Why I post

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hi,

re auditing- yes, receiving, fine. Still do. Had some just two months ago. Not interested in taking on any pcs.

I was just differentiating myself from a tech staff member who word clears or audits or C/Ses or supervises a courseroom or Academy.

Yes, I still use Scn on a regular basis. I use Hubbard's concepts. I consider that the large majority of what he wrote is still useful to me and beneficial. I only differ with him on some policy and maybe a very few tech type things, nothing major there. I once posted on a.r.s. that given the huge amount of material LRH produced, that my estimation was only 2% maybe was toxic,like disconnection, RPF, all that sort of thing, leaving 98% that was not. The howls and shrieks I got from that- I even lost a net friend over it- were amazing. An extremely well known critic kept posting that I said that 98% was "good" and kept going on about "your 98% that you think is so good". Well, in the first place, duh, news flash- Scn'ists like Scn. But in the second, my point was that with all the commentary about the innate flaws in Scn itself put there by Hubbard- which is TRUE and there ARE some- well, if you look at the stacks and stacks of lectures, PABs, HCOBs, PLs, FOs, Exec directives and god knows what else that he produced, only a little bit pertains to the shit that has done the most damage to lives and to the very cult that purveys it. Most of his stuff is about theta and mental mechanisms. Love it or hate it, that's all there is.

This is why it's very easy for me to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not a matter of picking out teeny nuggets of something good from an ocean of crap. It's more the other way around. Big ocean of something (that I consider good and that certainly does no harm) ...x....and itty bitty nuggets of crap that shouldn't be there and that truly is harmful.

Thanks for clarifying that Fluffy.

I am interested to know if ex-churchies are still using Scientology. I wonder what percentage of the total population that once called themselves Scientologists are out of the CoS, but still using the ‘Tech’ regularly? I would guess that it is pretty low. My guess is that most who have left, are so p**sed off with the whole subject, that they never want anything more to do with it.

I tend to agree with you that much of the Tech is valuable, not 98% though – more like 58.42%. However, I think that a substantial part is unverified mumbo-jumbo. And don’t even get me started on the OT levels!

The big problem that I have with Hubbard’s research and conclusions, is that he hardly ever seemed to give any evidence. He would just present it as a complete body of knowledge (even though it obviously wasn’t) and as if it was almost The Word of God, to be followed without hesitation. I have a science and engineering background and I like to know how someone came to a particular conclusion and to see the evidence. If someone just says “According to the latest research …”, I want to see that research and evaluate it for myself. And statements such as: “20% of the population are antisocial personalities, but only 2.5% are truly dangerous”. Well great Ron, but how did you come up with these figures, where’s your research?

In any case, the actual proportion of workable ‘Tech’ is not an issue, but the fact that the CoS seems to put the emphasis on the most destructive parts, is. The huge number of cases where members have been told to disconnect from family members, or close friends is ludicrous. In the long run, this causes so much upset and bad PR, it holds back the CoS from much of the good it could do.

I’m glad that you still get something out of Scientology. It would be very disheartening to think that everyone wasted all their time in the subject. Although I do feel that there is much that is workable and potentially beneficial, I am in not hurry to start using it again to any degree. I am still so thoroughly p**sed off at certain people in the CoS, that this has put me off the whole subject for quite some time.

Axiom142
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Yes, I know what you mean. 98% may not be effective, sure. But if I take out the fair game, disconnection, RPFing, stuff about going after critics, not paying staff well, what's left is 98%, perhaps. Maybe a bit less.

But of that "98%"-- what's effective? You're right, there is a lot of unverified stuff where he's kind of just running off at the mouth. I suspect that we all have different ideas as to what percentage of that is worth anything. It's best that we all interpret that differently. I'd not want a cookie cutter world where we all think the same things.

I think there are a lot of people who leave CofS and who still use the tech. Some admit it, some don't. Some don't know they're doing it.

I've talked to some very vehement critics back channel who aren't FZers or anything and when you talk to them IRL or on the phone, they sing a very different tune than they often do in posts. They say they think there's truth in some of Hubbard's ideas and they use a lot of the terms, etc.

There're a lot of people like that, IMO, and not just Freezoners or Independents or people who have spinoffs that do not really make much of the derivation.
 

Good twin

Floater
You got that right Fluffy. It's a "one size fits all" religious practice in the hands of Co$. Seeing people like yourself take what they will of it and keep their eyes and minds open is one of the things that gave me hope when I first got out. The technology belongs to those who use it. Period.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
I am interested to know if ex-churchies are still using Scientology. I wonder what percentage of the total population that once called themselves Scientologists are out of the CoS, but still using the ‘Tech’ regularly? I would guess that it is pretty low. My guess is that most who have left, are so p**sed off with the whole subject, that they never want anything more to do with it.

I tend to agree with you that much of the Tech is valuable, not 98% though – more like 58.42%. However, I think that a substantial part is unverified mumbo-jumbo. And don’t even get me started on the OT levels!

I think a lot of the stuff before Clear is very good.

The big problem that I have with Hubbard’s research and conclusions, is that he hardly ever seemed to give any evidence. [...] Well great Ron, but how did you come up with these figures, where’s your research?

I doubt there actually was any.

I’m glad that you still get something out of Scientology. It would be very disheartening to think that everyone wasted all their time in the subject. Although I do feel that there is much that is workable and potentially beneficial, I am in not hurry to start using it again to any degree. I am still so thoroughly p**sed off at certain people in the CoS, that this has put me off the whole subject for quite some time.

I can understand that, but I wish that people who've left wouldn't focus their anger on people who do still choose to use the parts of it they consider workable. (I'm not saying you do this, btw.) It's the wrong target, I think.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I doubt there actually was any. [research]

Read some of Alan's posts about all the research auditing that took place on the Briefing Course while he was there, early 60s.

Plus lots of auditing took place at ACCs, I believe. I assume Hubbard used these for research. I've read of people on the Apollo receiving experimental rundowns, that maybe ended up in wide distribution or maybe didn't.

I don't believe he did a whole lot before he published DMSMH, but afterwards, when he had dozens or hundreds of people who would run whatever he ordered, it would be remarkable if he didn't do any research.

I'm talking about research into the workability of various processes, or rundowns, not the background to the "havingness scale" or something.

Paul
 

Good twin

Floater
Read some of Alan's posts about all the research auditing that took place on the Briefing Course while he was there, early 60s.

Plus lots of auditing took place at ACCs, I believe. I assume Hubbard used these for research. I've read of people on the Apollo receiving experimental rundowns, that maybe ended up in wide distribution or maybe didn't.

I don't believe he did a whole lot before he published DMSMH, but afterwards, when he had dozens or hundreds of people who would run whatever he ordered, it would be remarkable if he didn't do any research.

I'm talking about research into the workability of various processes, or rundowns, not the background to the "havingness scale" or something.

Paul

Yes Paul, one would hope. However now that I have heard more about LRH's behavior I have my doubts. He may have just continued to shoot from the hip without any real Scientific method. Looks more like that all the time. Sad really.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Read some of Alan's posts about all the research auditing that took place on the Briefing Course while he was there, early 60s.

Without control groups, though, is it actually research?

That's what I meant.

Sure, there were experiments, but lacking a stricter methodology, I personally wouldn't call it research.
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Without control groups, though, is it actually research?

That's what I meant.

Sure, there were experiments, but lacking a stricter methodology, I personally wouldn't call it research.

Thetanic,

If it was done, it could be called research. Taking lots of drugs and dreaming about aliens could be called ‘research into the upper OT bands’. But, without proper procedures and quality control and recording of results, it certainly couldn’t be called scientific. That’s why I get rather annoyed when idiots claim that Hubbard used the ‘scientific method’. They wouldn't know what that was if it bit them on the bum. It appears that for a large proportion of the time, he jumped to conclusions without full justification. I suppose supporters might say that he used his ‘OT powers’ to ‘know’ what was right. Well, perhaps this is true, but it isn’t remotely verifiable, is it?


I think a lot of the stuff before Clear is very good.

...

I can understand that, but I wish that people who've left wouldn't focus their anger on people who do still choose to use the parts of it they consider workable. (I'm not saying you do this, btw.) It's the wrong target, I think.


I agree. I am rather unhappy with the CoS right now, not everyone in it, but rather what it represents.

:duh: I still can't shake off my British reserve and penchant for understatement.

I am extremely p**sed off at the ‘Church’ of Scientology. :angry:

Anyway, even though I feel that way, I don’t blame all Scientologists for this. If some people want to use Scientology to better their lives - great. If they get definite benefits and are happier for using it – even better!

I try not to confuse being right with making others wrong.

Saint Ax
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes Paul, one would hope. However now that I have heard more about LRH's behavior I have my doubts. He may have just continued to shoot from the hip without any real Scientific method. Looks more like that all the time. Sad really.

Or shoot from the lip?

Like he used to talk a lot and ramble?

Eh, Eh?

Oh, I'll get me coat. :blush:

Not so witty Ax
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
OMG Ax. Stick around. That was at least mildly humorous. If you stay it makes me look good. At least you read my posts. :yes:

OK then GT, I'll stay.

Hey, whaddaya mean I make you look good? That's an insult!

Isn't it? :unsure:

I course I read your posts, I'm doing my best to keep on the right side of you. I'm not forgetting that we will probably meet in Vegas and I may be naïve, but I know better than to upset a gal who may be packing some heavy-duty hardware. :yes:

Ax
 

Good twin

Floater
OK then GT, I'll stay.

Hey, whaddaya mean I make you look good? That's an insult!

Isn't it? :unsure:

I course I read your posts, I'm doing my best to keep on the right side of you. I'm not forgetting that we will probably meet in Vegas and I may be naïve, but I know better than to upset a gal who may be packing some heavy-duty hardware. :yes:

Ax

Your mumsy should be proud.:thumbsup:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I think that he constantly shot from the hip and that his research wasn't scientific at all. But then again, I don't expect scientific thingies from an ology that's about thetans and theta.

IMHO, the reason people are pissed off about the lack of scientific aspects to Scn "research" is that Hubbard kept telling people- and CofS still tells them- that this is the sort of research that was being done. He shouldn't have.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
IMHO, the reason people are pissed off about the lack of scientific aspects to Scn "research" is that Hubbard kept telling people- and CofS still tells them- that this is the sort of research that was being done. He shouldn't have.

Agreed. It was, as was pointed out, a form of research, it just wasn't as scientific as was claimed. Since I come from a family of scientists, that always stuck out to me.
 

Magoo

Gold Meritorious Patron
IMHO, the reason people are pissed off about the lack of scientific aspects to Scn "research" is that Hubbard kept telling people- and CofS still tells them- that this is the sort of research that was being done. He shouldn't have.

Agreed. Also, the fact that IF you dare question anything re "Proof"--you're either routed to the word clearer, or "Ethics" depending on who is supervising---
and that gets old fast. :eyeroll:

Tory/Magoo~~
 

Neo

Silver Meritorious Patron
IMHO, the reason people are pissed off about the lack of scientific aspects to Scn "research" is that Hubbard kept telling people- and CofS still tells them- that this is the sort of research that was being done. He shouldn't have.

In other words, LRH lied.

Dishonesty does have a tendency to upset people.

Neo
 
Top