What Does "Workable" Mean?

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
BTW, Paul's thread isn't just about Scientology, it's about any kind of therapy (including Paul's Robot). When can we say something works, and when can't we?

How about a meditation technique like TM? Does that work?

Worthy of a meaningful attempt at discussion, surely?

BTW, OT1 was IMO the last good level I did in the FZ. I got a good result from it, even though people weren't "flying in from all over the world to ask me questions about everything in the universe!!"


I recently heard some Indie OT I's in an entheta screaming match against some FZ OT I's.

They were having a terrible confrontation about whether a being blows more charge on OT 1 by looking at people in train stations versus looking at people in bus stations.

Do you happen to know the standard LRH reference on that? I need to get the Source data pretty quickly because there are people flying in from all over the world to ask me questions.

ML,

HelluvaHoax!
OT I


ps: You are saying that people are not flying in from all over the world to ask you questions? Are you sure you did OT I standardly, per Ron's tech? Did you actually do the clay demos of a bus and a train?
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
..




HolyHell! The original DMSMH made a claim that was beyond outrageous (particularly the highlighted edits):



". . . less than twenty hours"


It's more than remarkable that in the 1950's the tech was so "workable" that anyone could go clear in under 20 hours!

With 65 years of further advances in the "workable" tech, by the year 2015 it takes
more than 20 hours of just reg cycles before a pc can even get up to the point of just starting Grade 0. Seriously.



:yes: Lol

MUST ATTEND EVENT: New release of DMsmh by Captain el Con Miscavige. Find out how DM discovered what the evil transciptionist left out of the original DMSMH by LRH. Come and find out how the number of hours to go clear is discovered to be inversely proportional to number of hours with a registrar. Live demonstrations will be provided so bring you assets and balance sheet and a comfortable bed and pillow. No one will leave without duplicating this most important discovery of eternity.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
I recently heard some Indie OT I's in an entheta screaming match agains some FZ OT I's.

They were having a terrible confrontation about whether a being blows more charge on OT 1 by looking at people in train stations versus looking at people in bus stations.

Do you happen to know the standard LRH reference on that? I need to get the Source data pretty quickly because there are people flying in from all over the world to ask me questions.

ML,

HelluvaHoax!
OT I

No I don't. Sorry to disappoint.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think Paul asked some very deeply considered questions in his opening two posts in this thread. Does anyone have any further comments to make regarding them?

I'll throw this in, for starters; there are some processes (if you can call them that) which don't have any immediate results, at least not ones you're aware of.

I believe (from reading Brad Warner's excellent blog about Zen) that Zen meditation is like that; you can sit there with your koan for literally hours and nothing seems to be happening at all. So, is it a waste of time doing that? Brad doesn't think so, and I think he could be right.

Link;

http://hardcorezen.info/
 
Last edited:

Sindy

Crusader
I guess one could look at how other mental health practitioners view workability on humans, their lives, feelings, successes, etc.

What makes an anti-depressant considered more workable over another?

Is the term even appropriate or can we really have exact, rigid standards when it comes to the widely varied psyches, living circumstances, etc.

We're not robots.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
...We're not robots.

Prove it. What does this say?

24pjaz7.png
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
I guess one could look at how other mental health practitioners view workability on humans, their lives, feeling, successes, etc.

What makes an anti-depressant considered more workable over another?

Is the term even appropriate or can we really have exact, rigid standards when it comes to the widely varied psyches, living circumstances, etc.

We're not robots.

Can I answer your question this way, since I mentioned TM in an earlier post?

I once had an experience when I first learnt TM, of seeing a depression arise and take me over, peak, and then dissolve (it took about ten minutes to a quarter of an hour). It felt bad (as depressions always do), but it came and went and I could see that I wasn't it. It was amazing when it ended too.

I wish I could do that now, but that's another story. The point is this; maybe spiritual growth consists in being less "stuck" in something bad that's going on than you were before, as opposed to just getting rid of it?
 

Sindy

Crusader
Do we really think that there are exact, workable methods that are pieces of the mind puzzle that if we just find them -- just find the right questions to ask or right repetitive process that this will create some standard response that then can be considered a success and that will cause some permanent betterment that then can be built on with more workable processes that eventually bring about a more perfect, ideal person?

I don't see life that way anymore. I don't think that's the answer or that it exists. For those who want to keep on trying, as long as you're not hurting anybody great.

To me, it seems like unqualified mind tinkering but if two consenting adults want to play the mind tinkering game, why not? Seriously, go for it. Come back and show the long term, permanent betterment and I will eat crow. I think judging human behavior, happiness, etc. is too subjective to view in some sort of detached, standard official way. It's too unwieldy. Again, we're not machines.
 

Sindy

Crusader
Can I answer your question this way, since I mentioned TM in an earlier post?

I once had an experience when I first learnt TM, of seeing a depression arise and take me over, peak, and then dissolve (it took about ten minutes to a quarter of an hour). It felt bad (as depressions always do), but it came and went and I could see that I wasn't it. It was amazing when it ended too.

I wish I could do that now, but that's another story. The point is this; maybe spiritual growth consists in being less "stuck" in something bad that's going on than you were before, as opposed to just getting rid of it?

Thanks and I understand. Spiritual growth in this sense would be defined as feeling freer within the confines of one's problem, I guess. At what point would "official processes" designed to aid an individual be considered complete?

I would view what happened with you as an experience. This experience had a good effect on you but from what I hear you say, it's something that you can't do now or wish you could do. I don't know your circumstances. I know that there are lots of Scientologists who constantly had realizations about things after reading books, going in session, etc. and who felt "blown out", happy and on top of the world without any of their life circumstances changing at all and then eventually "falling" back to where they were.

"Workability", would have to be defined as causing a permanent change for the better not some temporary happiness (unless one was trying to get a person who never smiles to at least smile, again subjective/relative and "unstandardized-able") or even a profound realization. I can get a profound realization from listening to music or from any number of activities. Life is full of opportunities to have realizations. It's up to the person to open up to those opportunities. Possibly the only reason that any individual gets anything out of Scientology or similar practices is because he/she decided to be open to having realizations about things in the first place and is therefore looking for them.
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Workable toward what end? Can Scientology processes, tech, etc. be considered workable if in the long run, those results are integral in trapping a person? Is a touch assist harmless? In my opinion, anything that gets a person to want more and more Scientology is only workable to entrap.

That is an excellent point, Sindy.

Paul
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Do we really think that there are exact, workable methods that are pieces of the mind puzzle that if we just find them -- just find the right questions to ask or right repetitive process that this will create some standard response that then can be considered a success and that will cause some permanent betterment that then can be built on with more workable processes that eventually bring about a more perfect, ideal person?

I don't see life that way anymore. I don't think that's the answer or that it exists. For those who want to keep on trying, as long as you're not hurting anybody great.

To me, it seems like unqualified mind tinkering but if two consenting adults want to play the mind tinkering game, why not? Seriously, go for it. Come back and show the long term, permanent betterment and I will eat crow. I think judging human behavior, happiness, etc. is too subjective to view in some sort of detached, standard official way. It's too unwieldy. Again, we're not machines.


Fascinating approach. UMT. Unqualified Mind Tinkering.

There is zero proof that Scientology's auditing does anything at all.

The subjective success stories are no more reliable than asking a coked-out thug fiend how he feels during the middle of a bank-robbery and the subsequent police chase. That boy is winnnnnnnnnnnnnning! Total Cause!

I might change my mind again later, but the plateau of understanding that I finally settled on a few year ago is that Scientology auditing is like repeatedly picking a scab.

Instead of letting the genetic healing software and programs kick in and do it perfectly--if you don't pick it at all.

Picking produces an "effect" (as our OT buddies would say) and they can write a success story and "prove" to you that the scab is gone. They don't come back later however and show you the scar.

I pretty much regard the entire Scn experience as a war and one walks away from a war with scars. There's no shame in that. Athletes get scars. Everyone who tries something ambitious and falls down a few times (physically, mentally, financially, romantically, et al...) has scars.

Scars are not anything at all. They are just scars. They don't need to be removed because they don't do anything to anyone, other than cosmetically.

The likelihood in my estimation that people left alone to mentally heal (rather than use Hubbard's "processes" to pick away at engrams and "charged incidents") are probably far more likely to heal faster, sooner and better than their audited counterparts.

And at the end of decades of auditing, people's minds typically are tied in knots it takes quite a lot of time or effort to push the resume button on ones life and reboot it.

I don't see where there is anything "workable" about Scientology when 99% of the people who valiantly tried it left in utter disappointment & despair.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
What would you accept as "proof" though? Let me give you an example of something that I think went well;

As I said to someone by pm recently, I had an audited word clearing in the FZ, on my religious and spiritual activities "this lifetime" as Scientologists would say. It ended up with my having a much clearer understanding on where certain key members of my family were coming from in their religious views and activities, and of what was going on with another spiritual / religious organisation I'd been involved with before Scn, which started well but IMO had become cultic by the time I met up with them.

I might still have come to the same conclusions about the same people and organisation had I not had auditing on the same area, but I think it would have taken a lot longer than it did in that audited cycle.
 
Last edited:

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
Yeah, what does "workable" mean?

Soldering technique is working 100% of the time, as long as all the necessary requirements are met.

Coin-tossing "works" approximately 50 % of the times, strike the few rare cases where the coin lands on it's edge or gets lost.


Both above mentioned examples are completely predictable.

For my soldering example, just take a look into your computer or into your stereo equipment and you'll find 99.99% or more of working solder joints.

Toss a coin and how many times it'll land on it's head?

My 1st example will be very close to 100% predictable.
My 2nd example will be very close to 50% predictable.

"Auditing", in whichever shape or form it comes, will be how predictable?

And, if I may be so bold to ask: Could you please turn your random number generator off before replying or at least provide it with a fresh seed? :lol: :hysterical:
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Yeah, that's about running rud's before running what is C/Sed for a session.

Although this is buried in your post, is this one item that you are wondering about? Just curious.

No, I'm not curious about it. I believe in (mostly) addressing what the client wants to address. The qualification is situations like the client has heard from a friend or some website that it can be really, er, electrifying to address birth and so wants to give it a whack, even though there's no indication at all that it is charged or accessible for the client personally at that moment.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I guess one could look at how other mental health practitioners view workability on humans, their lives, feelings, successes, etc.

This is from the website for the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy. It is a long article, and I am quoting only a small part of it, so check it out if interested.

http://www.bacp.co.uk/research/resources/

Effectiveness of counselling

The importance of research in counselling and psychotherapy

. . .

Types of Study

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs): A study in which people are allocated at random to either an intervention or control/comparison group. The effects of the intervention are determined by comparing the outcomes of both groups.

Systematic Reviews: Systematic reviews aggregate the findings of similar types of study addressing the same type of question, thus providing robust findings based on large amounts of data. Systematic reviews of RCTs, often known as meta-analyses are viewed as the most reliable type of evidence on which to base clinical and policy decisions.

Practice-based research: Studies which use pre- and post- measures (such as CORE) to study the effects of an intervention in a particular cohort of clients, without the use of a control group. Some types of case study and qualitative research can also fit within this category.

<snippity doo dah>

Paul
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I was given a 25 intensive tech estimate to get through Grade IV, not even clear.

I brought up that very same argument with the Snr C/S that Ron said he could make a clear in 60 hours or less in the 50's so why is it now it takes 5 times that amount and not even clear.

She didn't really like my question so she responded with that was before GAT, now it is more thorough.

I dropped it at that point but thought to myself that GAT was everything that Ron did that was dropped out so maybe I should do Book I and get there faster and cheaper.


I bought a training package instead.

I remember Ron wrote a tech bulletin where he said class XII's were making homo novis out of completely insane PC's in 12 minutes of auditing using just Grades auditing.

How many questions can you ask of a really messed up PC in 12 minutes and get answered to miracle result but normal PC's require BLOCKS of intensives?


..




HolyHell! The original DMSMH made a claim that was beyond outrageous (particularly the highlighted edits):



". . . less than twenty hours"


It's more than remarkable that in the 1950's the tech was so "workable" that anyone could go clear in under 20 hours!

With 65 years of further advances in the "workable" tech, by the year 2015 it takes
more than 20 hours of just reg cycles before a pc can even get up to the point of just starting Grade 0. Seriously.


 

freethinker

Sponsor
As far as I know, no one has come here from the FZ asking how to get their money back from someone in the FZ.

I haven't heard of anyone asking where they can find a good lawyer to go after the FZ.

I have heard squabbles about it but you will hear that anywhere on anything.

So in this case workable may mean nobody is coming here from the FZ asking how to fix all the damage done; how to get their money back; or what lawyer has successfully sued the FZ.

That's workable enough and as long as they aren't doing promotion like Old Auditor then they can do what they want because it is between them and FZ doesn't have, to my knowledge, damaged goods looking for revenge.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
As far as I know, no one has come here from the FZ asking how to get their money back from someone in the FZ.

I haven't heard of anyone asking where they can find a good lawyer to go after the FZ.

I have heard squabbles about it but you will hear that anywhere on anything.

So in this case workable may mean nobody is coming here from the FZ asking how to fix all the damage done; how to get their money back; or what lawyer has successfully sued the FZ.

That's workable enough and as long as they aren't doing promotion like Old Auditor then they can do what they want because it is between them and FZ doesn't have, to my knowledge, damaged goods looking for revenge.

I don't know how much that might apply to your post or to the FZ in general and I almost hate myself for bringing that issue up at all , but ESMB member tanstaafl or even Emma herself might want to or at least be able to shine some light on the situation when tanstaafl thought he deserved some refunding(?) from Pierre Ethier (IIRC).

However, this is just one case of "after-the-church" money disputes, and I've read about more of those here on ESMB. - I just can't remember the relevant names, ATM.

To Ems and anyone involved: I apologize for bringing that up, but I just had to, because that's part of the whole story as well.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Did the issues get resolved or is there still unpleasant tension?

I remember reading something about Andre but thought it was under the category of resolved squabble or unresolvable disagreement.

I hope they got ther money back if they were unduly scammed but the second time around you are supposed to know better.


I don't know how much that might apply to your post or to the FZ in general and I almost hate myself for bringing that issue up at all , but ESMB member tanstaafl or even Emma herself might want to or at least be able to shine some light on the situation when tanstaafl thought he deserved some refunding(?) from Pierre Ethier (IIRC).

However, this is just one case of "after-the-church" money disputes, and I've read about more of those here on ESMB. - I just can't remember the relevant names, ATM.

To Ems and anyone involved: I apologize for bringing that up, but I just had to, because that's part of the whole story as well.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
Did the issues get resolved or is there still unpleasant tension?

I remember reading something about Andre but thought it was under the category of resolved squabble or unresolvable disagreement.

I hope they got ther money back if they were unduly scammed but the second time around you are supposed to know better.

Well, I don't know about any "cycles" that may or may not have been resolved here on this board, but I know of quite a few "cycles" that haven't been resolved, as far as my knowledge goes. Or they haven't been resolved as publically as they started, who knows?
 
Top