What can be saved of the tech? What´s workable still? What is crap?

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
Hello!

I´m a newbie here, so take it easy on me. :nervous:

One of the reasons I joined, are the emoticons. :prettyplease: I love them. Well done Emma on chosing those. :pcpunch:

I´ve been 17 years on board, and only since the last 3 months, reading and researching a lot. Needless to say, it has been VERY relieving to step across this board, and read lots of opinions and experiences of others. The outpoints I was observing all over these years, started to fall into place, and to make sense...

Still, I believe, it is like with a toxic love relationship. One can leave it, and be extremely critical of the "ex", say it is all because she was a * and blame it all on her.

I believe the Scn. tech is full of workable pieces, attached to big lies to it, that entrap you big time into the best mental cage I´ve ever seen. It is such a well built cage, that you are not even aware you are encaged into that mental structure, until you are out, both mentally and emotionally out of it.

For me the worst, was the Admin training. It never worked out properly when I run my own companies, and I was harassing and wronly controlling my personnel due to the false paradigm I was running on.

But on the other hand, I decided to credit it full truth, and I decided to act like an OSA investigator in my own companies. Needless to say, I don´t feel proud about it. It has been hard on me at the beginning to see the countless years I spent in a wrong spiritual path, when for me, spiritual enlighment was the biggest reason to enter it firsthand.

So now, I can say, I´m happy I have thrown away all the admin crap. I don´t believe a word of all the Scientology mind-control paradigm regarding running a group. And when it comes to admin scales, conditions, and some of that possible useful stuff, I take hand of more human paradigms such as Kiyosaki, or Stephen Covey on running a true group. (I will post about this in another post).

On the other hand, some processes, which I have done out of the church, have been of major help to me. I´ve co-audited the Havingness Scale over skype, and it has helped me majorly with the area of Havingness. I´m still a firm believer of past lives. I still believe in the fact that we are spirits, and what I saw of my previous lifes, has only supported and relieved my actual existence.

I don´t believe know at the bridge layed out as it is, or at the big implant lie, that Scientology is the only way out. I find it a hugely insidious trap, that was layed out in 1965 with KSW, the only purpose being, to control people with FEAR (more on Scn. control mechanisms) on another post.

So it´s kind of conflictive inside of me. I cannot say that the fault is all up to her, after breaking up. But I cannot say either, it was a pure romance. It was a toxic relationship, that´s for sure.

I would like to preserve what is worth, even if it doesn´t even amount to 15%. LRH said, you only need to be 51% right. At this point, I thought it over the past week, and put on a balance, the good and the bad. The whole control mechanisms, the money sucking, the aristocracy (government by title, "i´m OT VIII and you are nothing" and timocracy (government of the ones with the money, "I´m a patron meritorious, when do you go up to your next donation level") of the group, and I can say with certainty, it is the farthest away of what I consider now a SPIRITUAL GROUP. It has such a double morality, that this by far darkens the good side, which consists mainly about many good people that got atracted into it, and whose goodness is what makes the group really run. So I can say that he was more than 51% wrong with the way he structured things, as the evilness in the group comes from root from LRH.

So in my view, I would like to preserve the processing, the auditor´s code, truly run (I´m not saying the C/Sing), some good data on processing.

About the tone scale, I´m less and less certain how truly certain and valuable it is to put people in boxes. I would also like to preserve the Data Series, you can do a lot with them, and use them for even analyzing the subject.

The other extreme of the pendulum, people that say it was all a con, or all was crap, is the extreme of saying your ex was a * without analyzing with judgment, what got you first involved in it, and why were you so long attracted to it. It cannot be it was just a con, and all was bad and false. Then think about your reality judgement, and how couldn´t you discover it earlier and leave right away?

Well, this is my first post, and free ideas.

Please tell me, specially those that are longer out, what would you preserve and why? And what would you not preserve and why not? I´m quite interested about your explained opinions.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Please tell me, specially those that are longer out, what would you preserve and why? And what would you not preserve and why not? I´m quite interested about your explained opinions.

Paul

Hi Paul,

Welcome to ESMB. :)

OK, that's the niceties out of the way. . . .

What do you mean by "preserve"? There is a lot of Scn tech online at Wikileaks etc., quite apart from the Clearbird and Prometheus versions. Individual preservation efforts seem superfluous to me. There are various aspects of Scn tech that I make use of in my automated auditing applications, such as parts of the Auditor's Code (particularly no inval, no eval, running only processes and items that bite, for as long as they bite, and then stop running them), repetitive commands, and a form of model session. Do you consider that preservation?

Paul
 

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
Worthwile tech

Hi paul,

it´s probably more of a language thing. What I meant, is what part of the tech if valuable and what is throwable. That´s what I meant. Not in the sense of preservation for future generations, but for actual use being outside.

You explained quite clearly which parts you use, and how. Regarding other pieces of data in the broad picture of what LRH wrote, what else do you consider worth using, and what did you come to the conclusion it is complete crap and why and how did you come to that conclusion?

Is my point more clear now?
:surf:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Hi paul,

it´s probably more of a language thing. What I meant, is what part of the tech if valuable and what is throwable. That´s what I meant. Not in the sense of preservation for future generations, but for actual use being outside.

You explained quite clearly which parts you use, and how. Regarding other pieces of data in the broad picture of what LRH wrote, what else do you consider worth using, and what did you come to the conclusion it is complete crap and why and how did you come to that conclusion?

Is my point more clear now?
:surf:

OK, yes, much clearer. Thank you.

I don't wish to spend the time answering your comprehensive question in full. There was a similar thread to this only a week or so ago.

I have a suggestion, though. Make a list of individual tech items, and number them. People can then comment on the individual items without having to do a huge research job themselves, which few would be willing to do.

If it helps, in 2004 I carefully researched and listed out about 200 points that I considered made up "standard tech"; weighted each point with regard to its comparative importance; and gave an estimate of how "standard" different entities were at different times. Obviously there is opinion in such a list, but it might give you a starting point. If you're not willing to roll your sleeves up and do something like this, well, don't be surprised if you don't get your question answered very well.
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
I'm not in the habit of validating any of Hubbards teachings at all.. I think it's like having bought a used car without an engine, being told that I'm an enemy and an arsehole for complaining about it. And then for some obscure reason argue that this particular used car salesman maybe has other cars that are good?

Hmm.. In any case, what 'truth' there may be in Scientology seems to have been plagiarized from other sources.

But fact is that Hubbard 'promised' us a better world.. Free of criminality and insanity.. For each of us personally, greatly enhanced mental/spiritual capability. Benefits so great it was worth all our income and disconnecting friends and family.

This was not delivered!

What we got, is a 'movement' that is working hard to create a totalitarian society that is more horrible and controlling than Orwell's 1984! - With none of the 'members' having anything resembling the promised abilities. (OT's being banky basterds just like me!)

:yes:
 

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
use of the tech

Hi Paul,

I looked into your list, interesting and extensive comparison.

I meant privately, in how far, people apply specific data to their lives and how valuable do they find them. Consider I´m recently out. It´s simply kind of a general, not precise survey on the members of this forum.

I´ll make a short list, and ask how applicable they find any of these items to their actual lives. First if they believe in the workability of this pieces of tech, second question if they apply it in their monthly live to some extent.

1. Study tech, clearing words, mass, gradient.
2. Conditions
3. Org Board
4. Stats
5. Tone scale
6. Auditing
7. BTs
8. PTS tech
9. Assists
10. Past lives
11. Dianetics, engrams, sec, locks
12. Communication formula
13. Diverse admin data, if it isn´t written it isn´t true
14. Overts,witholds
15. Serv facs
16. Problems
17. Axioms
18. Cpnfusion and the stable datum
19. Other pieces of green tech
20. Other pieces of red tech


Question is:

What is still valuable for you, and most importantly, what not, and WHY? I know for you, who have been a long while deciphering this for yourself, it might be a boring question somehow. But for me it is a hot topic.

Best,

Paul :drool:
 

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
ok schwimmelpuckel

I got your point, and can see it. But being honest with yourself, are you aware of unconsciously using some piece of tech, or are you certain, you don´t use any of it at all in your mind?

What I want to understand, is how far you came in de-constructing what you had constructed in firsthand, and if you did it, how did you come technically to that conclusion? Or you simply saw the salesman had lied about that first car, and then concluded all other cars were also a rip off?

If there were some parts that had validity and where stolen from other places, which parts were those in your viewpoint? Can you show were these parts were stolen concretely from? (not that I don´t believe you, I simply want to know, I know for example the study tech was not his, and also the BPC data, what else?)

Hope you get my point. :screwy:
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't apply any scn to my life! But I've been out since 1982, so have had a long time to let it go!

There are other useful techniques, easier and less dogmatic that Scn.

For me Sedona Method is a simple self-processing, releasing technique, much much easier than Scn tech (I was a fully trained auditor so have experience). Headless.org is a much much easier tech than the failed OT levels. You can simply apply it yourself to realise your true nature as a Seer.

Eckhart Tolle's ideas will bring you to the here and now, much better and stabler than Scn present time techniques.

As regards Scn tech I would say the lower level grades tech has some workability but would need to be stripped of the KSW implant that Ron sowed through the tech. Ron was thoroughly mired in his supposed GPM's due, in my opinion, to his non-application of grades 0 to 4 tech. So he sowed his tech with enemies and "must's" and conspiracy theories which are barmy, in my opinion. With his grades in he would probably never have spun himself into supposed GPMs, Implants and BT's which are all symptoms of paranoa.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Paul, before I forget, a) welcome, b) Anonymous is running an exit survey that will be of use to both anons and ex-CoS members alike.

I've done some charts and graphs later on in that thread that may be of interest.
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Allright.. I'd have to regress myself back when I felt I gained something from studying Scientology.. That would be Student Hat. Which I studied half of before joining the GO in a state of enthusiasm about it all.

Now, I did think that the course was valuable and made me better at studying. But evaluating it at this time I have to say it's not rocket science to look up the meaning of words. I even did that on my own cognizance before encountering Hubbards tech.

Do I still use it.. Well, I guess I do.. It's true after all, that you can't understand stuff without understanding the nomenclature. I can't credit Hubbard with the 'discovery' though. It's inherent and obvious in the 'language phenomena' itself.

What else is plagiarized? - Lots of stuff.. But I admit that I haven't been very determined to find out exactly what.. That we are 'undying spirits' is nothing new. All the known religions have that.. I'd even say that 'meatball' science have it. They call it intelligence and self awareness without jumping to any conclusions about living forever. But the idea that we are individual 'persons' is obvious. Ie.. A mortal soul is still a soul.

Hmm.. Hubbards little 'trick' with making us believe that we can't trust our own minds is maybe original.. But not really. Freud invented the subconcious mind as I recall... But Hubbard certainly made that work to gain him lots of dollars.

:yes:
 

Gloria Manchenburg

Patron with Honors
Scientology is setup like an all or nothing game; you either are fully in or you are squirreling - I don't say that, Hubbard says it. I feel if a Scientologist wants to be a Scientologist then he has to do it with all of Hubbard's rules or it means nothing. That being said, I don't think there's much to salvage once you hit both parts of the SOLO auditor course.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I suspect that these choices would vary from person to person. I also think people should reevalute their choices as to what to keep (if they did keep anything), what to ditch and perhaps review it in light of such things that were also addressed by other ologies, to see if anything was missed or added.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Hi Paul,

I looked into your list, interesting and extensive comparison.

I meant privately, in how far, people apply specific data to their lives and how valuable do they find them. Consider I´m recently out. It´s simply kind of a general, not precise survey on the members of this forum.

I´ll make a short list, and ask how applicable they find any of these items to their actual lives. First if they believe in the workability of this pieces of tech, second question if they apply it in their monthly live to some extent.

1. Study tech, clearing words, mass, gradient.
2. Conditions
3. Org Board
4. Stats
5. Tone scale
6. Auditing
7. BTs
8. PTS tech
9. Assists
10. Past lives
11. Dianetics, engrams, sec, locks
12. Communication formula
13. Diverse admin data, if it isn´t written it isn´t true
14. Overts,witholds
15. Serv facs
16. Problems
17. Axioms
18. Cpnfusion and the stable datum
19. Other pieces of green tech
20. Other pieces of red tech


Question is:

What is still valuable for you, and most importantly, what not, and WHY? I know for you, who have been a long while deciphering this for yourself, it might be a boring question somehow. But for me it is a hot topic.

Best,

Paul :drool:

I'm OEC/FEBC. I find green on white mostly good stuff and also that
there is too much of it.

I find very few flaws in the tech, and I'm not highly tech trained to
have a good voice here. However the stuff may not be perfect but
it works. See Freezone Success story thread, where there has been a constant stream of life affirming results, that I've been posting even years before this forum was created.

LRH in 1959 wrote an essay on study. Was posted by Rebel OT VIII
Geir Isene on his forum in this thread:-

http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&th=182&start=0&S=b9eb83b6e46f24ffae04c879b6a61bac

Simply put work out for yourself what is true. Everything else is merely data, but you need that to seek truth, and you have to decide which data is worth following. Not easy.

Enjoy. :)
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Scientology is setup like an all or nothing game; you either are fully in or you are squirreling - I don't say that, Hubbard says it. I feel if a Scientologist wants to be a Scientologist then he has to do it with all of Hubbard's rules or it means nothing. That being said, I don't think there's much to salvage once you hit both parts of the SOLO auditor course.


There are people who practice Scn in the FZ who call themselves Scn'ists and who do chery pick.
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Hi Paul,

Welcome!!!! :grouphug:

It will take a bit of time to sort out what is true for you from what is not.

Take your time. Enjoy your freedom.

First rule: Don't jump straight back into something similar as a replacement.

Find your own way. Don't be pressured, don't be intimidated. It is your life, mate. Live it YOUR way.

Merry Christmas!!! :)
 

TalleyWhacker

Patron with Honors
I think you just need to move forward and find the things you learned in Scn that make sense to you and are workable for you by your own observations.

We're all a product of the world around us.

Myself, I've not ever looked for anything "else". Oh, I'll read something here and there but as far as pursuit? Naw.
Been there, done that.

I'm very satisifed with what I got out of the different things in life including what I got out of Scn.

Ultimately, the answer to any questions I might have all reside within me.

And don't worry about the preservation of anything with regards to Scn. As Paul said, it's all out there on the Internet.

Not that I'm interested in any more of these "groups" but I believe what we're witnessing these days is much like the beginning days of the Roman Cathelic Church. It's history in the making--The freezone, Rathbun's independants--it's like the breaking away of the Jesuits, the Protestants.

I don't think DM or the "mother church" will ever be taken down. Some people need that kind of shit--there's an ass for every seat in this world.
The morphs will happen naturally.
Wouldn't be surprised if in another ten years, maybe less, you see one of these groups getting organized as another tax exempt religion...the ensuing lawsuit over the "scriptures" would be interesting, wouldn't it?
 
Top