oneonewasaracecar
Gold Meritorious Patron
Any afterlife-based system is susceptible to this bizarre system of priorities.
What if it doesn't die?
- Thread starter Mimsey Borogrove
- Start date
Any afterlife-based system is susceptible to this bizarre system of priorities.
TheOriginalBigBlue
Gold Meritorious Patron
So is any during-life utopian based system.
TheOriginalBigBlue
Gold Meritorious Patron
You can see where an office is occupied in the center of the top floor of the left wing's left side. Made me think of The Omega Man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evdQL5RFLec
Last edited:
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
My guess is they get turned over to a higher org. They are loath to get rid of any [STRIKE]potential blackmail[/STRIKE] confessional materials in case the pc returns to the flock.
snark aside - they believe that they are saving the universe, and that even the worst SP will someday recant and join the shoulder to shoulder push. Also - they want the folders from lower orgs and missions, so they can sell them auditing as they move up the bridge, and how can you do an FES without the folders? OSA wants the crimes, so they have many reasons to save them forever.
Mimsey
Last edited:
Gib
Crusader
Yes, such a highly developed skill. How do I evaluate for the pc and retrain him into believing fantasies are real and yet let him think he's actually coming up with these things on his own and this is 'self-determinism'? Takes skill, mon.
Let's take that good old Auditor's Code line, 'NEVER EVALUATE FOR THE PRECLEAR.' Except there are so many exceptions to its application, i.e.:
1) Make sure to have your Preclear read, star-rate and clay demo 'All illness is caused by PTSness.' Not that that's evaluative or anything, but from now on, he is not to accept that any accident or illness is accidental or physical. There are SPs all over the place and they're directly responsible for every bad thing that ever happened to him.
2) The emeter is always right. Help the preclear see this by pointing out 'this' 'that' or the other thing on the meter when he has thoughts and ensure he knows that it is the meter that will determine when he F/Ns or not, so the stray thoughts on the meter are far more important than what the preclear thinks is important. Sessions won't be ended until that meter shows an F/N, even if he has to make stuff up to get there. Not that it's evaluative, because the meter isn't evaluative and you aren't cause you're an auditor so it's okay.
3) Completely control him through repetitive process like Objectives. Then don't let him stop the process until he gets so bored, annoyed and spaced out about it that he becomes delusional and tells you when you're controlling him, it's really him controlling himself. Now you've got him completely under your thumb and he can attest. Accepting anything else isn't evaluative at all cause Elron said that's the EP so he's not allowed to have any other EP. That's how the process works and Elron said so and that means it's not evaluative.
4) If the pc has a disagreement, don't allow it. Send him to ethics, give him auditing or wordclear him. This isn't evaluation because Elron says it isn't and cause you're an auditor and don't evaluate.
Hoo boy. I can't believe you can hold all these contradictions in your head without it blowing up. What a scrambled mess.
While the auditor does not evaluate for the PC, in the background is Hubbard evaluating for the PC. How do we know this is true?
Why it's called the "Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation". Hubbard evaluating for you, and every C/S follows this.
Here we have Ron being the ultimate god, know it all. One column states talking about deep seated religious beliefs. I do believe that would be OT3 and the Wall of Fire. And guess what, anybody who has walked thru the Wall of Fire can't talk about it. LOL
Ron, the rhetoric he was.
If one believes Ron's Human Chart of Evaluation, why one is one of Ron's scientologists, fully indoctrinated without actual real life observation.
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
For the sake of argument let's say that:
A progress to good state of mind results in cog, VGIs, and F/N.
Is it therefore a proper conclusion to assume that cog, VGIs, and F/N is always progress? Or maybe sometimes delusion?
I mentioned this logical fallacy before and I do it here again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
--------------
ALSO, If you try to correct the PC's cog that "the Moon is made of green cheese" then you, as an auditor, are evaluating for the PC and invalidating their "win".
Last edited:
LA SCN
NOT drinking the kool-aid
For the sake of argument let's say that:
A progress to good state of mind results in cog, VGIs, and F/N.
Is it therefore a proper conclusion to assume that cog, VGIs, and F/N is always progress? Or maybe sometimes delusion?
I mentioned this logical fallacy before and I do it here again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Just as a snarky aside - as the robotic Golden Age of Tech practices became the norm in auditing, I used to frequently instant F/N on the command "End of Session".
oneonewasaracecar
Gold Meritorious Patron
I think communism falls into that category. If you follow any of those during-life utopian based systems, you'll find worship in them as well.
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
For the sake of argument let's say that:
A progress to good state of mind results in cog, VGIs, and F/N.
Is it therefore a proper conclusion to assume that cog, VGIs, and F/N is always progress? Or maybe sometimes delusion?
I mentioned this logical fallacy before and I do it here again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
ALSO, If you try to correct the PC's cog that "the Moon is made of green cheese" then you, as an auditor, are evaluating for the PC and invalidating their "win".
IMO, yes it is; provided that the 'cog' isn't one the person auditing you has any stake in (anything to do with Xenu, for example), I think cognitions are a good thing. In other words, it has to be genuinely your cognition and not one you've been conditioned to have.
Scott Peck in his book "People of the Lie" describes a case of someone who came to her therapist with a fear of spiders (arachnophobia) and who had a possessive and controlling mother who would somehow always find an excuse to make her daughter stay late during her visits even when the daughter had a work assignment she needed to be up early for the next day.
At one point, the daughter had the insight (which I think is as valid a word as 'cognition' that her mother was like a spider herself and, although that wasn't the end of it, she began to get better from that point on. I think that insight was a necessary stage in her progress.
I hear that you can get rid of them by putting your tomato plants on an e-meter.
Enthetan
Master of Disaster
Not all, which is why my I had the bolded part:
And, as others have noted, this-life Utopias are also subject to the consideration. In communism, for example, the prospect of creating an eternally-lasting "workers' paradise" on earth was used as justification for the murder of upwards of 100 million people in the last 100 years, by their own governments.
The major difference between Islam and Christianity, is that Islam explicitly advocates violence for the purpose of spreading Islam, while Christianity explicitly EXCLUDES the idea that violence is a legitimate part of spreading Christianity. (This hasn't stopped violence in the name of Christianity, but it does serve to reduce it).
Enthetan
Master of Disaster
All the Communist systems had a "cult of personality" for the Leader, very similar to Scientology's worship of Hubbard.
For example, nobody wanted to be the one who was first to stop clapping for Stalin. The secret police would be watching.
LA SCN
NOT drinking the kool-aid
LOL - I skipped many a 'hip hip hooray' at the Shrine as I got older and wiser and saw the...cultish mind numbed aspect of it all...I also hated 'chinese school' in the academy - it had the opposite effect on me. Of course my behavior was noted with disapproval as I was out of step with the party line.
George Layton
Silver Meritorious Patron
The scientology auditor does have a stake in the auditing. The training they have gone through, to develop their auditing ability, engrains their psyche with vanity. They become praise junkies. Their self-worth expands with the pc's positive response to the auditing. The auditing IS correct, this belief is already etched in stone in the mind of the auditor. The pc either gets it wrong or right, but the auditor is infallible. Just ask them.
Terril park
Sponsor
And earlier you posted :-
"Has it occurred to you that auditing may have harmed in in ways which you are unable to see at the time and are unable to see now?"
To quote the sage of Nazerath:-
" Why do you notice the sliver in your friends eye, but overlook the timber in your own? How can you say to your friend, "Let me get the
sliver out of your eye", when there is that timber in your own? You phony,
first take the timber out of your own eye and then you'll see well
enough to remove the sliver from your friends eye."
You give me ad hom, make wrong, wrong item, wrong indication
and a determined effort to introvert.
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
Nah Terril, he gave you lovely pretty little fairies at the bottom of your garden (and you gave him lumps of wood in the eye and a load of cult speak in return, ya big meanie).
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
While I don't really understand it, I do find it very amusing that True Believers come to this forum where they know the opinion about Hubbard's "tech" is overwhelmingly negative ... and then "get upset" when someone says something negative about the "tech".
This was a surprise???
TheOriginalBigBlue
Gold Meritorious Patron
Terril,
I don't like to see ad hominems on the board because I think they detract from the discourse and serve OSA's purposes to disrupt things and turn people off more than anything. By the time a conversation has deteriorated to the point where ad hominems are used it should have been referred to the Mods.
I do understand how people can "leave" Scientology or stop being actively involved with the organization on a win and still retain respect for some of the principles. The problem with defending Scientology on this basis is a lack of knowledge or a disconnect from the degree of harm caused in relation to benefit.
It is like arguing that Hitler had benefit because he was an artistic painter and gave us the VW Bug and Hogan's Hero's or that Islam has benefit because it brought us coffee and Turkish Baths.
Sometimes debate classes will assign one person to argue in favor of a position that most people think is positive and the other side must argue in favor of the position that most people consider wrong.
The board needs people to argue the other side. It would be boring if there weren't, but it does seem that you have chosen the more difficult position to support and if you are going to be successful then you will need to address this matter of deliberate causation of events by LRH and his personal motivations and how this kind of thinking influenced his teachings. Things like the Child Care situation, the RPF and Disconnection were products of LRH. Anybody who contributed money or labor to the organization at that time be it for auditing or training or anything else was contributing to the creation of these abuses. Its one thing to defend Scientology out of ignorance of the abuses but it is a very different thing to defend it with full knowledge. That would be like arguing the benefits of Treblinka or the ignorance of Hitler with survivors or members of their family in the audience.
This is a tough audience. Anyone who wants to argue in favor of Scientology is going to need to step up their game with reason. If the exchange breaks down into "We will have to agree to disagree" then there will be a lot of disagreement.
TOBB
TheOriginalBigBlue
Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm envisioning the end game, when there are no more auditors or orgs, just an exclusive country club with a Warehouse 13 behind it.
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
One thing a scientologist is not taught (within the cult anyway) is how to debate ... they are taught to alternate between using attack mode or "ARC" and always "TR's" to reach (synthetic) agreement but none of that works with someone who isn't playing by the cult rules and who can and will employ tactics that impinge.
I recently saw that video again where Tommy Davis completely freaks out and screeches at John Sweeney. After weeks of using his "TR's" and "presence" to "handle" John Sweeney, Tommy Davis completely cracked. John Sweeney (stressed as he was by the weeks of harassment) failed to do as he was "supposed to do" and just back off ... and by then Davis had nothing left to throw at him and virtually had a nervous breakdown on camera.
That was an extreme example of what happens when a scientologist tries to defend the indefensible wearing little more than a shield of "TR's" and a determination to demonstrate his ability to [STRIKE]be "at cause"[/STRIKE] bully someone into submission.
A serious argument about the tek can't be "won" by a scientologist using the techniques they are trained in if the person they are arguing with is alert and willing to hang in but not many people can be bothered to do that, John Sweeney had the tenacity of a bulldog but the stress of talking to a brick wall even got to him eventually.
Tommy Davis apparently left the SO not long after his run in with John Sweeney where he was exposed and left with nowhere to go and nothing left to say but what it took to get to that point was extreme.
Not many scientolgists on ESMB will (publicly) change the viewpoint they have decided to hang on to ... which is fine because no-one expects them to and most exes would not be willing to do a John Sweeney when dealing with a freezoner, any discussion is probably for the sake of onlookers.
I recently saw that video again where Tommy Davis completely freaks out and screeches at John Sweeney. After weeks of using his "TR's" and "presence" to "handle" John Sweeney, Tommy Davis completely cracked. John Sweeney (stressed as he was by the weeks of harassment) failed to do as he was "supposed to do" and just back off ... and by then Davis had nothing left to throw at him and virtually had a nervous breakdown on camera.
That was an extreme example of what happens when a scientologist tries to defend the indefensible wearing little more than a shield of "TR's" and a determination to demonstrate his ability to [STRIKE]be "at cause"[/STRIKE] bully someone into submission.
A serious argument about the tek can't be "won" by a scientologist using the techniques they are trained in if the person they are arguing with is alert and willing to hang in but not many people can be bothered to do that, John Sweeney had the tenacity of a bulldog but the stress of talking to a brick wall even got to him eventually.
Tommy Davis apparently left the SO not long after his run in with John Sweeney where he was exposed and left with nowhere to go and nothing left to say but what it took to get to that point was extreme.
Not many scientolgists on ESMB will (publicly) change the viewpoint they have decided to hang on to ... which is fine because no-one expects them to and most exes would not be willing to do a John Sweeney when dealing with a freezoner, any discussion is probably for the sake of onlookers.
Similar threads
