For many, the book 'Self Analysis' has been used as a lead-in to further involvement with Scientology. Having read this book (or other Dianetic or Scientology books), and having (naive or deceitful) Scientologists, intoning, "What is true for you is true for you," and having their attention directed to a long and impressive-looking "Grade Chart," which would seem to promise "more of the same but even better," many have decided to join Scientology.
"Join us!" the (naive or deceitful) Scentologists will say, "You've had a sampling of what's to come, and it only gets better."
Of course, as is now widely recognized, Scientology is a "bait and switch operation," and "what you see" is - ultimately - not "what you get."
Unfortunately, for those sucked deeply into the Scientology vortex, none of that matters. "Join us!" they will say. "Join us!"
It's a bit like a 1950s Science fiction B-movie, when little Billy comes home from school, only to find that Mommy and Daddy now have tiny electrodes planted in their necks, and insist that little Billy, "Join us."
Soon the Postman arrives with that day's mail, he looks down at little Billy and says, "Join us, Billy. It's wonderful."
Billy, thank goodness, senses something is wrong and scurries off to find his pal, the professor at the big telescope observatory on the hill. The Professor doesn't yet have a tiny electrode in his neck, and - well, that's when I got up and left the room to make some popcorn...
Anyway, I guess the fact of deceptive lead-ins to bizarre or unwholesome situations is just one of those freaky things that one must learn to tolerate, while at the same time doing ones best to alert others.
Back to the book, 'Self Analysis'. Originally it had two versions, the American, which used recall of actual incidents, and the British, which used "creative processing" or "mock ups." So, instead of "recall" one would ask, "mock up." (So I'm told, as I've not seen it.)
(So, the area of "recall" [actual memory], and of "mocking up" [imagination], is an interesting one and worthy of being discussed; and no doubt, Scientology's contradiction-packed and loose-end-rich "mental-healing-layer" [which most "tech people" think IS Scientology] will make for a spirited discussion.)
I've used the "recall version" on "PCs" (persons receiving auditing), including on one person who insisted (and this was outside $cientology), that, before we did his Dianetics and Lower Grades, which was what he mainly wanted, that we explore - in depth - his favorite book, 'Self Analysis', and - per his request - we did so, and with an e-meter, "running" every list of "recall questions," and every "perceptic," (loosely, "sense") that there was. Being, myself, still fairly naive at the time, I simply used my "Class V Auditor" know-how on this simple book, only deviating from its format several times to run a few items "Dianetically," (which sends back more of the person's attention to the incident), and I also addressed some "ARC breaks" from the person's past, that came up, with Scientology procedures, rather than using the suggested methods from the back of the 'Self Analysis' book.
By the time we were done, this person was probably 2/3rds of the way through any auditing he would ever need, and his 'Objectives', 'Dianetics', and 'Lower Grades' (remember, I'm still fairly naive myself), went smoothly and with positive results.
As, by then, having studied, and explored, the materials called "NOTs," we even addressed what would be called "NOTs phenomena," and the "PC" had a sampling of what is was like to "audit" a "BT," with me acting as the across the auditing table guide and C/S, while he audited a "BT" that had suddenly popped up during a session - So this was a fairly extensive "ride" for this person, through the land of Scientology auditing Tech, with the exception being what is sometimes called, "Implantology" (or "Xenu-ology") which even then, I sensed was something alien (no joke intended) to what actual auditing was.
Wisely, IMO, I had kept this person from entering the Scientological "hamster wheel," or entering into the labyrinthine world of Hubbardian significance.
After this, I did the same, or similar, on several other people, and then knew it was time to do what I really didn't want to do, but knew I had to do: Look at that "other stuff."
Even then, as naive as I was, I knew that there was a large chunk of Scientology that I'd not yet examined, notably the extensive confidential writings, by Hubbard, on persuasion, manipulation, propaganda, spying, infiltration, and covert attack, of which "Scientology Intelligence Tech" is a part.
I also was slowly becoming aware of accounts, by newly free (ex)-Scientologists, of their experiences with Hubbard and Scientology, and of other things, so it was a time of transition and learning.
Around the same time, I had a big part of my personal library shipped to me from my home, thousands of miles away and, amongst Tolstoy, Upton Sinclair, Ayn Rand, Ouspensky, Castaneda, Suzuki, and a host of others, stumbled across a copy of an odd booklet that I had purchased at the "Org" years earlier - at an even more naive stage - and that booklet was titled, 'A Synthesis on the Russian Textbook on Pychopolitics'.
I had never seriously examined this booklet, which I had regarded as little more than a fringe novelty, and with the boxes of (1977 FBI raid) "Scientology Intelligence Tech"-related photocopies, and other curious things available to me, and with previously unreachable people, such as old time "squirrel" Jack Horner, former Senior C/S International David Mayo, and even L. Ron Hubbard Jr., available for consultation and discussion, I knew that my days as a happily naive "Class V Auditor" were drawing to a close.
So, here I am, in 2008, arguing about Hubbard's megalomania and drug-induced cosmology and his Xenu-sci-fi-story "upper levels," with a Xenu-Bridge PR man, who says, "What's true for you," and "Charge off (meaning Tone Arm motion) is charge off," like a chatty Kathy doll.
It's a strange world.
The topics of memory, of past lives, of therapy, of what's known as the paranormal, are naturally complex and challenging to explore. The dishonest nature of Scientology's inner regions make that exploration more difficult than it need be.
Despite the corrupt and twisted nature of Scientology's enlightenment-coated (and it is an interesting enlightenment-coating) booby-trapped (and the trap is interesting too, but not much fun) "philosophy," "Tech" and "Bridge," most of those who've passed through its gates, and out the other side, are honest and, although their opinions vary (naturally), can be counted on to present them frankly and honestly. And that's appreciated.