I posted this on another thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15407
But it applies here as well.
I have used contact assists on myself and others, with continued great results, over 30 years. I have done temperature assists on non-Scios to excellent results. For me, and everyone I have ever used it "on", it "works". I have seen people with pretty severe injuries, finish a contact assist, and have little attention on the injury (0f course, getting whatever appropriate medical attention is then required - stitches, anti-biotics, etc). Does anyone know whether anything like "contact assists" or "temperature assists" exist in other forms, prior to or independent of Hubbard? I wonder where he got THOSE from?
From doing many contact assists to many people, it just amazes me how effectively the person's attention fades away from the pain, and also, for me anyways, how quickly the injury then heals. My son once fell on a screwdriver, and it went into his leg pretty far. He was screaming. I spent a good 20 minutes doing a contact assist. At the end, he was smiling, and he ran off to play. He was 5 or 6 years old, so the "I believe in it" factor was not of any significance. I cleaned the wound, and watched it for a few days, and it healed in no time. There were quite a few other major instances with my kids or their friends involving contact assists. They simply always worked (and continue to work).
Have you ever watched a child who is hurt? How they complain, and remain introverted into the whole thing? For hours, days? How they demand attention and sympathy? Cry, cry, cry. Wimper, wimper, wimper. I have found all of that useless and counter-productive. For me, and I have no idea why, the contact assists just WORK, and they work wonders. I have slammed my thumb with a hammer, with the thing turning purple, only to complete a contact assist, lose all attention on the area, and have it heal without losing the nail! Too many successes to be all coincidence - for me anyways. Once I got caught in a steam blast on my arms, to where they were bright red, and I truly believed that they would have blistered badly. I spent almost an hour doing a "contact" plus additional "improvised" techniques to address the wounds. I lost interest, continued work all day, and pretty much forgot about it. When I took a shower that night, I noticed that my arms hurt a bit under the hot water, BUT, it just all "went away". I know, for many the question is, "well, was it really bad in the first place"? I think it was.
But, I am NOT one who "uses the Tech" in some overall "I am Scientologist who dislikes management" mentality. I only use some random bits and pieces. I never considered myself a "Scientologist" or identified myself as one when I was involved with the C of S, and I sure don't accept or choose the label now.
If a person has a bad experience, I have them retell it, over and over, until they lose attention or interest (based on Scientology but not unique to it). It usually works. I don't get into past track or actual "auditing". Two-way comm at best.
I incorporated things like schedules, battleplans, projects and "making it go right" into my daily living, but these ideas do exist in other places too. I kept and use some stuff, but tossed away most of it. Anything requiring faith or belief in the unknown or unproven is GONE. The "mission" aspect of "we are salvaging the universe for all free thetans" is GONE. The KSW attitude, which instills elitism and fanaticism, of ONLY WE HAVE THE CORRECT PATH is GONE!
I learned quite a bit about PR and marketing, being always sensible about it and editing it as I read along, again keeping what made sense and tossing the rest. The idea of surveying the public, obtaining buttons, and using them in PR campaigns works, but of course, a great deal of the data in the PR and marketing series is basic data on the subjects. Hubbard didn't create it as much as he borrowed from existing subjects at the time. I have helped others design web sites and formulate PR programs based somewhat on what I gleaned about the subject while involved in Scn. Of course, again, when applied to Scn in a Scn environment, the whole thing gets distorted and even absurd, because of the various Scientology biases, fixed ideas, beliefs and goals.
I do use the information from the Data Series all of the time, always paying attention to the mental realm of "identities, similarities and differences" when it comes to reading, writing and people's "ideas and concepts". I always found certain aspects of Hubbard's Data Series "wrong". But, I also went straight to the source and read general semantics (Science and Sanity by Korzybski), and having studied it closely over a long period of time, while comparing it with observations of real people in real situations, I tend to think with it as a matter of routine. I may not have stumbled across general semantics if I hadn't seen Hubbard's somewhat bastardized version of it in the Data Series. That alone makes my Scientology experience worth the price of admission (well, sort of). I found the subject of general semantics to be a very fresh and innovative approach to understanding self and others (as it examines and tears apart the conceptual world of the intellect). Though, Hubbard does a pretty good job of paraphrasing general semantics with his comments on sanity and thinking in identities, similarities and differences, BUT, he really screwed it up when he got into "evaluation tech".
I can see how people can use and apply "ethics" to their lives, using condition formulas to better conditions; I just don't bother with it. I take a much more holistic approach to life and livingness. I can see how auditing can benefit some people. I loved almost every bit of auditing that I ever did. But, I don't necessarily think it is for everybody. If I found myself in the same state of mind, same place and time, some many years ago, I would probably get auditing all over again. I had fun with it. That is the simple truth (for me).
As I mentioned elsewhere, I was a "blow out" junkie - I looked forward every day to blowing charge in session, line-charging uncontrollably (intense laughter without any ability to stop it) and attaining that wonderful light airy feeling of "exteriorization". I got it a great deal - so for me, I had no complaints about the auditing. Of course, I always disliked many other aspects of LRH policy, and found too much of the behavior of the organization to be disagreeable (to say the least). I came to the conclusion quite early on that the organization was entirely insane! That occured within the first 6 months of dealing up close and personal with the Sea Org. That view has firmly remained all throughout my experiences with the Church of Scientology. As far as basic auditing goes, such as Life Repair, objectives, Dianetics, drug rundown, the Grades, expanded grades (yummy stuff), I can't imagane it not helping anyone, anyone who was actually looking for some "help" in some area of life, as long as it is delivered divorced from the insane third dynamic trappings (i.e. distorted ethics, perverse justice, "clearing the planet", events, regging, recruiting, all ad naseum).
I do NOT think that it is possible to take the subject, as it is written, OUT of the management context, and still apply it all - since so much of it is tied in directly TO the management and expansion goals.
Oh, also, I still always use aspects of study tech when studying anything. I never go by a word I don't understand. I look it up, though I don't do the whole "every definition" thing anymore. I never had problems with "barriers to study", so I don't pay attention to that stuff. I do come up with MANY examples when making anything real to myself, I do diagrams and even demo from time to time. Again from general semantics, Hubbard's suggestion when studying to "ask how it can be that way", and "ask how it is not that way", works wonders at bringing abstract vague ideas down to the level of actual reality and experience by coaxing you to provide numerous EXAMPLES (real, specific experiences from life). It is a very workable technique to bring a general rule or abstract idea into the realm of specific examples - from the general to the specific. From the abstract to experience.
I graduated very high honors from a good engineering school, and found the study tech useful AFTER that. Of course, I was never one to do anything rotely or robotically. I clear words as I go, because how the hell can anyone understand something if they don't understand the words? Duh! Common sense, to me. Sure, I can "figure out" what words mean, based upon their context, and even while right 90% of the time, I still just look up the word. I think it is a good habit. Demoing helps drive home patterns, relationships, interconnections and sequences. So do diagrams. Again, I think it is largely common sense. Of course, I am talking about applying study tech to any and all subjects OTHER than Scientology. In the Scientology context, it is a tool of indoctrination, since you are studying loaded, incredibly "slanted" materials.
For example, demoing or drawing diagrams of how to cut a large area of grass, requiring some plan of action due to size and layout, is far different than demoing "how my paying for my next service helps clear the planet".
I may at some point get some auditing, but the truth is that I don't have anything that I need or want "handled". So, my current viewpoint is, why bother?
Oh, also "locationals". If someone is drunk, upset, angry, or introverted, giving them a good locational does the trick. Again, it just "works". I remember doing one on my brother many years ago, and he HATED Scientology (back when I was involved). He found it so amazingly useful, from the ONE time I did it to him, that he continues to this day to apply locationals to himself (over the past 25 years)! "Look at that (point to something and say it)". Continue to EP. There are many versions of locationals and havingness processes. They get a person to place attention "out there", and as a result removes their attention from "in here" (where all the negative energy, misemotions, anger, and confusion are). I have found that applying a little "control" (8C; start-change-stop) in a sensible and CARING environment or context gets great results. That underlies any locational (and a great deal more).
