with some results truly wondrous nor ever do I use it to trap or manipulate in any way
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
fNKnczQ.jpg
I didn't post that statement however if you want to get mileage out of concocting a strawman argument when challenged on your cult apology shtick then knock yourself out. Above is your Golden Flounce Award. lol.

People landing here are trying to figure out what happened to them, what did they join, what did $cientology do to them while manipulating them, and a lot of other questions in the mind-fuck maze of Elcon's cult, are searching for an exit to live a cult free life. I see no point in making that harder for them than it already is with misleading pro-cult rhetorical bullshit semantics and sophistry.
And I would not write of the virtues of the tech anywhere but in the midst of people ardent to keep horny young men from seeking fellatio from a cannibal
 
Top