Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Taking a good staisfying dump has more likehood of making one clear than any amount of auditing ever possibly could.
Go make a clear !
Go make a clear !
The State of Clear
- Thread starter DartSmohen
- Start date
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
None of which have been clinically proved to work as your own cited example demonstrates.
I wouldn't rant, it's not my style, but I still would point out that your hypothesis remains untested. The bible too constitutes an external stimulus. For your hypothesis to have a chance at a valid test you would have to eliminate external sources of possible restimulation AND conduct numerous runs with different test subjects in each so as to HOPE to control for unknown or unanticipated sources.
As I stated before, the fact that auditing performed without the use of an emeter produces exactly the same phenomena as a result as that auditing which is performed on a meter, and without regard to whether the pc has ever been audited on a meter before, blows a serious hole in the idea that any positive effects from auditing arise wholly as a result of the electrical current produced by the emeter.
As an hypothesis that is simply not tenable since the observed effects are demonstrably independent of meter use.
Mark A. Baker
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
And... there's the good session vs bad session scenario as described elsewhere by Dulloldfart. The meter is a constant in both yet one session is perceived as good by the pc and another one is perceived is bad. It's not the meter.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
Oh, quite contrare, plenty of tests have proven the effectivenss of electro magnetic currents, I shouldn't even have to tell you this...???None of which have been clinically proved to work as your own cited example demonstrates.
I wouldn't rant, it's not my style, but I still would point out that your hypothesis remains untested. The bible too constitutes an external stimulus. For your hypothesis to have a chance at a valid test you would have to eliminate external sources of possible restimulation AND conduct numerous runs with different test subjects in each so as to HOPE to control for unknown or unanticipated sources.
As I stated before, the fact that auditing performed without the use of an emeter produces exactly the same phenomena as a result as that auditing which is performed on a meter, and without regard to whether the pc has ever been audited on a meter before, blows a serious hole in the idea that any positive effects from auditing arise wholly as a result of the electrical current produced by the emeter.
As an hypothesis that is simply not tenable since the observed effects are demonstrably independent of meter use.
Mark A. Baker
I've always wondered what ones perpective of the real world would be if for those who ran circles around a pole in a ships hull for long enough on a RPF cycle. My GAWD!!! Google Tesla and then follow it forward to present time man, GEESUS KAYRIST! But really now you've got me wondering?? How can I prove that electronic currents even exist? My god man, where did I fall of the rail? Thanks for setting me straight, I think I need to sign up for some auditing, or so I think.. Am I being mean??
DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
And with so many beleivers having S*** for brains, as they've given up all analytic right to process the Scientological pablum, taking a dump might just be the best thing for them. That high powered beans and rice diet of the SO staffers needs venting to provide the winds of change.
Jachs
Gold Meritorious Patron
Pandatermint said:
We need the international emergency response tech team to advise us .
Seriously
i wonder why there is no such sub department.The orgs certainly need a technical alert team. Sydney especially. Sy Scis think a rudiment is a piece of fruit.
On another note i believe John McMasters commented on magnetic fields, but not to do with an emeter DC current.
DagwoodGum
Squirreling Dervish
The emeter can turbo charge negative affirmations during a bad session equally as much as turbo charging the positive in a good session. One has to think outside the box, because the box is what they bury you in - minus your wallet.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Where oh where is a clear?
It has been 60 years and of all who claim there really is this state called clear - and some claim to be clear - how come just ONE can't step forward and prove it by doing what the man who proclaimed there was such a state would be able to do.
On all the things listed that would be cured.....how come still there?
This is so beyond silly. So beyond gullible.
Good God, the only amazing thing is more people didn't buy TWO bridges.........nevermind........they bought several bridges.
How long before scientology starts selling the rainbow bridge?
It has been 60 years and of all who claim there really is this state called clear - and some claim to be clear - how come just ONE can't step forward and prove it by doing what the man who proclaimed there was such a state would be able to do.
On all the things listed that would be cured.....how come still there?
This is so beyond silly. So beyond gullible.
Good God, the only amazing thing is more people didn't buy TWO bridges.........nevermind........they bought several bridges.
How long before scientology starts selling the rainbow bridge?
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
And you have yet to confront the fact that EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS are routinely produced when auditing occurs WITHOUT the benefit of a meter. Thus your 'hypothesis' fails to account for actually observed behavior. Ergo, it's untenable.
Put simply: if a process A when combined with B is seen to produce result X AND the same process A but without B in the same fashion also produces the result X, then B can be seen to have no notable influence in producing the result X. Thus, it can be disregarded as it is unnecessary to the production of result X.
Mark A. Baker
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Is this scientifically proven? Has anyone actually done a research experiment using an e-meter (rather than something they think is similar to an e-meter)? If so, I'd like to see the documentation. It's a subject that gets discussed a lot but I've never seen anything other than speculation in this discussion.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
( He just pegged my BS meter on MAX again ! )
Cute twist. But.............what are the "results" you speak of?
Surely, these "results" not only exist* but you can show scientificly acceptable review that carries somewhat more weight than your own highly self held opinion.
Right?
*( exist? leave it alone. another blind alley of the self deluded ).
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Anybody got a definition of 'Clear' that that doesn't leak like a sieve? Hubbard's definitions have proven to be bogus, and I've read Mayo's thoughts, so what I'm asking for is that someone here who believes in 'Clear' should offer a definition of what they believe it to be.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Actually it doesn't matter what result you would attribute to 'process A'. It could refer to ANY result you want to attribute to some activity, as in this case auditing; 'good', 'bad', or 'indifferent', it doesn't matter. The same logic applies in ALL cases.
That's the thing about logic. It doesn't make up its mind FIRST then try to fit circumstances to support its conclusion. That must be a hard concept to grasp.
The kid put forth a bogus argument in a rush to 'prove' his pet hypothesis about meters. His argument won't wash. You have in your own customary rush to demonstrate your own partisan bias failed to understand that upon which you have chosen to comment. And god forbid you should actually concede a point in discussion simply because an argument which is proffered against that which you oppose is itself logically insupportable.
Mark A. Baker
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
For me, personally, it was the moment when I fully realised (and fully accepted as true) the fact that I was the one creating my own condition.
It seems quite an obvious thing in hindsight but prior to that point I lived a life where unknown/unseen things apparently influenced me and my behaviour.
The closest thing I've seen in Hubbard's myriad definitions is probably "cause over (as in 'no longer effect of') my own thoughts, mental matter, energy, space and time etc."
I don't claim to have the over-blown attributes of Clear as laid out in DMSMH or elsewhere and I don't claim that "Clear" has any particular Uniform Attributes.
If you read my earlier post about this http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?3489-The-State-of-Clear&p=622309&viewfull=1#post622309 you'll see that I simply said something did occur and it had (and still has) value to me.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
For me, personally, it was the moment when I fully realised (and fully accepted as true) the fact that I was the one creating my own condition.
It seems quite an obvious thing in hindsight but prior to that point I lived a life where unknown/unseen things apparently influenced me and my behaviour.
Sounds like a description of a Scientologist
The closest thing I've seen in Hubbard's myriad definitions is probably "cause over (as in 'no longer effect of') my own thoughts, mental matter, energy, space and time etc."
I don't claim to have the over-blown attributes of Clear as laid out in DMSMH or elsewhere and I don't claim that "Clear" has any particular Uniform Attributes.
If you read my earlier post about this http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?3489-The-State-of-Clear&p=622309&viewfull=1#post622309 you'll see that I simply said something did occur and it had (and still has) value to me.
Well I accept that you have experienced what you say you have, but it's problematic from a Scientology point of view, because it doesn't fit tidily into any of the Scientology definitions. The other problem I see is that what you describe is something that can be experienced to varying degrees whereas 'Clear' is an absolute state. You either are or you aren't 'Clear'.
I'm curious as to why you use the term 'Clear' when you no longer describe yourself as a Scientologist and no longer recommend Scientology to people. The fact that you don't see 'Clear' as having uniform attributes is also very significant. Interesting.
It's too late at night for me to read your other thread, but I'll read it tomorrow.
Thanks for your reply.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
You put forth "result". I ask what results? You squeal. You squirm. You do many things except answer the simple question of what "results"? You said "results" and I ask what results.
So, may we expext you to dance awhile longer before you prance off elsewhere?
Smilla
Ordinary Human
I've yet to see any evidence or proof that Scientology can produce any results more substantial than PC feels good, and has a floating needle or TA.
Waiting...
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Yes, well it's simply my current POV of it rather than a scientological POV.
How so? What I'm talking about is the full realisation and acceptance of self as cause of own condition.
I use it because that's what the thread is about and I'm talking about the state I achieved in scientology which was called Clear. I commented on the lack of uniform attributes because this is something I have observed in so-called "Clears" over several decades of close inspection.
It's a link to just one post on this thread.
Honest question, honest answer.
apocalyptic
Patron with Honors
How could such a theory be proven in regard to auditing? Given the subjective nature of the experience of auditing, surely it is dubious conjecture at best?
For example: how could a specific auditing session 'with an emeter' be reproduced or duplicated, 'without an emeter'? Impossible. The form and event would necessarily be different. Only the 'place' might remain exactly as it was.
Perhaps you are aware of some logistics that have escaped us in regard to the demonstration of the accuracy of your bold assertions above (pardon the pun). Of the objective nature of course. Else wise your theory, while interesting, is completely void of substance.
Apocalyptic