What are OT POWERS?

[Pierrot]

Me, I'll just stay in the room and pinch the cute girls butts.

alex

hey ! that's a great Goal in this universe

 

[Case]

Thanks for the good reply.



I accepted your premiss and your challenge and did my analysis without any criticism of LRH or the Church



Dictionaries have their uses but the tech uses it so intensively that it becomes another attention controlling mechanism. Did you never see students wading through strings of definitions for days on end?

Nope. There was one foreign student who took ages to clear words though, as he got into long word clearing chains.

The tech uses mutliple reasons for comm lags, depending on the context. If it wants to imply "case" it says that is the cause of a comm lag. If it want's to fixate someone's attention onto words it uses the m/u as the reason for a comm lag.

The truth is there are millions of reasons for a comm lag. The tech uses it as weapon to control the pc/students attention

I find it bizarre that you find looking up words in a dictionary as a weapon working against the pc/student. I personally have found word clearing to extremely useful, and it probably saved my life during university when having to read mountains of papers.

I think I explained that the results/wins are interlaced with this other aspect of controlling attention and making effect. The two things co-exist perfectly well when the tech is applied. I didn't say other-determinism was a negative. I said emphasis on being effect is the result of the tech and that is an artificially indiced inbalance brought about by application of the tech.

Ok. I was trying to conceive a link between being effect, and auditing other-determined material, as I find it hard to grasp that auditing makes one an effect point. Yes, one follows a command, but the command is intended to make the auditee more at cause over whatever area being addressed.

I knew Captain Bill when he was a Sea Org thug, so my opinion of him is not a good one. His "tech" is not Scn tech and is the product of insanity. I thought we were talking about Scn "tech" and that we were not to introduce other factors like LRH or CofS. Now it seems you may be talking about someone else's "tech", and you have introduced someone into your equation, so you'll have to forgive me if I refer to the "source" of your squirrel tech as an insane thug.

Notice how I never mentioned CBR.

No, I'm not. The "bridge", as you call it is delivered by people who apply the tech, whoever they are. The tech does not allow you to apply the tech yourself, until you have proved compliant suggestibility. Self-auditing is squirrelling and the PC is not allowed by the tech to get the promised wins unless they think the right thoughts and let the appliers of the tech direct their attention where the tech says it should be directed. This absolute control by others and is an intrinsic part of the tech.

The tech of course allows you to apply the tech on oneself. Read and apply Self-Analysis and Handbook for PreClears. One can recall past lives with great detail using just these two books, as well as go exterior. Most of the OT levels are done solo.

The auditor controls the session. The auditor does not control what the pc thinks and says. The auditor ask questions and makes sure to receive an answer.

The "bridge", I prefer to use "tech", does not as-is other determinism! It says it does, while all the time making the PC more and more other-determined (tech-determined as I've already described). The tech tells the PC what to believe, what is the cause of their "case", even that they have a "case"! These concepts are completely other-determined and the tech does not as-is its own influence.

Well, IMO, some people realize they have shit to sort out, some people don't. Nearly all mental practices state that their are problems of the mind to be resolved and give tech to do so. For example, Buddhism states that life is suffering. Oops, now I believe life is suffering! Unless I use my analytical mind and look it over, look at life, and decide maybe this isn't true (maybe it is though). The tech teaches one to either 1) look at ones life in specific ways (processing), and 2) teach someone to deliver those processes (training).

You say "...the tech does not as-is its own influence." I agree with Pierrot when he says:

"I cannot relate to the "pc being at the effect point" discussed in this thread. Actually already in the first book, Dianetics, one should run the session after erasing an engram, so as to run out all auditors influence on the session, to be sure the pc is at cause.

Maybe that tradition was lost, however I found beneficial to run out all the Bridge, all the Scn track, when through with it. It "dissapears" actually better when auditing processes are applied on the auditing/Scn track, than with other techniques.

And it dissapears well when one finds the basic and the earlier beginning of that basic. I have yet to find an incident where the pc is not at the cause point in the basic or earlier beginning..."

I'm glad. Now try letting go of every Scn concept that the tech has given you. It is a bit scary at first, but I mean it. Try. You want to be at cause in life, well that includes tech concepts that you have adopted. Let them go. Allow the opposite concept to be true for a while, you have nothing to lose except some other-determined ideas. Discover your own truths not what the tech has told you is true.

Well, I have the opinion that teachers are necessary in life. Discovering my own truth, how would I do that if I had no one to guide me when I was born, no books to read, no lectures, no seminars, no schooling? And the tech is there to help you discover ones own truth - the questions asked help one do that.

I never said Dn and Scn tech removes the effects of implants. I believe the tech says that, but I don't and didn't say that. I said the confidential parts of the tech break the Auditor's Code. An implant is another-determined idea that the PC believes is true. During Scn tech application the PC is put under this stress that I have described of wanting "wins" that the tech says only the tech can give him so long as he accepts the tech absolutely. The tech then tells him what has caused his "case". Looks like a tech definition of an implant to me!

The tech has told you all that. It is not a self-discovered truth. It is a taught truth. Taught to you by the tech!

I know one PC who having read a few pages of dianetics, came in for a session. In that first session he ran a between lives implant. He wasn't taught to look at this area, just the usual book one commands.

You are welcome but your description of my words as a "stab" is a little dismissive. And my critique of the tech was not based upon the "merits" of the tech. You have put words in my mouth. My critique is based upon the liabilities of the tech.

I won't explain or clarify further. I have said all that is required and fulfilled your challenge.

I was using this definition of the word.

3. merits, the inherent rights and wrongs of a matter, as a lawsuit, unobscured by procedural details, technicalities, personal feelings, etc.: The case will be decided on its merits alone.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Case]

While I fully support the notion of running the "interest", sometimes an exterior viewpoint as to what one could be interested in can be valuable.

I look to people with experiences other than mine to provide opportunities for interest.

A spiritual process that only runs what the person is interested in, rather that what folks who have advanced insight might suggest, would tend to just improve the persons present condition rather than open new vistas...

There is some need for gurus.....if they really know something I dont or can point at things I may not have noticed.

I see scientology and related things as an attempt to venture beyond where we are rather than just fix where we are.

I appreciate the well crafted occasional "evaluation".

alex

 

[Veda]

In the late 1970s and into the 1980s information about the actual background, and actual content, of the subject of Scientology became available. It took some time to examine and analyze.

Some don't want to examine - seriously - this information, which can - understandably - be upsetting at first.

There's a gap, and tension, between those who are willing to look at, and reflect upon, this information, and those who are oblivious to it or, aware of it to some extent, prefer not to thoroughly ponder its meaning.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=44387&postcount=1

 

[lionheart]

While I fully support the notion of running the "interest", sometimes an exterior viewpoint as to what one could be interested in can be valuable.

I look to people with experiences other than mine to provide opportunities for interest.

A spiritual process that only runs what the person is interested in, rather that what folks who have advanced insight might suggest, would tend to just improve the persons present condition rather than open new vistas...

There is some need for gurus.....if they really know something I dont or can point at things I may not have noticed.

I see scientology and related things as an attempt to venture beyond where we are rather than just fix where we are.

I appreciate the well crafted occasional "evaluation".

alex

Fine, but take care over the guru and the evaluation. you use the words: "Advanced insight" and "gurus who really know something". Take care who you grant causation over yourself to.

Of course we can all learn and grow from the ideas and suggestions of others. But as regards the "tech" putting you "at effect", we are talking about something much more than that.

Your third paragraph, is, with respect, an opinion. You might not be correct in your assumed outcome. How do you know that running only what the PC is interested in wouldn't open new vistas? How can you be sure of that? Take a look at what John Galusha and Mike Goldstein say on this point. They have real-life experience of only running what the PC is interested in handling, through their application of "Idenics". You might find that interesting.

Since Scn, in the intervening quarter of a century, I have deeply studied and applied five major "techs", methods and philosophies. Plus I've more superficially looked at several others. Almost all of them carried this liability. I have observed the tendency of those participating in them to assign superior understanding to the founder, teacher or applier of the tech. I have seen them put themselves "at effect", just as I described in my critique of Scn tech.

Even when the teacher doesn't want to be an authority, the students have a tendency to make them one! LRH traded on this tendency mercilessly for the satisfaction of his intentions, as described in his "admissions". Others that I have studied have seemed to have been less calculating than LRH in this regard. One other, in particular, (Blavatsky) seemed to have some similar traits to LRH.

Other methodologies do not direct, control and fixate the receiver's attention to the same degree as Scn does. I have studied no other methodology that eventually has the audacity to tell the receiver what they are unaware of that is the real cause of what is "wrong" with them! (As per LRH's confidential "upper" levels Auditor's Code break).

I have met and discussed with former members of other cults who seem to have some similar experience of haviing their attention fixated. But I have no personal experience of these cults. Scn is the only cult that I have been involved in.

Once a person looks to an authority for them to tell them what is going on inside their own mind, they are killing their own freedom.

 

[lionheart]

I've read enough sales letters to know that "the bottomline" is a phrase often used to persuade someone on something in a very definite way.

Veda, you make generalized statements to persuade others of your viewpoint. Try a more balanced approach. Otherwise the game becomes a "lets jump the bandwagon of a generalized datum" type of thing, whether its "psychiatry is evil", or "scientology is destructive"...

I have only asked that people differentiate between the tech, the cofs and LRH. You reply by saying that its a red herring. You obviously want to view the whole situation from a more generalized viewpoint, and you want others to do the same. I would like others to make more exacting statements rather than "scientology is lie" type generalizations.

The CofS encourages one to hand over ones analytical mind to them. Thinking in generalities is a sign that one never took back ones analytical mind when one left the CofS...

Instead one just changed "generalities viewpoint" from anti-psychiatry/anti-sp to anti-scientology.

Correction: it is the "tech" that encourages one to hand over one's analytical mind to it. It is not the CofS, Ron's Org or any individual or organisation. They just use the tech. It is the actual application of actual techniques which you call the "tech", which hands over the PC's "analytical mind" as you call it

You said critics don't criticise the "tech" without including LRH or CofS in their critiscism. I showed you that this "critic" could do exactly that.

There are plenty of generality viewpoints, including an anti-critic viewpoint. They are all valid, by definition. They are all points from which to view.

Your last sentence is a typical technical trick of attempting to stifle criticism by implying it is generated by case. It is a Scientology trick to atttempt to control.

 

[gomorrhan]

How does applying tech forfeit control or "hand over" the analytical mind? I don't see that at all. Having the tech (a body of processes and theory of how and why to use them, how long, and to what effect) doesn't mean you have stopped using your own mind, only that you are accessing files others created with that mind. I use MicroSoft Word to write my novels. Does this mean I've handed over my mind to MicroSoft Word?

 

[gomorrhan]

In the late 1970s and into the 1980s information about the actual background, and actual content, of the subject of Scientology became available. It took some time to examine and analyze.

Some don't want to examine - seriously - this information, which can - understandably - be upsetting at first.

There's a gap, and tension, between those who are willing to look at, and reflect upon, this information, and those who are oblivious to it or, aware of it to some extent, prefer not to thoroughly ponder its meaning.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=44387&postcount=1

Caroline Letkeman (sp?) wrote a series of articles about this which I found extremely enlightening, although I find her negative view of scientology excludes all the benefits which can be obtained by independent use of processes for their stated aims, rather than for the compromised purposes of the CofS. You can find these articles here:

http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

And here is the link to the article which both deeply disturbed me, and also gave me a severe reality adjustment, that stopped me from considering myself a FreeZone Scientologist. While I still advocate clearing, such articles make me want to distance myself from anything which might remind people of:

SOUL HACKERS:

http://carolineletkeman.org/sp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=915&Itemid=92

 

[lionheart]

Nope. There was one foreign student who took ages to clear words though, as he got into long word clearing chains.



I find it bizarre that you find looking up words in a dictionary as a weapon working against the pc/student. I personally have found word clearing to extremely useful, and it probably saved my life during university when having to read mountains of papers.



Ok. I was trying to conceive a link between being effect, and auditing other-determined material, as I find it hard to grasp that auditing makes one an effect point. Yes, one follows a command, but the command is intended to make the auditee more at cause over whatever area being addressed.



Notice how I never mentioned CBR.



The tech of course allows you to apply the tech on oneself. Read and apply Self-Analysis and Handbook for PreClears. One can recall past lives with great detail using just these two books, as well as go exterior. Most of the OT levels are done solo.

The auditor controls the session. The auditor does not control what the pc thinks and says. The auditor ask questions and makes sure to receive an answer.



Well, IMO, some people realize they have shit to sort out, some people don't. Nearly all mental practices state that their are problems of the mind to be resolved and give tech to do so. For example, Buddhism states that life is suffering. Oops, now I believe life is suffering! Unless I use my analytical mind and look it over, look at life, and decide maybe this isn't true (maybe it is though). The tech teaches one to either 1) look at ones life in specific ways (processing), and 2) teach someone to deliver those processes (training).

You say "...the tech does not as-is its own influence." I agree with Pierrot when he says:

"I cannot relate to the "pc being at the effect point" discussed in this thread. Actually already in the first book, Dianetics, one should run the session after erasing an engram, so as to run out all auditors influence on the session, to be sure the pc is at cause.

Maybe that tradition was lost, however I found beneficial to run out all the Bridge, all the Scn track, when through with it. It "dissapears" actually better when auditing processes are applied on the auditing/Scn track, than with other techniques.

And it dissapears well when one finds the basic and the earlier beginning of that basic. I have yet to find an incident where the pc is not at the cause point in the basic or earlier beginning..."



Well, I have the opinion that teachers are necessary in life. Discovering my own truth, how would I do that if I had no one to guide me when I was born, no books to read, no lectures, no seminars, no schooling? And the tech is there to help you discover ones own truth - the questions asked help one do that.



I know one PC who having read a few pages of dianetics, came in for a session. In that first session he ran a between lives implant. He wasn't taught to look at this area, just the usual book one commands.



I was using this definition of the word.

3. merits, the inherent rights and wrongs of a matter, as a lawsuit, unobscured by procedural details, technicalities, personal feelings, etc.: The case will be decided on its merits alone.

Thanks for the response.

Well done on your gains from word clearing I had some great gains from it too. Nevertheless I have come to my conclusion about the effect of fixing a person's attention on words.

The "tech" tells you that it "is intended to make the auditee more at cause over whatever area being addressed" and it does do that on many occassions, of course. That is what the PC experiences as a "win". Nevertheless I gave several examples of how it also fixates and controls the PCs attention and puts him "at effect". I realise that this is a startling idea when one is newly introduced to it. You could use the "tech" of looking at examples of how it is that way and how it isn't that way.

You referenced and linked to Ron's Org and Mr Robertson's output, so I thought you were putting him inside the parameters of censorship that you requested on the discusion, so I mentioned the gentleman, because you had quoted the output of his organisation. I'm happy to critique his tech as well as earlier techs that he squirrelled from.

You know that you are being extremely selective in the parts of the lower tech that you can self or solo audit. You know the tech only too well. You cannot deny that it forbids most of the lower tech to be self audited. It does this to increase the effect that it puts the PC at.

I dealt with the so-called "solo " upper levels quite comprehensively in my critique and if you seriously think that they are actually solo-audited at the sole determinism of the Pre-OT then your are deluding yourself! They are more rigourously controlled than the lower levels. Only done by permission of the tech and strictly supervised by a practitioner called a C/S and checked with aspects of the tech called sec-checking at regular intervals. If you think all that is "self-determined, think again!

I grant that in the "FreeZone" there is more freedom and self-determinism granted to the Pre-OT and that is a creditable thing. But this "upper-leve"l tech is still predicated upon the Auditor's Code break that tells the Pre-OT what it is that he is the effect of.

The "tech" says that the auditor "does not control what the pc thinks and says". The more you study auditing ouside the constraints that you were previously under, you may find there is a difference between what the "tech" says and what actually happens. I'll leave that for you to discover for yourself. I often quote on here, what I observed when auditing the HRD. There was a definite correlation between what the PC experienced and what he was told before the session that he would experience from the sessions. It was very enlightening for me and was the first catalyst that resulted in me and Scn parting our ways.

For you to compare an tenet Buddhism with Scn tech, shows your ignorance and how you have adopted an idea from another individual instead of discovering your own truth. I made the exact same mistake when I was a Scientologist because I too was told there was a similarity between the two philosophies.

Pierrot made some interesting points. All I can suggest is that we should separate what we have been told about the tech with what actually happens when the tech is applied. The two are not necessarily the same.

My critique of the "tech" and it's fixating of attention and sticking of the PC at effect was far removed from the simple effect of "teachers". They are not the same order of magnitude of influences at all! Use the "tech" to spot the similarities and differences between the "tech" and life teachers.

Was the Book One PC yours or was the PC someone that you heard about? How much was the auditor's experience of the PC's in-session experience coloured by the auditor's training? In other words what did the PC experience? How was this understood by the auditor?

I accept your use of the word merits. Thanks for clarifying it. I took your description of my critique as a "stab" to mean a not particularly effective attempt. It came over as a put-down. Was I wrong to interpret your word that way?

"Case", keep analysing and thinking about the "tech". Some ideas you will read on here will be startling to you, but that's a good thing isn't it? You are free to accept and reject whatever you wish! Yippee!

 

[lionheart]

How does applying tech forfeit control or "hand over" the analytical mind? I don't see that at all. Having the tech (a body of processes and theory of how and why to use them, how long, and to what effect) doesn't mean you have stopped using your own mind, only that you are accessing files others created with that mind. I use MicroSoft Word to write my novels. Does this mean I've handed over my mind to MicroSoft Word?

Some anti-Microsoft extremists would say you had done exactly that!

Seriously, to address your question, I've tried to explain it in my answers, so I won't repeat the points. Try thinking of your own answers as to how such a hand-over might happen by using the tech and how it doesn't happen by using the tech. Find your own truth about the tech.

Do I read your words "you are accessing files others created with that mind" correctly? Are you really saying someone else created the content of your own mind? Where did that idea come from?

 

[Alan]

The word I holographically cleared that truly changed everything for me was PROCESS: A series of actions, changes or functions that bring about an end or result.

This expanded everything and action from the 1st creation on....

Then it was: What was a positive process - what was a negative process....

 

[Case]

Correction: it is the "tech" that encourages one to hand over one's analytical mind to it. It is not the CofS, Ron's Org or any individual or organisation. They just use the tech. It is the actual application of actual techniques which you call the "tech", which hands over the PC's "analytical mind" as you call it

I have the opposite view. I see the tech as a tool to increase ones analytical ability, and increase ones spiritual ability. The processes get one to look at areas that one wouldn't have looked at without. In doing so, one gets to know oneself better. Thousands of people have asserted that.

I know of very few people who didnt get benefit from processing, even from simple tech such as a touch assist. In actual fact, touch assists were my first win- they got rid of a certain body problem that I had tried literally dozens of ways beforehand to handle, but with no success for many years, then I had a touch assist, really didn't know anything about the tech, LRH, the CofS etc, I was clueless, and I thought the touch assists were bizarre and didn't expect any good from it.

I had tried things like acupuncture and hypnosis in the past which is why I thought I was clutching at straws with this "assist thing"... but after 3 of them over 3 days, my body problem was gone.

Reason it works?

It puts the individual at cause over their body. Whereas acupuncture and hypnosis (for example) are things done to the person, a touch assist is something the individual participates in.

You said critics don't criticise the "tech" without including LRH or CofS in their critiscism. I showed you that this "critic" could do exactly that.

Most critics, most of the time criticise the tech by using LRH or the CofS as a vehicle. That I had to ask for a valid criticism of the tech on it's own merit, and that I received a fairly brief and underdeveloped criticism, shows that the whole area of valid tech criticism is weak, and in the most part never occurs, because the critics find it difficult to do so for reasons already explained.

The most common areas of tech criticism is to align it to brainwashing (see veda earlier), hypnotism or even black magick. This is clearly not the case, and is close to A=Aing the tech to other mental practices.

The tech is actually very different to any other mental/spiritual tech on the planet, and although on the surface may just seem like psychotherapy, mixed in with hypnosis and black magick, this is poor commentary, and demonstrates that the commentator is 1) poorly educated in scientology tech and psychotherapy/hypnosis/black magick, and 2) prefers to use bias in their criticism, rather than honest intellectual study, analysis and evaluation.

Lionheart, I commend your attempt to critique the tech honestly. Because of that you rise above most scn critics who undoubtedly wouldn't know an unbiased critique if it hit them in the face.

 

[gomorrhan]

Some anti-Microsoft extremists would say you had done exactly that!

Seriously, to address your question, I've tried to explain it in my answers, so I won't repeat the points. Try thinking of your own answers as to how such a hand-over might happen by using the tech and how it doesn't happen by using the tech. Find your own truth about the tech.

Do I read your words "you are accessing files others created with that mind" correctly? Are you really saying someone else created the content of your own mind? Where did that idea come from?

I think you misinterpreted me. What I'm saying is that "the Tech" acts as a group of files accessed by the student, opened, studied, and hopefully duplicated, which he then has access to at will, and can apply in the manner his judgment informs as best, where his judgment is not suspended by being controlled by the Golden Age of Robotic Auditing.

And don't worry, I've sorted out for myself what parts of "the Tech" which I've been exposed to are worthy of use, and what parts I consider to be dreck. I don't need a process to do that: although such a process might have been helpful in 1997.

 

[Case]

There are plenty of generality viewpoints, including an anti-critic viewpoint. They are all valid, by definition. They are all points from which to view.

Im not sure how valid some extreme generality viewpoints are, for example, "all jews are money grabbing swine's" isn't a very valid point to view, now is it?

Seems to me what is valid is what is logical, intelligent, aesthetic, ethical.

But some generality viewpoints are probably not inherently harmful, like "breakfast is for wimps".

Your last sentence is a typical technical trick of attempting to stifle criticism by implying it is generated by case. It is a Scientology trick to attempt to control.

No, not stifle criticism, but focus criticism so that it's effective and not just a stream of generalities that hold no weight in the intellectual playground.

 

[Case]

I dealt with the so-called "solo " upper levels quite comprehensively in my critique and if you seriously think that they are actually solo-audited at the sole determinism of the Pre-OT then your are deluding yourself! They are more rigourously controlled than the lower levels. Only done by permission of the tech and strictly supervised by a practitioner called a C/S and checked with aspects of the tech called sec-checking at regular intervals. If you think all that is "self-determined, think again!

Sec checking pre-OTs on a regular interval is out-tech, thus cant be a discussion of the tech, only a discussion of how to abuse the tech.

I grant that in the "FreeZone" there is more freedom and self-determinism granted to the Pre-OT and that is a creditable thing. But this "upper-leve"l tech is still predicated upon the Auditor's Code break that tells the Pre-OT what it is that he is the effect of.

LRH gives the Pre-OT an area of the time track to look at. In the same way that LRH gives the individual an area of MEST to look at in "The Grand Tour". Although it all amounts to asking the individual to look at or create MEST, terminals or concepts. Im interested to know how a process could be constructed without doing so.

For you to compare an tenet Buddhism with Scn tech, shows your ignorance and how you have adopted an idea from another individual instead of discovering your own truth. I made the exact same mistake when I was a Scientologist because I too was told there was a similarity between the two philosophies.

My words were:

"Well, IMO, some people realize they have shit to sort out, some people don't. Nearly all mental practices state that their are problems of the mind to be resolved and give tech to do so. For example, Buddhism states that life is suffering. Oops, now I believe life is suffering! Unless I use my analytical mind and look it over, look at life, and decide maybe this isn't true (maybe it is though). The tech teaches one to either 1) look at ones life in specific ways (processing), and 2) teach someone to deliver those processes (training)."

Here I am stating that most mental practices offer a solution to resolve the problem of mind, this includes scientology and buddhism. Then I give an example of Buddhism potentially creating an effect on the individual with one of its noble truths "life is suffering". But you wouldnt expect a serious buddhist to take that datum at face value (and become effect of it). They would obviously look at it for themselves, thus the tenet is not an effect causing entity, but is just something to look at it and assess its validity. If one reads the rest of them then one can see that a solution is offered. A path.

Yet the Scientology tech (path) is different to most other techs on this planet.

And unlike you, who was "told" about it, I studied and applied buddhism before I did scientology, and can see what is similar and what is different.

Tech - different.
Philosophy - similar to an extent, although many differences also.
Purpose - similar, less suffering, return to nirvana (static).

This is from my interpretation, of course, and is brief and generalized (i.e. I dont think it would stand up in intellectual court )

Pierrot made some interesting points. All I can suggest is that we should separate what we have been told about the tech with what actually happens when the tech is applied. The two are not necessarily the same.

The tech is written down and contained in the lectures. It is then studied by the individual. Then depending on whether its understood correctly (and on the intentions of the auditor), it is applied well, with good results, or applied badly, with bad results.

Was the Book One PC yours or was the PC someone that you heard about? How much was the auditor's experience of the PC's in-session experience coloured by the auditor's training? In other words what did the PC experience? How was this understood by the auditor?

The PC told me about his between lives incident soon after. He recognized what it was because it was his last between lives, so evidently was real to him (like a childhood memory that hadnt been thought about for a long time.)

I accept your use of the word merits. Thanks for clarifying it. I took your description of my critique as a "stab" to mean a not particularly effective attempt. It came over as a put-down. Was I wrong to interpret your word that way?

I saw it as a "stab". I see the whole "auditing putting the PC at effect" angle of criticism as erroneous. Look at the comm cycle and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

The most common areas of tech criticism is to align it to brainwashing (see veda earlier), hypnotism or even black magick. This is clearly not the case, and is close to A=Aing the tech to other mental practices.

-snip-

.

Yes, why don't you "see veda earlier" and actually read the linked material.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=44387&postcount=1

The "alignment" is to L. Ron Hubbard's booklet, that he called, 'The Brainwashing Manual'.

Once again: The "alignment" is not to "brainwashing," but to the text that Hubbard called 'The Brainwashing Manual' - do the subtleties elude you?

Apparently.

Why? It may be because you have read only titles, and there are two in the linked material, 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels', and 'Sly and Tall Edgy Lurks'.

If you wish only to read the titles, fine. But then why bother commenting at all?

As for your repeated assertion that "A = A" is occurring, that's just your way of implying that others are irrational ("low toned," "SP," etc.) by using a bit of Scientologese. (Borrowed from Alfred Korzybski, who, unlike you, didn't use it as a gimmick.)

There's no "A = A" occurring. And that's been covered in an earlier post on this thread.

So read the linked material or don't, but please don't misrepresent the ideas presented.

 

[lionheart]

I have the opposite view. I see the tech as a tool to increase ones analytical ability, and increase ones spiritual ability. The processes get one to look at areas that one wouldn't have looked at without. In doing so, one gets to know oneself better. Thousands of people have asserted that.

I know of very few people who didnt get benefit from processing, even from simple tech such as a touch assist. In actual fact, touch assists were my first win- they got rid of a certain body problem that I had tried literally dozens of ways beforehand to handle, but with no success for many years, then I had a touch assist, really didn't know anything about the tech, LRH, the CofS etc, I was clueless, and I thought the touch assists were bizarre and didn't expect any good from it.

I had tried things like acupuncture and hypnosis in the past which is why I thought I was clutching at straws with this "assist thing"... but after 3 of them over 3 days, my body problem was gone.

Reason it works?

It puts the individual at cause over their body. Whereas acupuncture and hypnosis (for example) are things done to the person, a touch assist is something the individual participates in.



Most critics, most of the time criticise the tech by using LRH or the CofS as a vehicle. That I had to ask for a valid criticism of the tech on it's own merit, and that I received a fairly brief and underdeveloped criticism, shows that the whole area of valid tech criticism is weak, and in the most part never occurs, because the critics find it difficult to do so for reasons already explained.

The most common areas of tech criticism is to align it to brainwashing (see veda earlier), hypnotism or even black magick. This is clearly not the case, and is close to A=Aing the tech to other mental practices.

The tech is actually very different to any other mental/spiritual tech on the planet, and although on the surface may just seem like psychotherapy, mixed in with hypnosis and black magick, this is poor commentary, and demonstrates that the commentator is 1) poorly educated in scientology tech and psychotherapy/hypnosis/black magick, and 2) prefers to use bias in their criticism, rather than honest intellectual study, analysis and evaluation.

Lionheart, I commend your attempt to critique the tech honestly. Because of that you rise above most scn critics who undoubtedly wouldn't know an unbiased critique if it hit them in the face.

Well done on your "opposite" view of the tech. I don't see my view and yours as opposites at all! That is simply an apparency. Keep reviewing your view of the tech, as I do, and all is well. But remember that the tech does not allow you to review it and what it is doing. So you will have to be a squirrel, I'm afraid!

Similarly, I know of few people who didn't get some benefit from the "processing". I granted that in my critique and explained how that sticks the PC to the tech. I found Touch Assists to be wonderful in many applications of it.

My critique was "brief and undeveloped"? Sheesh! Did you read it? I thought it was too long and rather boring and repetitive.

You are viewing "most critics" critiques of the "tech" through views that the tech gave you. The view is not your own self-determined view. A=A is a tech concept that has been given to you by the "tech" and you have used it as another-imposed way of viewing, not yours.

The "tech" is not as unique as the "tech" has told you that it is.

Don't commend my "attempt" to critique the "tech". Make an attempt of your own. I know, I know, you think you have done so already. I understand that. When I was a Scientologist I thought I had critiqued the tech, I studied it well and applied it sucessfully. Twenty five years later, I realise that I used the tech to critique itself. I was looking at it through the tech's eyes so I was to that extent blinded.

 

[lionheart]

I think you misinterpreted me. What I'm saying is that "the Tech" acts as a group of files accessed by the student, opened, studied, and hopefully duplicated, which he then has access to at will, and can apply in the manner his judgment informs as best, where his judgment is not suspended by being controlled by the Golden Age of Robotic Auditing.

And don't worry, I've sorted out for myself what parts of "the Tech" which I've been exposed to are worthy of use, and what parts I consider to be dreck. I don't need a process to do that: although such a process might have been helpful in 1997.

Cool!

 

[gomorrhan]

Well done on your "opposite" view of the tech. I don't see my view and yours as opposites at all! That is simply an apparency. Keep reviewing your view of the tech, as I do, and all is well. But remember that the tech does not allow you to review it and what it is doing. So you will have to be a squirrel, I'm afraid!

Similarly, I know of few people who didn't get some benefit from the "processing". I granted that in my critique and explained how that sticks the PC to the tech. I found Touch Assists to be wonderful in many applications of it.

My critique was "brief and undeveloped"? Sheesh! Did you read it? I thought it was too long and rather boring and repetitive.

You are viewing "most critics" critiques of the "tech" through views that the tech gave you. The view is not your own self-determined view. A=A is a tech concept that has been given to you by the "tech" and you have used it as another-imposed way of viewing, not yours.

The "tech" is not as unique as the "tech" has told you that it is.

Don't commend my "attempt" to critique the "tech". Make an attempt of your own. I know, I know, you think you have done so already. I understand that. When I was a Scientologist I thought I had critiqued the tech, I studied it well and applied it sucessfully. Twenty five years later, I realise that I used the tech to critique itself. I was looking at it through the tech's eyes so I was to that extent blinded.

Sounds to me like you are asserting that people cannot duplicate something, and then take ownership of that viewpoint. Just because you learned something from another source doesn't mean you can't test it for yourself, determine its value to you, restate it in your own terms (or leave it in the other terms), and have it be your view (or part of your view).

Oh, and by something, in this case, I mean the tech.

 

[lionheart]

Im not sure how valid some extreme generality viewpoints are, for example, "all jews are money grabbing swine's" isn't a very valid point to view, now is it?

Seems to me what is valid is what is logical, intelligent, aesthetic, ethical.

But some generality viewpoints are probably not inherently harmful, like "breakfast is for wimps".

Valid, logical, aesthetic, ethical, harmful and their opposites are apparencies. That's why I could say all generality viewpoints are valid! :wink2:

Resisted viewpoints cause pain or discomfort.

No, not stifle criticism, but focus criticism so that it's effective and not just a stream of generalities that hold no weight in the intellectual playground.

Great!