Re: What is an E-Meter good for?
Muldoon
S. Burroughs' around 1970. A link for which I'll add at some time. His
observations are interesting. They landed with a loud "clunk" on a.r.s.
I wonder what sound they will make over here on a.c.t.?
>From a thread on a.r.s.:
>
Steelerfreak wrote:
> > > > Don't knock it. Really. They are accurate. If psychologists used
> > > > them, their patients would get better results.
> > > > My auditor did a heck of a lot more for me than my psychologist. It's
> > > > all about going back to a time and confronting. Auditors are better
> > > > equipped to get to the bottom line.
> > > >
> > > > Not promoting Scientology.....
backscatter wrote:
> > > Yes you are.
> >
Muldoon wrote:
> > There is a chapter in the book 'Messiah or Madman?' titled "Souls Tuned
> > Inside Out," that examines what an e-meter does. It describes how
> > meters can be used to detect stress, but also to mislead and
> > manipulate. It concentrates on examining the use of the e-meter - in
> > the Cult environment - as a means for shutting down critical thinking.
> >
> > There is very little in Scientology that is not used in a manipulative
> > way. After all, Hubbard regarded truth and goodness as a gimmicks. He
> > _used_ anything, no matter how seemingly benign. He even managed to
> > give a bad name to "being there."
> >
> > So what would Hubbard do with a simple skin galvanometer?
> >
> > This device - the e-meter - is a portion of a lie detector. Lie
> > detectors, as bio-feedback devices, have disputed validity, but are
> > still used.
> >
> > So let's see: 1/3 of a Polygraph, which is (very roughly) "valid,"
> > maybe, half the time, that equals 1/6th. Just about right.
> >
> > Disparate characters, from Carl Jung, to Alfred Korzybski, to AE Van
> > Vogt, to William S. Burroughs, all thought that skin galvanometers were
> > worth pondering - and for a variety of reasons.
> >
> > This comes back to the formula for the perfect glue. It's the
> > solvent/adhesive ratio.
> >
> > E-meters have_some_ validity - about 1/6th. And that's enough. When
> > used benignly, the rest (5/6th) is filled with the skill and good
> > intentions of the counselor. When used, manipulatively, the 5/6th is
> > filled with the "power of suggestion" - this would include interesting
> > topics such as "top loading," "trance," and "cold reading." When used
> > as a "police interrogation device" to intimidate, or to train a person
> > to "shut down" critical thinking, the 5/6th is filled, again, with
> > "suggestion," and also with fear and apprehension.
> >
> > Scientology, as designed by Hubbard, uses all of the above.
> >
> > If that which "works" in Scientology is "true" 1/6th of the time, then
> > that gives Scientology what it needs - a bit of actual truth.
> >
> > Ah, truth - regarded by the devious Hubbard as the ultimate gimmick.
> >
> > The perfect formula for the ultimate glue. So Hubbard thought.
Michael
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1146859650.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >From a thread on a.r.s.:
>
>> backscatter wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Don't knock it. Really. They are accurate. If psychologists used
>> > > them, their patients would get better results.
>> > > My auditor did a heck of a lot more for me than my psychologist.
>> > > It's
>> > > all about going back to a time and confronting. Auditors are better
>> > > equipped to get to the bottom line.
>> > >
>> > > Not promoting Scientology.....
>> >
What is an E-Meter good for?
For accurately measuring resistance or a change in resistance or an unknown
resistance, that is what a Wheatstone bridge does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatstone_bridge
Best
Mike
Muldoon
Muldoon wrote:
>
> There are observations re. Scientology and the e-meter, made by William
> S. Burroughs around 1970. A link for which I'll add at some time. His
> observations are interesting. They landed with a loud "clunk" on a.r.s.
>I wonder what sound they will make over here on a.c.t.?
>
> >From a thread on a.r.s.:
> >
>
> Steelerfreak wrote:
>
> > > > > Don't knock it. Really. They are accurate. If psychologists used
> > > > > them, their patients would get better results.
> > > > > My auditor did a heck of a lot more for me than my psychologist. It's
> > > > > all about going back to a time and confronting. Auditors are better
> > > > > equipped to get to the bottom line.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not promoting Scientology.....
>
The following may be viewed, by some, as naive. Yet it was written in
1970, before much was known. Long before the revelations of December
1979, with the court ordered release of "Fair Game" and "covert attack
tech" writings and programs; long before the insights available as to
Hubbard's actual background and intentions, provided by such events as
the 1984 "Armstrong trial." It also does not take into consideration
the insights made possible by a careful examination of Hubbard's hoax
'Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics'. And, indeed, some of the basic
methods of "asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and
loyalties" of others - inside and outside the organization - were still
in process of being formulated and established.
Still Burroughs' observations are, I think, worthy of review.
Excerpts from the 'Los Angeles Free Press', 06 Match 1970.
"In view of of the fact that my articles and statements on Scientology
may have influence young people to associate themselves with the so
called Church of Scientology, I feel an obligation to make my present
views on the subject quite clear.
"Some of the techniques are highly valuable and warrant further study
and experimentation. The e-meter is a useful device... (many variations
of the instrument are possible.) On the other hand I am in flat
disagreement with the organizational policy. No body of knowledge needs
an organizational policy. Organizational policy can only impede the
advancement of knowledge. There is basic incompatibility between any
organization and freedom of thought.... Scientologists are not prepared
to accept intelligent and sometimes critical evaluation. They demand
unquestioning acceptance.
"Mr. Hubbard's overtly fascist utterances... can hardly recommend
him...
"A separation between Mr. Hubbard's work and his opinions is ruled out
by Mr. Hubbard's grandiose claims... 'Galaxy upon galaxy billions of
light years away have no bridge no route to freedom... Scientology is
the one and only road to total freedom and total power...' If Mr.
Hubbard were content to be a technician who has made some important
discoveries, we could afford to ignore his personal opinions. When he
sets himself up as the savior of all possible universes we cannot."
Burroughs then describes his and others' experiences with abusive and
stifling "Scientology ethics."
He continues:
"As to my personal evaluation, after six months study; I would not be
writing this unless I was convinced that Scientology was worth serious
consideration. I feel that I have benefited greatly from Scientology
processing. In an earlier article in 'Mayfair' I said that Scientology
can do more in ten hours than psychoanalysis can do in ten years. For
what it's worth I still think so. Scientology is incomparably more
precise and efficient than any method of psychotherapy now in use, but
unfortunately, Scientology has duplicated some of the basic errors of
conventional psychotherapy. Any aberration that affects the human mind
must have three dimensional coordinate points in the human nervous
system. Otherwise, it could not produce an effect anymore than a
television or radio broadcast could be seen or heard without a
receiving set..."
And there is more, which will be completed in part 2.
Muldoon
The 6 March 1970 statement re. Scientology by Bill Burroughs,
continued:
"...should anyone wish to make an objective evaluation, he would find
it difficult to do so owing to the structure of the Scientology
Organization... To learn these techniques one must take a course at a
Scientology center. And one does not simply pay tuition, obtain
materials and study. Oh no. One must JOIN... I had to undergo a series
of Security Checks (at my own expense of course) carried out on a lie
detector... ('Do you have any doubts about Scientology?' 'Do you have
any unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?'...)"
There is a point in Burroughs comments when he retreats briefly to dark
humor, understood perhaps only to himself, and appreciated only by
those familiar with his style of writing. It is unfortunate, in that it
is a seemingly "off the wall" series of words, in the midst of a
collection of serious observations. Worse, it is a tongue-in-cheek
off-the-wall non sequitur that contains, at its heart, perhaps yet
another serious insight:
That "Scientology" came into being, fundamentally, as a vehicle, a
means, "to ensure a parasitic ersatz immortality for the founder,"
i.e., L. Ron Hubbard.
Burroughs regarded the "Clearing Course" (and the steps leading up to
it) as an examination of "crippling automatic reactions." He treated
the "Clearing Course," itself, as an exercise in desensitizing various
dichotomies, and other items, and did not accept, at all, the hyperbole
(the "implant cosmology," "dwindling spiral," etc.) that was build into
and around it.
He had explored the subject; he had taken the "bait," yet had not
become "hooked."
More Burroughs:
"In the book, The Teachings of Don Juan, Castaneda described
hallucinogenic drugs of devastating potency, drugs unknown to modern
science. These drugs should be investigated and made available.
"Unimaginable extensions of awareness are now possible in terms of
existing techniques. Let's set up a center where all these techniques
are pooled and interchanged. Let's explore and chart inner space. Your
inner space belongs to you. It is time to demand what is yours and to
challenge anyone who claims to have knowledge of inner space to come
out and show what he has."
Ball of Fluff
> There are observations re. Scientology and the e-meter, made by William
> S. Burroughs' around 1970. A link for which I'll add at some time. His
> observations are interesting. They landed with a loud "clunk" on a.r.s.
> I wonder what sound they will make over here on a.c.t.?
I see a number of people who are much interested in critiquing the subject
discussing the validity of the emeter, and have for a long time now.
What seems odd to me is giving any credit to it as if it were an autonomous
entity. I've had people tell me it's just a machine.
Well, yes. I know that and so does every Scientologist in and out of CofS.
We don't think it has magical powers. We don't think it diagnoses anything.
The auditor and the pc are the ones who do the work.
The emeter just gives some indications.
C
ida...@aol.com
is just a part
of the con. I remember when the e-meter was being sold for $25.00 and
it didn't take long for the old con-artist to figure he could make more
money. And that what $cientolgy is all about , make money, make money
make More money.
Ida
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the
orgs
[Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."
- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter,
4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"
Muldoon
'Naked Scientology' by William S. Burroughs:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/Naked%20Scientology.pdf
The e-meter is a simple device that can be used to detect stress; it
can be utilized in potentially beneficial ways, and ways which are
misleading, manipulative, abusive, and oppressive.
L. Ron Hubbard recognized its capacity to function in all these
categories. He utilized each and every category, as does, now, his
alter-ego, Scientology Inc.
Kevin Brady
<ida...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147649755.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >From articles I have read- suggested by ex-s and sps re the e-meter; it
> is just a part
> of the con. I remember when the e-meter was being sold for $25.00 and
> it didn't take long for the old con-artist to figure he could make more
> money. And that what $cientolgy is all about , make money, make money
> make More money.
>
> Ida
Yep, that's what it's about to some. To others its a method of releasing
themselves from spiritual bonds, and actualizing their abilities, and the
meter can help point out where work needs to be done, and when it should be
stopped.
Ball of Fluff
> is just a part
> of the con. I remember when the e-meter was being sold for $25.00 and
> it didn't take long for the old con-artist to figure he could make more
> money. And that what $cientolgy is all about , make money, make money
> make More money.
Ida,
why are you posting on alt.clearing.technology?
I'm curious. You were the person who said to me that you didn't see how
anyone would or could leave CofS and still do any Scn. Ummmm...look around
you. You're on a.c.t. You're talking to (mostly) non CofS Scientologists.
And you're talking about "cons", etc, which is not what this demographic
wants to discuss on a.c.t.
C
ladayla
Dear Homer,
When did you appoint Ball of Fluff the Moderator of ACT?
Must we petition her for the privilege of posting to ACT?
Is Ball of Fluff now to approve the content of messages to ACT?
Please let us know as soon as is convenient for you.
TIA
Ladayla
Ted
"Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote:
> why are you posting on alt.clearing.technology?
>
> I'm curious. You were the person who said to me that you didn't see how
> anyone would or could leave CofS and still do any Scn. Ummmm...look around
> you. You're on a.c.t. You're talking to (mostly) non CofS Scientologists.
>
> And you're talking about "cons", etc, which is not what this demographic
> wants to discuss on a.c.t.
I am open to discuss cons, dupes, and how this level of criminality
played into clearing. It might be the most important discussion on
a.c.t. for some time.
--
Ted
Ball of Fluff
"Ted" <ted_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ted_crammer-146D...@aurora.lightlink.com...
And I'm glad that you are, Ted.
My post refers to an exchange on a.r.s. between Ida and I in which she
opined that I was still with CofS- although I am not and have posted the
verbiage of my expell/declare and a later one in which she opined that she
never heard of anyone studying Scn after they got out of CofS.
And here she is on a.c.t. which is a hotbed of people like that, including
you and me.
And that's good because I suggested she find such a forum. I may have even
mentioned that one specifically.
But I had something I wanted to say to her about her post and so I said it.
C