The Wins

[Dulloldfart]

Speaking of bodies with/without thetans, did anyone ever figure out the reason for the male/female body difference in ohms?

I remember when studying the e-meter, a dead female body was supposed to measure 5000 ohms of resistance (2.0 on the tone arm dial), where a dead male body was supposed to have 12,500 ohms (3.0 on the tone arm). I could never figure out why that would be, since both living men and living women would stay around the same place (usually between 2 and 3) on the e-meter tone arm dial. Did a thetan in a female body add to the resistance of the body, and a thetan in a male body detract from the resistance? It was always something I wondered about...

Sky

I must have spent at least a dozen hours trying to work that one out while I was in the SO. I finally figured it out a year or so ago.

Hubbard had it completely wrong! It was one of his crazy, over-broad generalizations. I have no idea where it came from, or what was going through his mind that could possibly justify such an outrageous statement. And it wasn't just a casual comment one day--it got built into e-meter technology, including the "F" and the "M" on the e-meter dial next to the relevant TA readings.

There is one which goes along with it, which is equally cuckoo: that only a TA between 2.0 and 3.0 is a valid range for a "correct" F/N. There are lots of supplementary issues "clarifying" the point, but it seems to me they are all along the lines of that axiom about when you introduce arbitraries into things you get more arbitraries.

It is fascinating to me that the "Standard Tech" crowd will blithely go along with the exactness of a TA at 2.0 or 3.0 or 3.5, just because Hubbard said so. A mechanical device like an e-meter can be calibrated with exactness, so that TA 2.0 = 5,000 ohms, but to stipulate that a body having a resistance of exactly 5,000 ohms or 12,500 ohms is some kind of dividing point below which certain phenomena occur and above which they don't is insane.

I am not arguing here with statements like a high TA means such-and-such, merely with the idea that a TA of 3.55 is vastly and essentially different to a TA of 3.45.

Paul

 

[Sky]

Yes, well I figured it was just a load of crap after I left the church.

It hadn't made any sense to me either that no matter what the size or composition of the body, it would measure exactly the same resistance as another body of the same gender. While I was in, I thought it would be cool if I could hook a meter up to a dead person and see the reading, although I would have never actually done it. That would have been a little too morbid and socially unacceptable.

I wonder if anyone came up with an explanation for it while they were a True Believer, or if Hubbard wrote any explanation for it that I hadn't come across in my training.

Sky

 

[Dulloldfart]

While I was in, I thought it would be cool if I could hook a meter up to a dead person and see the reading, although I would have never actually done it. That would have been a little too morbid and socially unacceptable.

At the time, I would have done if I had had legal access to a cadaver, or preferably, a bunch of them. You would need wrist-straps, of course. In 2004 I posted a similar polite question about the electrical resistance of a dead body to a Yahoo group which seemed to address such subjects. At least, I figured so. No-one responded, though, even to be critical of Hubbard.

Now that I have become familiar with the idea of Hubbard being completely wrong on many things--as well as right on many things--it is sometimes much easier to spot his mistakes.

Paul

 

[programmer_guy]

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the resistance changed according to how long the person had been dead.

 

[Sky]

Too true. Isn't it funny how a stupid little datum is just expected to be accepted as unqualified fact, but it is so stupid that it brings up so many questions which can't even be discussed--since we wouldn't want VD (what we used to call Verbal Data ) to be spread around?

 

[Roland ami]

Hi TA

As an auditor you pretty soon learned to say - well, must be false TA, we'll sort it out next session.

Also, you do what's right, not what will keep you out of trouble - at least, you do it as long as you can.

Roland ami

 

[Dulloldfart]

As an auditor you pretty soon learned to say - well, must be false TA, we'll sort it out next session.

Also, you do what's right, not what will keep you out of trouble - at least, you do it as long as you can.

Roland ami

So what do you think now, Roland? Do you think Hubbard was correct with his exact figures, of how there is some fundamental difference in a person that makes flying an ARC Break with the TA (assuming it is correct, and not false) at 3.45 a different proposition to flying one with the TA at 3.55?

I mean technically; not politically, where one is worried about what the C/S will say etc.

I am querying the exactness of the figures, not the principle that one shouldn't try and bring the TA down by flying an ARC Break when the TA is up for other reasons.

Paul

 

[GreyWolf]

People may quite correctly wonder why in the h*** we (I) put up with the conditions we put up with, for little to no pay, and endless abuse from above. (SO Management). Here is one small story of why:

It was Thursday evening, and the prior weeks stats were not good. I was pissed, as the head of a Div. We used to set up a table with an emeter down the street from where the org was located, as a way to bodyroute people into the org. I went for a walk, and wound up sending the guy that normally manned that post to qual, and hung out there for a while to 'get some space'.

(Getting space consists for me of extending anchor points in certain directions, as far as possible.) I had some considerations about which direction to extend my anchor points, and I finally decided on a northerly direction from where I was standing. As I stood there (I wasn't actively looking to pull people in..) I felt somethiing go 'ping' in my universe. (Think of the LRH\Parsons Moonchild experiment, where they go out into the desert, and then Parsons says "it is done". It was that kind of 'certainty')

So, about 10 minutes later I see a lone figure walking down the street, and I figure I need to get back to the org, so I may as well see if I can bring some one with me. I ask her simply "What are you looking for?"

She replied, "I am looking for where science and religion meet."

I played it cool and asked if she had ever heard of Scientology.

She had not......easiest dissem cycle I ever had.

As I was walking her to the org, I found out she was staying at a hotel nearby, and had not been able to sleep and just decided to go for a walk....


I relayed this story to the Qual Sec, later that evening, and specifically used the word 'ping'. (This was in the pre tcp-ip days.) About 2 months later, I was in the can reading the latest Advance mag, and the LRH artiicle had a line in it where LRH said "every now and then, something will go 'ping' in your universe") I showed it to the QS, and we laughed our asses off at the strange synchronicity of it all.


This was the type of "win" (few and far between) that kept my interest up, and kept me in the trap.

One of my first wins like that was after Objectives. I was in the store and getting up to the check out stand. There were two people in front of me. Both had many items and I thought that instead of waiting in line, it would be kind of cool if they both just got out of my way. Well first the person right in front of my says that she forgot something and leaves. The the person in front of her says he forgot something also. I was totally keyed out. I went back to the Org and wrote up a big win. I am a dummy.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

One of my first wins like that was after Objectives. I was in the store and getting up to the check out stand. There were two people in front of me. Both had many items and I thought that instead of waiting in line, it would be kind of cool if they both just got out of my way. Well first the person right in front of my says that she forgot something and leaves. The the person in front of her says he forgot something also. I was totally keyed out. I went back to the Org and wrote up a big win. I am a dummy.

An random coincidence with renders a positive outcome must and shall be attributed to Hubbard and Scientology. An random coincidence with renders a negative outcome must and shall be attributed something you did against Hubbard or Scientology. It's pretty much along the lines of a game young children would play.

 

[KnightVision]

I have 'wins' every day from simple intercourse with life.

Fuck sci. It's wins are far too costly. Festered with problems. Gained by ardous process. Concealed within lies. Given only to provoke more indoctrination.

Life is full of 'wins', free of precondition or future alliance.

Sci is the art of making one 'think' it is the 'cause' of your wins in life.

 

[uniquemand]

My "wins" were primarily in the vein of handling overts and withholds, and then handling my organization skills. It seemed miraculous to me, and still does. The skills are not unique to Scientology, but that is where I learned them, so I correctly attribute them to what I learned in the Church. I know this doesn't fit the critical agenda, but I think it does answer the OP.

I do believe that things happen in the "real world" as a result of numerous factors, but the only one we can directly control is our own mental environment.