Why do YOU cling to the "Tech?"

angel

Patron with Honors
NO CLINGING INVOLVED

I do not cling to the tech.

My own personal theory is for those who were practicing scientology for a good length of time, drilled and drilled. It became a part of you that does not go away.

I like who I became. I use the tech without thinking about it. I do not believe that anyone who was practicing for a good length of time never uses the tech. I do not buy that bs for one second.

I do not believe its about clinging. I believe we all share a common trait which is moving forward as an ex with what you are and what you have and doing good with it.

Jen :D
 
Take the quickest route always. Diving in there and slurping down turds for only tens of thousands of dollars beats talking to your dead space aliens for several years. Do whatever LRH says you should do. Trouble is, long and drawn out is the most expensive route and therefore the route that LRH gave us to achieve Eternity. Note I used the word "achieve" rather than "archive". Your Study Tech(tm) is showing through.


Do the quick route first then do the re-do where you do the longer doo-doo R/D

Twice the cost.

Call one of them super doo doo R/D and the pre-equisite is the poo poo rundown.

Don't be always about the speed. It's about more time, more money, more status.

When you are doo ing solo at home, don't forget to shower before you answer the door. The postman might go red-faced as he asks: "Oh is that what body thetans look like?"
 

Mystic

Crusader
The Tech

The "Tech" is the implant. Why be stingy. Admin is also the implant.

If "the tech" is helping you, well OK. So you need to suffer from clamosis...for a while. Perhaps you could pick something worse to suffer from. But, really now, there are many non-entrapping other paths. Look around, you'll find some/it/them.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
The "Tech" is the implant. Why be stingy. Admin is also the implant.

If "the tech" is helping you, well OK. So you need to suffer from clamosis...for a while. Perhaps you could pick something worse to suffer from. But, really now, there are many non-entrapping other paths. Look around, you'll find some/it/them.

I have never been able to see things in such a strict "black or white" manner. You seemed to have mastered that ability!:thumbsup:

"Clamosis" - cute. But, of course, quite disingenuous. What an abstract high-level generality THAT term is. Did you know that manipulators of all sorts often use very vague and general terms to elicit reactions, especially EMOTIONAL reactions, in people in accordance with the aim and direction of their manipulation? Just as the manipulators of the French Revolution used the slogan "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" to rile up violent action against the existing regimes.

In the case of this slogan of the French Revolution, it is interesting that "liberty" and "equality" are mutually exclusive ideas. How so? If someone has total "liberty", he or she is free to do whatever one chooses, including infringing in any way on everybody and anybody else. Obviously, if someone can do to you whatever they choose without restraint (complete liberty), then you can't be "equal" to them, and also, you sure don't enjoy "liberty". Unbridled "liberty" for all is logically impossible.

And if everybody is "equal" (an entirely impossible reality as far as people go), then none have the opportunity to do or achieve anything better or worse than anyone else (a major restriction on "liberty"). The point is that it is entirely a non-sensical slogan that was USED to elicit emotional responses from people to manipulate and get a result. There are many examples of this sort of thing throughout history.

Even modern media tends to stress emotional content over the "intellectual message" as a way to get a reaction.

Whe I see a person using a generalized non-specific term like "wogs", "SPs", or . . . . "clamosis", I see an insincere person trying to "cause some effect".
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
For someone who wasn't able to see things in such a 'black and white' manner before... it appears that you've mastered the technique!:duh:


I have never been able to see things in such a strict "black or white" manner. You seemed to have mastered that ability!:thumbsup:

"Clamosis" - cute. But, of course, quite disingenuous. What an abstract high-level generality THAT term is. Did you know that manipulators of all sorts often use very vague and general terms to elicit reactions, especially EMOTIONAL reactions, in people in accordance with the aim and direction of their manipulation? Just as the manipulators of the French Revolution used the slogan "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity" to rile up violent action against the existing regimes.

In the case of this slogan of the French Revolution, it is interesting that "liberty" and "equality" are mutually exclusive ideas. How so? If someone has total "liberty", he or she is free to do whatever one chooses, including infringing in any way on everybody and anybody else. Obviously, if someone can do to you whatever they choose without restraint (complete liberty), then you can't be "equal" to them, and also, you sure don't enjoy "liberty". Unbridled "liberty" for all is logically impossible.

And if everybody is "equal" (an entirely impossible reality as far as people go), then none have the opportunity to do or achieve anything better or worse than anyone else (a major restriction on "liberty"). The point is that it is entirely a non-sensical slogan that was USED to elicit emotional responses from people to manipulate and get a result. There are many examples of this sort of thing throughout history.

Even modern media tends to stress emotional content over the "intellectual message" as a way to get a reaction.

Whe I see a person using a generalized non-specific term like "wogs", "SPs", or . . . . "clamosis", I see an insincere person trying to "cause some effect".
 
Last edited:
Take the quickest route always. Diving in there and slurping down turds for only tens of thousands of dollars beats talking to your dead space aliens for several years. Do whatever LRH says you should do. Trouble is, long and drawn out is the most expensive route and therefore the route that LRH gave us to achieve Eternity. Note I used the word "achieve" rather than "archive". Your Study Tech(tm) is showing through.

It was just a typo, but that is not to say the typo was not a result in the drop in IQ experienced by being exposed to Scientology, just like everyone else who bought into Sceintology experiences.
 

Mystic

Crusader
There are very, very few "negative" views of scientology. If you see a turd on the sidewalk the usual response is to not step in it. It is SHIT. Scientology is also shit. Go ahead, step in it...then report back 30 years from now and let's see how klEER and OatTee you are.

These are not negative views of scientology, but simply statements of how it actually is.

The tech is the implant.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
There are very, very few "negative" views of scientology. If you see a turd on the sidewalk the usual response is to not step in it. It is SHIT. Scientology is also shit. Go ahead, step in it...then report back 30 years from now and let's see how klEER and OatTee you are.

These are not negative views of scientology, but simply statements of how it actually is.

The tech is the implant.

No, it's your opinion.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
What an interesting sentiment for an "Ex" Scientologist message board.

Oh yes, it is so, so sad that "Ex" Scientologists should have negative views of Scientology.

Who'd have thunk it?

Oh hon, you know that there are plenty of ex culties here who still have an interest in Scn. Hence your creation of this thread- right?
 

Imnotsupposetobehere

Patron with Honors
There are very, very few "negative" views of scientology. If you see a turd on the sidewalk the usual response is to not step in it. It is SHIT. Scientology is also shit. Go ahead, step in it...then report back 30 years from now and let's see how klEER and OatTee you are.

These are not negative views of scientology, but simply statements of how it actually is.

The tech is the implant.

That is what you believe Mystic and I can except your viewpoint however I am perfectly fine with Scientology
:thumbsup:
 

Imnotsupposetobehere

Patron with Honors
Hi ImNots,

Just curious... what, if anything, do you think should be changed about sci or the cos?

And, was your 'nic chosen just for fun or are you really being naughty? :coolwink:

KV


I belive that the tech was altered by the current Church, I don't think anything should be changed in Scientology just the current church's application of it and their inability to not handle squirrels.

As for my 'nic I choose it awhile ago when I first got out of the church, they told me not to go to specific sites and so I decided to go to them and thats who I created the name Iamnotsupposetobehere because I knew at the time that I would be in alot of trouble if my handler or anyone I knew from the church found me here but now I really don't care
:yes:
 

Kha Khan

Patron Meritorious
Secondly, the shit (Scientology) is addictive. The crack cocaine of spiritual, philosophical and religious pursuits. The ingestion of vitamin C can be beneficial. But taking vitamin C would not be beneficial if it was inexorably combined with crack, meth and heroin. Likewise, any "good" parts of Scientology are inexorably intertwined with the overwhelming, but frequently well-disguised, vile and disgusting parts.

This can be said of any spiritual avocation, religion or pursuit of same or philosophy.
Actually, no it can't. Not unless one ignores the rate or percentage of addiction, and the rate or percentage of adverse consequences.

Yes, you can always find someone who goes off the deep ends with anything. What exactly does that prove? The fact that the people at the extreme end of different bell shaped curves may wind up the same tells you absolutely nothing about the shape of the curve.

But if you consider the relative numbers, Scientology has proved far more harmful than most other modern spiritual avocations, religions, or philosophies.

I'm sorry, but particularly relative to the size of the relevant populations, you don't see many Methodists, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have mental breakdowns, mortgage their homes, load up their credit cards, or disconnect from their families because or at the request of their religions or religious leaders. To pretend otherwise is just plain wrong.

So one starts with one supposedly "workable" bit of tech, the bait, and proceeds to get inexorably sucked into the delusional, paranoid, non-falsifiable quagmire of the rest, the trap.

And eventually talking to the invisible souls of the dead space aliens that infest one's body.

And claim "wins" from doing so.

So what? There are many religions that believe in spiritual infestation, soul fragmentation and possession.
So now the Free Zone and Independent Scientologists are, like the official Church of Scientology, hiding behind the "we're a religion so you can't expect us to actually prove anything, and you can't criticize our beliefs because other religions are equally incredible" defense?

Here is the "so what": The Free Zone and Independent Scientology are marketed and represented as being therapeutic. The problem is that the vast majority of modern, enlightened, well-educated and intelligent people do not think that it is "therapeutic" to seriously address "spiritual infestation, soul fragmentation and possession." On the contrary, if one continually and consistently talks about being "possessed" one winds up in a psych ward. With good reason. I sure as hell don't want someone who believes they are "possessed" hanging around my loved ones.

Anyone who actually understands Scientology knows that it isn't so much the incident content that matters- but the intentions, postulates, considerations, etc, that the person had that are the real core belief of Scientology.
So what? There is no scientific or statistical evidence that "the intentions, postulates, considerations" a PC has about "the incident" have any therapeutic value, or relevance at all.

Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence to support a fundamental aspect of Scientology therapy -- i.e., past lives, and most importantly their supposed effect on one's current life. None.

Which has real consequences and opportunity costs. Instead of dealing with the actual cause of a problem, whether it be physical, chemical, or a past traumatic experience in one's real, present life (e.g., being molested as a child, being ignored, etc.) one instead is lead and encouraged to address imaginary incidents in imaginary past lives. That is not confront, it is non-confront. That is not dealing with the problem, it is avoiding the problem. And there is no good evidence that it works, or that the supposed therapeutic mechanism has any validity at all.

If they think they feel better, then they do. All therapeutic gains are subjective.
As I said, Scientology represents not only the triumph of the placebo effect, but addiction to the placebo effect.

And while therapeutic gains are subjective, the subjective states are also reported, studied, tested and statistically compared. Happens all of the time in a real science. (Control group) vs. (talk therapy only) vs. (talk therapy + drug X) vs. (drug X only). Cognitive talk therapy vs. rational emotive therapy. Etc., etc.

Except in Scientology. Or the Freezone. Or Independent Scientology. There we have unlicensed practitioners who are not reviewed or subject to professional discipline by anyone mucking about in people's lives based on untested theories that were largely made up by a paranoid psychopath.

But just cuz you don't want a particular path does not mean that this is the right decision for others.
I'm not saying it is not the right decision for others simply because I don't like it, or because it is not right for me.

I'm saying it is not the right path for others because, for example and without limitation: (a) there is absolutely no scientific or statistical evidence that it works; and (b) the proposed therapeutic mechanisms are irrational; and (c) it prevents people from addressing their problems, and obtaining help, through methods that are not irrational and do have scientific and statistical evidence backing them up.

As I said before, I once had a friend who saw a very well-qualified Shaman. Person had, as I recall, a Ph.D. in anthropology (if not, at least a master's degree) and had studied with well-recognized Shamans in Tibet. He sucked the evil spirits out of the top of my friend's skull. Guess what? She felt better -- for a day. (Placebo effect.) After a day, she was back in the same crap as always.

I don't object to Shamanic treatment of people by sucking evil spirits from the tops of their skulls simply because I don't like it, or because it is not for me, or because I'm somehow irrationally biased. I object because: (a) the proposed mechanism, sucking evil spirits from the top of a person's skull is not only irrational but, to be honest, stupid; (b) there is absolutely no evidence that it actually helps; and (c) engaging in such activities prevented my friend from getting the qualified help she actually needed.

I'll conclude by saying this. A Scientologist can always say, "It works for me." "I had wins." "It works for my PCs." "My PCs have wins." And they can always cite anectodal incidents of this or that person having some great recovery.

As can anyone who practices or delivers Shamanism. As can anyone who practices or delivers voodoo. As can anyone who practices or delivers "psychic healing." As can anyone who counsel's people by reading tarot cards, or by dong astrology.

But you know what? The fact that someone who practices or delivers Shamanism, or practices or delivers voodoo, or practices or delivers "psychic healing," or counsels people by reading tarot cards, or by doing astrology, tells me that "it works," or they "have wins," or their clients benefit isn't good enough for me. I know these practices have no scientific or statistical validity and are, quire frankly, primitive BS.
 

Xclam

Patron
Thanks!

Thanks Kha Khan for this topic - I've been meaning to ask the same thing. The CoS is a brainwashing cult and LRH was a nutcase. That should be quite obvious to people who manage to get out of the CoS' control and do a few searches on the internet for example. The amazing thing is that Freezoners (etc.) may think that the CoS is a brainwashing cult, but they still think that LRH was some sort of philantropical genious, or what? And the claims of the Tech are hardly humble, it's not "use this Tech and you'll feel a little better"... It's OT and cause over MEST and the whole track etc etc.

"Scientology represents not only the triumph of the placebo effect, but addiction to the placebo effect." - exactly! I couldn't have said it better myself!
 

angel

Patron with Honors
I think its about understanding that the tech did not originate from LRH to begin with. LRH squirrelled on the group he belonged to. Thelema means intention. All this stuff already existed and people belong to Thelema Kaballah groups and practice everyday.
I should be a matter of choice. Do you personally want to practice or not?
If not move on. Obsessing over those that do, is that healthy? For those who choose to continue to practice they have an ethical responsibility to disclose they are administering the dark arts and disclose the risks.
Jen
 
Top