When I was on staff at a tiny crappy Mission

OHTEEATE

Silver Meritorious Patron
picking and choosing

Fluffy, If I did not know myself better, I would say I am waffling sometimes, but I truely understand what you are saying. There is picking and choosing and knowing what is real and what is imaginary. It is called sanity. You feel the critical attack brush you to the side a bit and are miffed, and then realize, hey! I know what happened to me in that session and no asshole who has never stepped into an HGC is going to tell me I imagined shit! It's damn rude to come on a site of ex-scns and assert it's ALL bullshit. Let US point out what is bull and what was worth a second look. We did it. There are a lot of factors in a case. You get temporary surges, and some slide back. You hang in there, and get as far as you get. It's over for me and Scn. OK. I still will say what worked, and what I got out of it. After all, I paid my money and took the ride. I think if you got to OT 7 and say you got NOTHING out of it, you were robbed, and told you had made it when you hadn't. I mean, after OT 3 for example, I never had trouble since standing in line or being in a crowd. Totally comfortable, now. Is it worth a half million? It's up to you to decide.
 

OHTEEATE

Silver Meritorious Patron
new religion

For those of you looking for a replacement religion that is 1. Expensive 2. all consuming of time and effort 3. Intensely fun 4. gives you a social circle of other people who have money, like fun, and are passionate about their religion I suggest: Buy an airplane!
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
You feel the critical attack brush you to the side a bit and are miffed, and then realize, hey! I know what happened to me in that session and no asshole who has never stepped into an HGC is going to tell me I imagined shit! It's damn rude to come on a site of ex-scns and assert it's ALL bullshit. Let US point out what is bull and what was worth a second look. We did it.

I have to say...

Even if I may personally think "it's all bullshit" (and I'm not saying that I do) I totally agree with what you are saying here.

People who have never been in Scientology making judgements about stuff they have never experienced. And pushing those judgements down the throat or throats of those who have experienced it.

One of my pet peeves, as anyone who has read my rants here and in other places knows.

:rant:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
And so do people who've been in Scn. I'm constantly appalled and amazed by the insane bitterness of ex members toward people who are still interested in some aspects Scn and the constant crap...you'd think the Freezoners and Indies were telling these people to buy a bunch of Ls and a gold encrusted meter or some shit.

They write stuff about thank you for getting me out of that cult and the crap that happened to me there, while busily flinging crap of their own and treated others the way they themselves were treated in and by CofS.

Bottom line? In life (and you see this on political forums- which I mainly, thank god, stay away from, but still aware of what they do there) some people -not just ex Scn'ists or anyone involved in that- just cannot handle others having different ideologies and making different choices.

Fortunately, that's not everyone. But it's a rather loud bitter and wrongheaded minority.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I agree, Ohteeate.

Thing is, CofS is a therapy cult, of sorts.

Auditing is a type of therapy.

If a person undergoing therapy thinks he feels better, then he does.

Anyway, if you know your own mind, you aren't waffling...it's just that sometimes, when people discuss more than one side of an issue, it can seem to some others that it's wishy washy. But those people are wrong.
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Is it a therapy cult or just a "feel good" cult?

It seems to me that the purpose of "good" auditing is to keep a person addicted to auditing.

Is TR0 Bullbait really teaching people who to handle stuff thrown in their direction, or merely encouraging them to suppress their own responses?
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Is it a therapy cult or just a "feel good" cult?

It seems to me that the purpose of "good" auditing is to keep a person addicted to auditing.

Is TR0 Bullbait really teaching people who to handle stuff thrown in their direction, or merely encouraging them to suppress their own responses?

I think the key is to differentiate between a response and a reaction (automaticity). One goal I have had in Scn is to have no automatic reactions but to just express myself spontaneously in present time. As I said in another thread, I got a lot out of the datum that the comm cycle is really cause-distance-cause and not cause-distance-effect.

Too many failures and misunderstandings about the tech come about from not going right on through to the ep or not knowing what one is trying to achieve in the first place.

Cheers

tanstaafl
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I got a lot out of the datum that the comm cycle is really cause-distance-cause and not cause-distance-effect.
tanstaafl

I'm not sure what it means, but, isn't the above mantra a bit 'automatic'?
Sounds like reduction of interpersonal relationship to 'lego'

The more 'Scientific' and '100% Standard' *Tech* is, the more it's 'automatic'

Zinj
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I'm not sure what it means, but, isn't the above mantra a bit 'automatic'?
Sounds like reduction of interpersonal relationship to 'lego'

The more 'Scientific' and '100% Standard' *Tech* is, the more it's 'automatic'

Zinj

What it means to me is - no-one can create an effect on you; it is entirely your power of choice that determines your response or non-response.

I couldn't disagree more with the "lego" idea.

The only truth there is, from a spiritual perspective, is potential. The potential to be, do have.

I may be being pedantic here, but this stuff is data not tech. All data has a relative degree of truth. Where many Scns fall down is treating data as absolutes and not being able to put them into context.

The datum of "cause-distance-cause" has great truth and workability for me. I don't give a damn about where it comes from.

The contradictions of Hubbard and the outnesses of the CoS are prejudicing people against some highly workable and fundamental data.

I take your point on the potential roboticness of "100% standard tech" but this is a problem of the CoS not the tech. When the tech, or any tech, is fully known and its application mastered, then you can bend the "rules" if necessary and be able to get results however you see fit.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Tanstaafl wrote:

The contradictions of Hubbard and the outnesses of the CoS are prejudicing people against some highly workable and fundamental data.

That is a good point.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The contradictions of Hubbard and the outnesses of the CoS are prejudicing people against some highly workable and fundamental data.

Tanstaafl wrote:

That is a good point.

The point is, with 'data', it's *not* subjective. If it's 'data', anyone can see it. Anyone can find it. It's possible to approach 'data' from different points of view, and, it may look different, but, the data itself can be found by anyone.

There's a lot of pseudo-scientific fascination with 'Quantum Mechanics' nowdays, since it seems to suggest that there *is* no 'data', but, it's mostly about the subatomic level, and, the reason it's being taken seriously is *because* observation of the 'data' leads to the QM view, regardless of what the original POV was.

One of the core tenets of 'science' is reproducibility. If I say that, 'if you stab your hand with a knife, it will bleed' that would be a hypothesis'.

If a bunch of people try it and we all get the same results, this becomes 'data'.

If not, we scrap the hypothesis and it's no better than suggesting that 'if you stab your hand with a knife tiny spiders will crawl out' :)

Zinj
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
The point is, with 'data', it's *not* subjective. If it's 'data', anyone can see it. Anyone can find it. It's possible to approach 'data' from different points of view, and, it may look different, but, the data itself can be found by anyone.

There's a lot of pseudo-scientific fascination with 'Quantum Mechanics' nowdays, since it seems to suggest that there *is* no 'data', but, it's mostly about the subatomic level, and, the reason it's being taken seriously is *because* observation of the 'data' leads to the QM view, regardless of what the original POV was.

One of the core tenets of 'science' is reproducibility. If I say that, 'if you stab your hand with a knife, it will bleed' that would be a hypothesis'.

If a bunch of people try it and we all get the same results, this becomes 'data'.

If not, we scrap the hypothesis and it's no better than suggesting that 'if you stab your hand with a knife tiny spiders will crawl out' :)

Zinj

Well, I'll put it this way:

Scientology had a lot of valuable advice for me at a time when I needed it.

Since then, having learned of Hubbard's contradictions and experienced the outnesses and abuses of his Frankenstein, the CofS, I can become prejudiced to that original advice which helped me so much back then.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
The point is, with 'data', it's *not* subjective. If it's 'data', anyone can see it. Anyone can find it. It's possible to approach 'data' from different points of view, and, it may look different, but, the data itself can be found by anyone.

That's a good point - in a perfect world, where everyone is rational.

What do you think about Darwin's theory of evolution? It looks pretty sound to me. But what about the many fundamentalist-type Christians who think it's the work of the devil.

Anyone can see it - if they are looking, if they don't have something else mocked up in its place. if it doesn't threaten their reality.

There's no such thing as proof and it's highly aberrative to be fixated on proving stuff (not implying this with you Zinj). Nevertheless, I agree that there is an "objective" universe to a degree. This is probalby less true in earlier and less dense universes occupied by less "mestified" beings.

Religion and philosophy will never meet with the physical sciences. Lao Tzu said: "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao". There are religious/spiritual concepts that cannot be communicated in words. One can only try to get an idea across and hope the recipient can grok it.

Just my 2c.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
That's a good point - in a perfect world, where everyone is rational.

What do you think about Darwin's theory of evolution? It looks pretty sound to me. But what about the many fundamentalist-type Christians who think it's the work of the devil.

Anyone can see it - if they are looking, if they don't have something else mocked up in its place. if it doesn't threaten their reality.

There's no such thing as proof and it's highly aberrative to be fixated on proving stuff (not implying this with you Zinj). Nevertheless, I agree that there is an "objective" universe to a degree. This is probalby less true in earlier and less dense universes occupied by less "mestified" beings.

Religion and philosophy will never meet with the physical sciences. Lao Tzu said: "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao". There are religious/spiritual concepts that cannot be communicated in words. One can only try to get an idea across and hope the recipient can grok it.

Just my 2c.

That's a good point, regarding the 'creationists'.

They have what's called in Scn a 'stable datum'. Something against which *all* else is measured.

In the case of the creationists, it's a relatively silly 'calculation' based on the geneology of the Bible that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

It's not a religious tenet of christianity. Another element is the 'created in 6 days' version.

For a creationist, the stable datum is the bible. He will accept *any* data that conforms to that, and find rationalizations for anything that doesn't.

In fact, it's possible to rationalize *anything* as a stable datum, if you're willing to grasp to ever-more-ludicrous-props to hold it up.

I could adopt a 'stable datum' that magic green gnomes make cars run.

It would be possible to develop a whole cosmology and 'technology' about *how* they do this, and, there could be a whole industry built around making the magic green gnomes work better.

Given the 'stable datum', everything else could be relatively rational, and, there's even a 'self-healing' aspect to magical thinking in that the rationalizations approach reality as they evolve.

For example, it would be discovered that the magic green gnomes like to suck on the tailpipe of the car and get lethargic if the gas mixture is wrong... so, the 'magic green gnome mechanics' change the air filter.

The point is that the magic green gnomes are *superfluous*, because eventually, even *using them* one will arrive at something resembling actual 'data'.

I agree with Lao Tsu on *his* bailiwick. Contrary to popular (in scientology) belief, rejection of Scientology's magic green gnomes does *not* preclude spirituality or belief. From *my* vantage, if you can say it, it *will* be false, because of the limitations of speech and people and everything but 'what is'.

If you can describe it, you're only describing *part* of it, or, you wouldn't be able to :)

I also believe in 'direct' knowledge; inspiration; 'cogs', but, I *don't* think you can convey or communicate it to anyone else.

Luckilly, most people have their *own* direct knowledge and inspiration and 'cogs' and, it is possible to recognize common knowledge, even if it's about the 'unspeakable' :)

Zinj
 

Peter Schilte

Patron with Honors
I took some time to read this topic. And I have a question:
Fluffy and others say some of the tech really worked for them. As it is told by other ex-scientologists and critics, a lot of the tech was already there and all Hubbard did was using it in his "religion" and pretending it was HIS while it came from other sources. Am I stupid to think that the positive effects of this "scientology tech" is wrongfully granted to the cult, and wouldn't it be better giving the credits to the original sources? All the cult did was applie them.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I took some time to read this topic. And I have a question:
Fluffy and others say some of the tech really worked for them. As it is told by other ex-scientologists and critics, a lot of the tech was already there and all Hubbard did was using it in his "religion" and pretending it was HIS while it came from other sources.

Wait a sec...saying that the tech or some of it works for a person is a completely different and separate idea from where the tech came from.

I personally have made no bones about the fact that Hubbard got his ideas from other sources and that he was attempting to codify existing phenomena.

Not only is this observable, but Hubbard said so himself. So I don't get this "well, he stole it anyway" argument that I see every now and again. Other than not coming clean about his OTO participation and interests, Hubbard again and again said that he borrowed from other sources.

Am I stupid to think that the positive effects of this "scientology tech" is wrongfully granted to the cult, and wouldn't it be better giving the credits to the original sources? All the cult did was applie them..

I attribute nothing to any cult. I'm not part of any group. The only cult I know of in the equation is CofS and you know I don't credit them with anything other than money grubbing and exploitation.

As far as crediting Hubbard, that's a different issue.

I think that he did observe some existing phenomena quite well. I think that he did put together a very interesting and often workable methodology. Some of it was from other sources and some of it was his own ideas. I don't know of anyone else who has auditing, looking for the postulate on a chain, etc. That's all Hubbard. The Tone Scale? There are some similarities there to some Buddhist ideas but much of it is unique to Hubbard and his take on things. Study tech? Partly based on common sense and other things others have noticed, but definitely lots of his own ideas in there.

As far as the other things that he has that he did not himself originate, well, I've been studying yoga and Buddhism myself. I don't see any problem in studying something else that addresses some of the same things.

And also, how many religions, ologies or isms do you know of that are not built on the foundations of earlier ones? Christianity? Not exempt. Buddhism? It's an offshoot of Hinduism. Judaism? The pagan roots there are observable.

Wicca? Based on earlier older religions which themselves are based on earlier older religions.

Bottom line- something coming from somewhere else, in whole or in part, does not in any way mean one should not study it. In fact, it can indicate the opposite.

I had experiences with Scn that I have not had elsewhere. And then again, I've had experiences with other things that Scn could not give me.

Truth is truth.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
Good post Fluffy.

(The following isn't directed at you personally, Navy - I'm just letting some steam off)

This whole "LRH got it all elsewhere", "LRH is a philosophical magpie" that you read around, here and there, is way over the top. Yes, some of the important basic principles come from the Veda, which was freely acknowledged in the Phoenix lectures. Other snippets of tech may owe something to others. But c'mon! Read the tech vols! There's shitloads of stuff! Clay Table Processing, GPMs, ARC-X assessments, LX lists......

Some think LRH was a megalomaniac and maybe he did veer that way in later years, I don't know. But I could always tolerate the focus on LRH because anyone who thinks that without some form of KSW and ethics that the tech would not be squirreled away to tatters in no time flat is living in cloud cuckoo land. Now, it's gone too far the other way - typical of this planet; things and people swing from one extreme to another. :melodramatic:

Look at Buddhist prayer wheels. Oh, I'm too tired to contemplate my beingness so I'll spin this cylinder and it can do it for me. :duh: :duh: :duh:
This is where Scn would be now. This does not condone the way ethics and justice is currently applied in the CoS. Sadly, LRH was right when he said man could not be trusted with justice. Maybe those who are currently abusing their positions didn't have the heart to make the old man wrong.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I like your post, too. But "philosophical magpie"- what a cute turn of phrase. It's an accusation and as you point out, it's not wholly correct...but it's sooo cute!

Ok, I'm in an irreverent mood...not meaning to take away from any of the points you've made, though.

Chirp!
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I like your post, too. But "philosophical magpie"- what a cute turn of phrase. It's an accusation and as you point out, it's not wholly correct...but it's sooo cute!

Ok, I'm in an irreverent mood...not meaning to take away from any of the points you've made, though.

Chirp!

Thanks Your Royal Fluffiness.

Ironically, I'm not too good myself at recalling whether I came up with something or "borrowed" it magpie-style. I mostly tend to throw in favourite TV or film quotes, mostly. (There's a joke in there somewhere :unsure:)

I've got one great one saved up but it's a bit caustic and I like to keep things up tone. Sadly, even the Scn-sceptics and critics are too damn likeable on this forum. :melodramatic:
 
Top