To any reasonable Scientologists
Steve Zadarnowski
>It's time for part two of my latest reply to Konchok.
Christ! I haven't seen KrunchKrak for weeks! Didn't he
get put away with Koos?
S
---
"If it smells like ass, its Scientology!"
"Just bum data, bum data, bum data, bum data,
alter-is, alter-is, bum data." - LRH, SHSBC
He...@cotse.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jommy Cross" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: To any reasonable Scientologists (Repost 1. From 9/27/00)
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 03:19:15 -0400, <He...@cotse.com> wrote in msg
> <970643955.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
..
> >I'd love to see more scientific studies of the value of various parts
> >of Scientology. Such studies would be difficult to arrange, but not
> >impossible. I don't know that they would change things all that much though.
> >Scientologists will continue get Scientology, the ars critics will continue
to
> >criticise,
>
> Not *this* critic, d00d.
Good for you Jommy.
> Far as I know the only serious work into the
> dianetic engrams is:
>
> Jack Fox, Alvin E. Davis, and B. Lebovits, "An Experimental Investigation
> of Hubbard's Engram Hypothesis (Dianetics)," Psychological Newsletter
> 10(1959):131-134.
>
> .which failed to demonstrate any evidence to support it. But show me the
> evidence and I'll be audited without delay.
Well...
Actually there is another study which you might be interested in. Information
on this was posted to ars many, many moons ago, although I just found it again
on the MSN Scientology board.
>>>
Ross (1988) investigated the effects of Scientology membership with a cross-
sectional design, controlling for age, between length of time in Scientology
and scores on a number of personality measures. Ross found those who had been
in the movement longer had a significantly more favorable view of themselves.
Ross also found long-term members had increased their sense of duty and ability
to work conscientiously, increased their emphasis on organization and planning,
increased their attempts to understand their own behavior or the behavior of
others, increased their engagement in behaviors that provide material or
emotional benefit to others, and increased their seeking and maintaining of
personal friendships. Long-term members also decreased their solicitation of
sympathy, affection, or emotional support from others. The greatest increase
was in orientation toward duty and obligations. Significant correlations were
also found with preference for continuity and old values, sympathetic manner
and positive reaction for others, unpretentiousness and uncomplicated manner,
and analytic and self-disciplined approach.
Ross (1988) found no support for Scientology being a negative influence on
personality, nor that entrants into Scientology are unusual with regard to
their previous history. Claims that membership in Scientology leads to ego
disintegration was not supported, with the scores of the participant’s ego
strength within the normal range. Results from the PIL (purpose in life) scale,
which measures the extent to which individuals have a clear purpose in life,
indicated that Scientologists scored significantly higher than members of
conventional religious denominations or committed Christians did.
Ross, M. W. (1988). Effects of membership in Scientology on personality: An
exploratory study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27, 630-636.
>>>
Wow! Nice study!
> Seems odd that an organization with mega$ at its disposal can't fund this
> stuff, huh?
Well, as I said in my original post, the Church is a big, bureaucratic
organization that often gets attacked, so they are somewhat protective and
wary. Over the past few years I've seen some effort in the direction of
getting independent plaudits and recognition. I think that so far this has
mostly been done in the area of the the sociology of new religious movements,
and maybe in terms of the removal of toxins from the body on the Purification
Rundown.
> In msg <970301330.3...@webmail.cotse.com> you wrote:
> >Tell them that you're a scoffer but
> >you want to be shown something special! (Of course I know it wouldn't be a
> >secret then).
>
> Okay, I'm certainly a 'scoffer'.
>
> *What* should I ask them to show me?
>
> I'd settle for telekinesis, but any signs of a technology sufficiently
> advanced to appear magical will do. This 'see a thought on the e-meter'
> stuff doesn't cut it.
>
>
> *Why* does this stuff have to be 'secret'?
I was looking back on ars for the post in which I wrote the above and found it
had disappeared! (Jommy is quoting from both the 27/9 post and the 30/9 post).
This might be a mistake but it looks as though it's been cancelled - if so I
feel quite honored!
Anyway this is the relevant snipped extract from what was originally said in my
reply to Jane of September 30.
>>> (Extract from Sept 30 post)
>Jane Allen wrote
> So I come in with the attitude of a scoffer (but secretly I want
> to be shown something special). I was trying to get the auditors to skip
> ahead, but they wouldn't and I was getting nowhere with their low level
> methods. I don't say that to boast, but the fact remains, I was able to
> see the intentions of their exercises and I wanted to move on.
>
One thing I've learned in my auditing is that it's very important to say
exactly what I think about something. Tell them that you're a scoffer but
you want to be shown something special! (Of course I know it wouldn't be a
secret then). If I think the process is boring or unnecesary - I say so. If
nothing changes and I still think so - I say it again.
I kind of always did this - but over the years I've gotten much better at
picking up (and communicating) exactly what I think is wrong (or right) - it
really speeds things up (and makes auditing cheaper).
Actually I just remembered three times when, at least initially, I _didn't_
do this:
1. When I first had grades auditing, the auditor asked me if I was
interested in running the process
I always used to say "Yes" - but actually sometimes I wasn't. Waste
of
everyone's time.
2. Another auditor, another time. He had an unfortunate habit of raising his
eyebrows every time he acknowledged me. I was embarrassed for him and didn't
really want to say what was bugging me - but of course I couldn't make any
gains in the session as my attention kept going onto waiting for his
eyebrows - and also onto trying not to think about it. He could see from the
meter something was wrong and he finally got it out of me - big relief all
round.
3. Final time. Many years ago. I was waiting in the HGC for my auditor and
this grumpy looking bloke walked though the doorway. I thought, "Wow, he's
an ugly, miserable looking fella."
Of course. . .
So in session I kept trying to keep my attention off that nasty thought I'd
had. I _really_ didn't want to have to tell him. But the pressure kept
building up, and he kept trying to find what was wrong - and finally I had
to hide my head behind the meter shield and 'fess up. Big relief all around
(I think/hope), and the session got on track, etc.
>>>End of extract
The thing is Jommy, is that if someone wants to get an benefit from auditing
they have to be prepared to communicate honestly to the auditor.
That was why I suggested that it might have been better if Jane had honestly
said what she felt - that she was a scoffer but that she secretly wanted to be
shown something special.
If she had said so, that thought could have been understood and acknowledged by
the auditor and they could then have gotten on with the auditing.
Going back to what you said above:
> In msg <970301330.3...@webmail.cotse.com> you wrote:
> >Tell them that you're a scoffer but
> >you want to be shown something special! (Of course I know it wouldn't be a
> >secret then).
>
> Okay, I'm certainly a 'scoffer'.
>
> *What* should I ask them to show me?
>
> I'd settle for telekinesis, but any signs of a technology sufficiently
> advanced to appear magical will do. This 'see a thought on the e-meter'
> stuff doesn't cut it.
As I hope you can see, I actually wasn't suggesting that if Jane asked them to
show her something "special" that they would do some nice magic for her.
If anyone is able to do "magical things," I don't think it would be very smart
to conclusively demonstrate it to people. I know I certainly wouldn't. There
was a longand interesting debate about this on act some time ago. LRH also
mentioned something about this in chapter 2 (I think) of the book History of
Man.
And if you need such a demonstration before you'll consent to try Scientology -
I'm afraid you've got a long wait.
Still, maybe the 1988 Ross study was enough for you. Those positive attributes
looked rather nice!
Why, I daresay you've already stopped reading; and at this very moment you're
hotfooting it down the hill in your slippers, tucking in your shirt as you go,
as you rush to sign on at your local church. : )
Freddie T
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
ptsc
While this is interesting, I think it's only slightly more valid than a claim
that all Scientologists are clinically insane. I'm not terribly impressed with
the sample size or the method of selection, for instance:
"The sample consisted of 24 men and 24 women, with a mean age of 40.2 years, SD
15.1, median 35.8: range of ages was 16 to 72, with time in Scientology being a
mean of 14.6 years, SD 8.0, and range 2.5 to 30.0. Thirty-four of the samples
were married, seven single and seven separated, divorced or widowed. Most common
occupations were office and sales workers (29.2%), proprietors and managers, and
skilled workers (18.8% each), and professionals and housewives (10.4%). Parental
occupation was for 86.4% skilled workers or above, with 45.4% having parents who
were office and sales workers or proprietors and managers. Modal education was
completion of secondary schooling (68.1%), with the remainder having had some
tertiary education or being graduates."
(Re the method of selection)
"Subjects were obtained by taking one hundred names at random from the records
of the Church of Scientology in Melbourne, Australia from a list supplied which
included some three hundred of those who had been members for three years or
longer. Questionnaires with a covering letter were then sent direct to these
individuals, enclosing a stamped addressed envelope for their return. Two were
returned undeliverable, and 48 completed questionnaires were subsequently
returned, a rate of 49%. The ACL, Es and PIL were scored by a research assistant
blind to the source of the instruments, and coded for computer analysis."
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/books/ross.html
(From the abstract)
Now the choice was random, which would be good if it weren't for the source. I
am assuming the organization itself provided the list. Now if it were any other
"religion" I would expect this to be OK but we're talking an organization with a
long-term history of playing games with statistics and even outright lying about
them.
Incidentally, I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the list was indeed
supplied by the "Church" based on the weaselly use of the passive voice in the
paragraph on the method of selection, which comments that the names were
randomly chosen from a "list supplied" and conveniently omits who supplied that
list. The passive voice is often used by "clever" academics when they wish to
omit the subject and hope nobody will bother to think about it all that much.
Could it be remotely possible that the list was salted with people they thought
were more likely to score well on a psychological assessment?
There's no way of knowing that, as the "Church" itself likely provided the
names, and doubtless wouldn't have provided a list of names to anyone likely to
find bad results.
I'll correct this if the paper (which I do not have) is more specific about
these issues. In either case the sample size makes the results at best
preliminary. I doubt that Scientology members are appreciably more mentally ill
in a clinical sense than the general population.
(Now whether they're goddamn nuts is another matter!)
ptsc
Gerry Armstrong
>On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:08:03 -0400, <He...@cotse.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Ross (1988) investigated the effects of Scientology membership with a cross-
>>sectional design, controlling for age, between length of time in Scientology
>>and scores on a number of personality measures. Ross found those who had been
>>in the movement longer had a significantly more favorable view of themselves.
Actually they have a more favorable view of their egos. It's the
illusions about themselves that are now more favorable.
A $cientologist (I have experience in this) has to keep making
progress, just as the cult has to continue to be the fastest growing
cult in the world, and you make progress in $cientology by looking at
your ego ($cientology addresses the ego and not the self at all) ever
more favorably.
I must see if I can find or get the cult to deliver to me all the OCAs
(the cult's "Personality Test" lure and psychoinstrument) I took
during my long intensive in $cientology.
You see, you soon learned that if your OCA went down you were ethics
bait. (Yes they really have a term "ethics bait.") A low OCA is one of
the items that could get you sent to the RPF slave labor reprogramming
camp. An OCA that dropped got you unwanted attention from the MAAs,
the C/Ses, auditors, and all your seniors all the way up to the
Commode Door.
It's no wonder that the $cientologists who've stayed in longer have a
significantly more favorable view of themselves; that is, their egos.
The longer you stay in the more cognitions you would have had, the
more processes you would have run, the more grades and levels you
would have completed, the more courses you would have done, the more
stats you would have reported, the more able you would have become,
the more awareness you would have attained. How could you not look on
yourself more favorably than you look on wogs (R) who have done none
of this, who have gone on living their woggish (R) lives.
The way you get to lord it over new arrivals, with your more favorable
view of your ego, also helps to reinforce the unfavorable view of the
recruit, plus the favorable view of the veteran. There's great cachet
in longevity in $cientology. Ask any old timer.
By the time I escaped $cientology, my OCA was right along the top.
There was nowhere else to go. I couldn't get more superior than I was.
Same thing with my IQ. The cult tests IQ with the same test whenever
it wants to throughout a clam's career. By the time I escaped, there
was nowhere in $cientology for me to go. I was getting a perfect score
on my IQ test every time. I couldn't get any smarter.
This reminds me of something funny. On the Apollo in, I don't know,
maybe December, 1973, I began a relationship with Terri Gillham who
was the C/O CMO, the Commanding Officer of the Commodore's Messenger
Organization. I was, I guess, 27, Terri was, I believe, 19. I was in
the Port Captain's Office, Ship's Rep probably. In any event, we have
a love affair and get married. But along the way she tells me that she
decided to pursue me, or allow me to pursue her, I forget which,
because she's gone through my files and seen that I had a high IQ. So
if it wasn't for Ron's stupid IQ tests I would never have had those
few wonderful years with the beautiful Terri.
When I did finally escape from the cult, with my personality test
scores and my IQ off the charts, and after years of becoming more
aware with cognition after cognition, and after more than a thousand
hours of auditing with Heaven knows how many Divs of TA, and after
working so close with the old man, and after going OT, and after 12
1/2 years, and after more than two of those in the RPF (where you
really make case gain, right), I was faced with the obvious and
sobering truth that I was just as I was when I entered $cientology's
door in Vancouver, B.C., with exactly the same problems, abilities and
inabilities. The big difference was that now that I knew that, I also
knew that Hubbard, DM, the GO, the SO, the lawyers, the PIs, and the
rest of the lying, scamming crooks knew that I knew and that I was a
targeted enemy.
>>Ross also found long-term members had increased their sense of duty and ability
>>to work conscientiously, increased their emphasis on organization and planning,
>>increased their attempts to understand their own behavior or the behavior of
>>others, increased their engagement in behaviors that provide material or
>>emotional benefit to others, and increased their seeking and maintaining of
>>personal friendships. Long-term members also decreased their solicitation of
>>sympathy, affection, or emotional support from others.
Boy, tell me about that. $cientologists are lonely creatures.
>>The greatest increase
>>was in orientation toward duty and obligations. Significant correlations were
>>also found with preference for continuity and old values, sympathetic manner
>>and positive reaction for others, unpretentiousness and uncomplicated manner,
>>and analytic and self-disciplined approach.
>
>>Ross (1988) found no support for Scientology being a negative influence on
>>personality, nor that entrants into Scientology are unusual with regard to
>>their previous history. Claims that membership in Scientology leads to ego
>>disintegration was not supported, with the scores of the participant’s ego
>>strength within the normal range.
Absolutely, it's an ego enhancer.
I feel, without reading the rest of this that Ross is describing the
results of nazi life and dedication. Wouldn't a nazi who had been a
member for ten years or so experience a great increase in orientation
toward duty and obligations? Wouldn't a long time nazi have an
analytic and self-disciplined approach? Wouldn't a long time nazi
consider he had increased his sense of duty and ability to work
conscientiously? Wouldn't a good nazi have through the years increased
his emphasis on organization and planning?
>> Results from the PIL (purpose in life) scale,
>>which measures the extent to which individuals have a clear purpose in life,
>>indicated that Scientologists scored significantly higher than members of
>>conventional religious denominations or committed Christians did.
Yep, that's what $cientology does. It implants a "clear" purpose into
the minds of people lured in.
>
>>Ross, M. W. (1988). Effects of membership in Scientology on personality: An
>>exploratory study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27, 630-636.
>
>While this is interesting, I think it's only slightly more valid than a claim
>that all Scientologists are clinically insane. I'm not terribly impressed with
>the sample size or the method of selection, for instance:
>
>"The sample consisted of 24 men and 24 women, with a mean age of 40.2 years, SD
>15.1, median 35.8: range of ages was 16 to 72, with time in Scientology being a
>mean of 14.6 years, SD 8.0, and range 2.5 to 30.0. Thirty-four of the samples
>were married, seven single and seven separated, divorced or widowed. Most common
>occupations were office and sales workers (29.2%), proprietors and managers, and
>skilled workers (18.8% each), and professionals and housewives (10.4%). Parental
>occupation was for 86.4% skilled workers or above, with 45.4% having parents who
>were office and sales workers or proprietors and managers. Modal education was
>completion of secondary schooling (68.1%), with the remainder having had some
>tertiary education or being graduates."
You've also got to dig that $cientologists become experts at taking
tests like Ross administered. They would automatically know how to
answer the test questions to give a higher, but clearly false,
impression.
Christians, as a comparative "group," would not live their lives
according to personality tests. Christians don't send their "elite" to
prison if their personality test scores are low. I'll bet there isn't
even a term in Christianity which would be the equivalent of "Low OCA"
in the criminal $cientology cult.
>
>(Re the method of selection)
>
>"Subjects were obtained by taking one hundred names at random from the records
>of the Church of Scientology in Melbourne, Australia from a list supplied which
>included some three hundred of those who had been members for three years or
>longer. Questionnaires with a covering letter were then sent direct to these
>individuals, enclosing a stamped addressed envelope for their return. Two were
>returned undeliverable, and 48 completed questionnaires were subsequently
>returned, a rate of 49%. The ACL, Es and PIL were scored by a research assistant
>blind to the source of the instruments, and coded for computer analysis."
Ah this is funny. Maybe someone who participated in this sham will
come forward. Just to whom does any $cientology cult operation give
its mailing list?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
<970837683.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
>I was looking back on ars for the post in which I wrote the above and found it
>had disappeared! (Jommy is quoting from both the 27/9 post and the 30/9 post).
>This might be a mistake but it looks as though it's been cancelled - if so I
>feel quite honored!
Normally canceled posts should appear in the Lazarus report. If you
see a post of yours in there that you didn't cancel yourself, then
that would be a rogue cancel. The possibility of someone rogue
canceling posts without it appearing in the Lazarus is fairly small.
What may have happened is that your post simply expired. Some newsfeed
expire posts after a mere couple of days. Depends.
_________________________
Bernie -- http://welcome.to/ars
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
wrote in <970443666.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
>My first introduction in this life to past lives and the spiritual nature of
>man came from some novels by Dennis Wheatly. One of the points he made about
>curses was that if they fail to stick on the recipient, they come back and hit
>the person who cast them.
It's the same principle found in Theosophical principle of
"thought-forms". If it finds material it can vibrate with in harmony
in the aura of the person it is sent to, it acts on this person, if it
doesn't, then it comes back to its creator.
But then, this means that it isn't valid just for negative
thought-forms. If positive thought-forms can't find something in
harmony to vibrate with, it is also supposed to come back and hit its
originator.
He...@cotse.com
I understand your point about the non-appearance of any cancels on the Lazarus
report, and I now know why the posts have been disappearing.
I'm vaguely disappointed to realise that it was my own stupid fault and not in
fact an operation by the bloody Marcabs again. : )
By default this remailer is set to "don't archive this post." I only changed
the setting in the last few days. At first I hadn't noticed and then
erroneously thought it only applied to the dejanews archives. So I guess my
early posts on ars and act will keep expiring.
My aologies to anyone who has wasted their time checking into this.
Btw Bernie, very nice web site.
Freddie T
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bern - http://welcome.to/ars" <wel...@bernie.us-inc.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: To any reasonable Scientologists
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
<970893443.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
>Btw Bernie, very nice web site.
Thanks. Should get better overtime too, but that's the nice thing
about websites that you don't have to wait it's perfect before
starting out.
Jommy Cross
<970837683.3...@webmail.cotse.com>:
Well it's an interesting study (I've only read the abstract), but it's
sociology.
Ross says "Results are in all probability a function of identification with
the movement and the meaning in the life of the individual provided by it
and might be expected to occur in other more conventional religious groups
as well."
I was thinking more of something that validated the tech. I mean, you hear
plenty about the tech in the books, don't you? If there ain't no engrams,
there ain't no Dianetics.
Ross says "...Scientology claims to be able to raise an individual to
higher levels of being through a technique known as 'auditing', analogous
to psychotherapy, which may enable transcendence of all traumas of the
past, and at higher levels the ability to experience events in past lives
or to externalise the mind into the bodies of other. (Brice & deCelle,
1978)."
And that's a *very* tactful way of describing what the public books say,
let alone the unpublished stuff.
>> Seems odd that an organization with mega$ at its disposal can't fund this
>> stuff, huh?
>
>Well, as I said in my original post, the Church is a big, bureaucratic
>organization that often gets attacked, so they are somewhat protective and
>wary.
So's IBM, but they didn't keep hi-temperature superconductivity secret.
> Over the past few years I've seen some effort in the direction of
>getting independent plaudits and recognition. I think that so far this has
>mostly been done in the area of the the sociology of new religious movements,
>and maybe in terms of the removal of toxins from the body on the Purification
>Rundown.
*Please* do some careful research on recent findings in megavitamin therapy
before doing the Purification Rundown, Freddie. You only have one liver.
<snip>
>I was looking back on ars for the post in which I wrote the above and found it
>had disappeared! (Jommy is quoting from both the 27/9 post and the 30/9
>post).
>This might be a mistake but it looks as though it's been cancelled - if so I
>feel quite honored!
Check your news server's policies? Some servers are picky about anon
postings. Check regular postings from laz...@lightlink.com to this ng to
find out what gets cancelled.
<snip repost of original message>
>> In msg <970301330.3...@webmail.cotse.com> you wrote:
>> >Tell them that you're a scoffer but
>> >you want to be shown something special! (Of course I know it wouldn't be a
>> >secret then).
>>
>> Okay, I'm certainly a 'scoffer'.
>>
>> *What* should I ask them to show me?
>>
>> I'd settle for telekinesis, but any signs of a technology sufficiently
>> advanced to appear magical will do. This 'see a thought on the e-meter'
>> stuff doesn't cut it.
>
>As I hope you can see, I actually wasn't suggesting that if Jane asked them to
>show her something "special" that they would do some nice magic for her.
Yeah, I can see what you mean. What should I ask them to show me, then?
>If anyone is able to do "magical things," I don't think it would be very smart
>to conclusively demonstrate it to people. I know I certainly wouldn't.
Why's that, d00d? The published and unpublished materials make it clear
that $cientology is talking about a technology so advanced it's
indistinguishable from magic, but any sufficiently advanced technology
would be (respect to A C Clarke, here).
This isn't the middle ages, we've had most of a century of relativity and
quantum mechanics with adequately scary consequences, I guess most people
could cope. For most people a transistor radio might as well be magic.
Hiding your light under a bushel just lets critics like me point out the
parallels between what Ron wrote as supposed fact and what he and his
colleagues wrote as sci-fi. I can recommend Van Vogt's 'Null-A' novels, if
you can find them.
Course, I can't prove that it's not a complicated double-bluff, but in the
absence of other evidence you're left with the balance of probability. Is
it likely that a pulp sci-fi author quoted as saying "If I wanted to make a
million dollars I'd start a religion" would just coincidentally stumble
onto secrets so scary they can't be revealed? Ask Forrie Ackermann. Ask Ted
Sturgeon. Ask AE Van Vogt. Ask Harlan Ellison.
> There
>was a longand interesting debate about this on act some time ago. LRH also
>mentioned something about this in chapter 2 (I think) of the book History of
>Man.
Yeah, there's a million reasons *not* to demonstrate advanced technology,
but the most likely is because the rubber chicken's in the other conference
room, so we can't wave it today, and the smoke and mirrors are on
back-order.
>And if you need such a demonstration before you'll consent to try
>Scientology -
>I'm afraid you've got a long wait.
I'm inured to it. Luckily there's plenty of other magic in the world.
>Still, maybe the 1988 Ross study was enough for you. Those positive attributes
>looked rather nice!
I'm glad a small sample of striners benefited from $cientology, but
when I want psychotherapy/counselling I think I can get it at a
substantially better rate than Co$ offers, thanks d00d. And I won't have to
beleive in space cooties infesting my body.
>Why, I daresay you've already stopped reading; and at this very moment you're
>hotfooting it down the hill in your slippers, tucking in your shirt as you go,
>as you rush to sign on at your local church. : )
Toujours optimist, Freddie. Bravo.
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
(Jommy Cross) wrote in <200010071704...@berlin.neuropa.net>:
>Ross says "...Scientology claims to be able to raise an individual to
>higher levels of being through a technique known as 'auditing', analogous
>to psychotherapy, which may enable transcendence of all traumas of the
>past, and at higher levels the ability to experience events in past lives
>or to externalise the mind into the bodies of other. (Brice & deCelle,
>1978)."
I haven't read the text in detail before, but "externalise the mind
into the bodies of other" is not correct.
Arnie Lerma
says...
>
>On 7 Oct 2000 17:06:01 -0000 Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header
>(Jommy Cross) wrote in <200010071704...@berlin.neuropa.net>:
>
>>higher levels of being through a technique known as 'auditing', analogous
>>to psychotherapy, which may enable transcendence of all traumas of the
>>past, and at higher levels the ability to experience events in past lives
>>or to externalise the mind into the bodies of other. (Brice & deCelle,
>>1978)."
>
yeah well,
Still No OTs in Scientology
http://www.lermanet.com/persecution/
arnie lerma
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
Slave chains forged of lies are stronger than the finest steel
http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
Jane Allen
> > I was trying to get the auditors to skip ahead, but they wouldn't
> > and I was getting nowhere with their low level methods.
Hello responded:
> One thing I've learned in my auditing is that it's very important to
> say exactly what I think about something. Tell them that you're a
> scoffer but you want to be shown something special!
I reply:
I tried to get the auditors to skip ahead, but they wouldn't.
Let me know if you need anyhting else cleared up.
Jane
--
"Hello, Nurse!" ~Sappho
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
He...@cotse.com
From: "Jane Allen" <jane_...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: To any reasonable Scientologists
> I said:
>
> > > I was trying to get the auditors to skip ahead, but they wouldn't
> > > and I was getting nowhere with their low level methods.
>
> Hello responded:
>
> > One thing I've learned in my auditing is that it's very important to
> > say exactly what I think about something. Tell them that you're a
> > scoffer but you want to be shown something special!
>
> I reply:
>
> I tried to get the auditors to skip ahead, but they wouldn't.
>
> Let me know if you need anyhting else cleared up.
Alright Jane.
My supposition is that the "low level" of what you were doing wasn't the
problem.
As far as I can make out, you weren't willing to tell the staff what you were
thinking about and so you couldn't make any gains in your auditing.
From your letter of 30 September:
> I was audited and sec checked and was able to fool them into thinking some
progress had been achieved.
Leaving aside the fact that new people wouldn't normally be sec checked, it's
quite clear that you didn't trust the staff enough to tell them how you really
felt, and about what you had read on the internet.
Maybe this doesn't seem important to you, but I assure you that it is. This is
how I originally explained this point in my expired reply of September 30. If
anyone is tired of reading stuff they've already seen before please skip down
to the next line of asterix.
**********************
> Jane Allen wrote:
> The "win" I had is hereby described.
>
> While "on course" at the Manor Hotel in Hollywood, CA (Celebrity
Centre
> International) I received no "wins." I read Dianetics there and
filled
> out the pages of my workbook. I was audited and sec checked and was able
> to fool them into thinking some progress had been achieved. If there
> were absolute "wins" to be won then they should have been just as
> effective on a skeptic as a enthusiast.
Mmmmm. . . , but I don't think there _are_ any absolute "wins" in
Scientology. The gains that are to be had come from improving one's
understanding and familiarity with the various parts of life by doing the
procedures honestly. Now, that isn't to say that a sceptical attitude is
bad; actually I aim to start off with one when I'm doing anything new. Then
at some point I either get, or don't get, new understandings, interesting
improvements in my skills, etc.
However if you start off fooling the staff into thinking you are making
gains (shakes head dolefully) . . . I don't see how you can _expect_ to get
anything from any of the courses or counselling you received.
Here's a loose example from other field:
Billy takes up a basic Buddhist meditation course. He doesn't really
believe in meditation although he's curious to see what it's like and he's
particularly interested in thing he's heard about more advanced meditations.
However, rather than do the meditation that he's supposed to be doing he
sits in the lotus position and plans the menu for his next dinner party and
works out his shopping list. Afterwards he spoofs the instructor into
thinking that he made gains. This is a shame for everyone because it means
that Billy never gets corrected and that meditation never gets done right.
Also Billy feels somewhat disassociated from the the instructor and the
whole subject, and in terms of his progress he's just cut his own throat.
But for the moment all seems well and he progresses onto the next steps -
until he inevitably falls on his head and "realises" that Buddhism is
all nonsense.
I could make up similar examples from Freudian analysis, Rogerian
counselling, etc. However while it might be possible to fool people for a
time whilst doing study or mental training or therapy, I just can't imagine
that it would get anyone anywhere. The only good thing is that it could be
good experience for the Buddhist priest or the org staff, and in the future
they'll probably be better at spotting similar people earlier.
>I don't believe in God because
> they (God-ists) want you to believe first and get benefits second. (Even
> if I don't "believe" in, say, gravity I still remain firmly
attached to
> Earth.) So I come in with the attitude of a scoffer (but secretly I want
> to be shown something special). I was trying to get the auditors to skip
> ahead, but they wouldn't and I was getting nowhere with their low level
> methods. I don't say that to boast, but the fact remains, I was able to
> see the intentions of their exercises and I wanted to move on.
One thing I've learned in my auditing is that it's very important to say
exactly what I think about something. Tell them that you're a scoffer but
you want to be shown something special! (Of course I know it wouldn't be a
Of course. . .
*************************************************
Jane, I'm not quite clear about the sequence of your services. As far as I can
make out, you started out with a Dianetics seminar; then you had some auditing
in which you believe you were able to fool the auditors into thinking some
progress was being made, but not sufficiently for them to move you onto any
higher level services. You then 'switched to an exclusive diet of "Out-Tech"
or "Black PR".' After that you went back to the org; however you didn't talk
about the stuff you'd seen on the internet but instead did a basic TRs course
over the top of the out-tech and black PR. You did state that "I concede that
I may have been misinformed about the routines I was attempting." As an
example, the idea about not blinking for a long period of time has not been
(IMHO as I don't have the references to hand) a part of any TRs course for
about 16 years.
Going back to your query at the start of this letter (good idea. Ed). Maybe I
wasn't clear enough in my answer of 30 September (shaking my head dolefully
once more). You had written on the same date that you were a scoffer but
secretly wanted to be shown something special. The reason I suggested it might
have been a good idea to tell this to the person auditing you, was that you
were witholding that idea.
Auditing just won't work in the presence of witholds. If you could have told
the auditor your ideas about being a scoffer, etc; then either it would have
cleared up for you, or you could have done some more stuff to look at those
various ideas you were/are holding in your head about Scientology.
But it's not possible to just ignore the ideas, fool the auditor into thinking
you're making progress, and hope to be put on something else higher or more
prestigious that works better. The thing that needed to be handled was the
thing that you had your attention on.
Maybe the auditor _did_ suspect something was wrong - particularly if you
_were_ given a sec check.
I don't really think that there is much else I can usefully say about this
area. And I'm basing my evaluation purely on what _I've_ understood of what
_you've_ written and I may well have gotten it wrong.
If this post makes sense to ou and you feel that there was something that you
were witholding, you might feel some relief if you went in to CC and told them
about it - even if you never do any other services again. Don't worry about
upsetting them - they've heard everything. And I'm sure they'd be pleased. You
wouldn't need to get any auditing, just ask for an interview with the director
of processing and say that you'd like to talk about the auditing you had.
Despite being generally optimistic,I guess the chances of you doing that are
quite small; so instead I'll just wish you the best and hope you can get on
with your life and be happy.
Freddie T
da...@my-deja.com
...and dont go off on a rant about how they have
been "brainwashed"...THEY ARE STUPID....read some of their posts!
He...@cotse.com
on the newsgroups.
In a couple of the responses I've been given a "Way cool" and a "Conceded" -
but sadly it's just
not enough for me.
My free time is limited. And as I sit here on the terrace, resting my prettily
slippered feet on one of the tame llamas, I realise that, entertaining as
crafting this kind of nonsense is, true enjoyment for me
comes from the delighted giggle of a pretty girl; the smell of a cup of freshly-
cut green tea in a sunny parlor; the swish of a whip as it curls ... oops,
sorry (cough).
If an individual wants to go through the levels of Scientology I think that's a
very fine thing. Some people will try and they won't make it, and often this
will be because they aren't dealt with properly during their
courses and auditing. Almost everyone will have _some_ problems; Scientology
is still a pioneer activity and it's not as smooth as it could be yet.
Helping people to move along more smoothly is very rewarding. On the other
hand, if people aren't interested in spiritual philosophy/don't want to do
Scientology, my strong inclination is to give them a cheery wave, and then
either pass on my way or talk about any other interests we have in common.
If the one little lost sheep needs some help finding his way I'll certainly
give him some directions and maybe even give him a lift, but if he then carps
and moans at me incessantly he can jolly well find his own way home.
(If I was a vicious man I might have written that the miserable sheep could
soon find himself flayed, gutted, divided into suitable portions, and bagged up
in the trunk. But it's a nasty thought and not a good analogy so I'd rather
just leave him to find the way himself.)
I hope I'm not going to regret writing that paragraph. I'm leaving it in only
because it's funny.
Ungrateful sheep: "Baaa. You _would_ prefer to do that to me, Freddie. Baaa.
You wouldn't leave me - you're going to kill me and eat me!"
Freddie T: "No, no,no, no. Please get out. You can walk."
Ungrateful sheep: "Baaastad."
(sheep gets out of the car and exits stage left)
That's an actual conversation, and as you can see, the sheep was not damaged in
any way.
Hem,hem. Anyway, fairly soon, after I've finished pointing out my recent
observations of the Church and telling a few more anecdotes, I'll be done for a
while. I might be inclined to do a bit more if I had more of my
Scientology materials with me. As I don't it's a bit too much trouble to get
ahold of the exact references I need.
Maybe anyone could benefit if they were given the _best_ of Scientology. This
would be those precise actions most suited to their individual situation; those
actions would be performed very well and very smoothly, and anything relevant
which changed in the person's life would be quickly picked up and dealt
with.
That would be the ideal - and the more difficult the person is, the more that
they need this kind of superlative treatment. If someone is an easy case,
they'll generally read a book, roll into the org and get on services.
Most long-term Scientologists, in my opinion, can stand up to some bad
programming or bad handlings. If not they wouldn't still be there. ; ) I'm a
fairly easy case I think. I managed to get two or three of my grades
without even a C/S (it was once a very small org). A few mistakes were
definitely made but we picked them up and that time during which I was doing
the grades was one of the best periods in my life (so far).
Roughly, from the viewpoint of the person receiving the grades, the auditor
makes sure before you start that you're well-fed, rested and aren't worrying
about any pressing issues. He asks you a really interesting philosphical
question ( and if it's not interesting you drop it), and you tell him your
ideas. He listens carefully and understands and then asks the next question in
the process. And you do this until you feel good and have a realisation. It's
wonderful.
By the way, that paragraph isn't meant to be a 'how-to-do auditing' type of
thing. It's just a description of what happened from my point of view.
Since I started posting a couple of weeks ago I have been interested in
correcting a few things that seem to me to go against things I've actually seen.
Whilst I often read reports on ars about a decline in Scn, and orgs with only a
few people - these go against the observations I've made:
a. There has been a resurgence in the quality of services. I've not taken any
recently (so my affadavit isn't as good as it could be) but I've had rave first-
hand reports from trusted friends, and I've seen some big
improvements in the course packs. In the old days the supervisor had to dig
around to find a suitable reference when the student asked a question like: "
What should I do if I ask this supplementary series of questions but nothing
comes up on the meter?"
There was probably a bulletin or a lecture that covered this situation but it
took some experience to know where to look. In the new Golden Age of Tech
packs, those references have been culled and collated so that the reference is
right there and every student can study them and drill them.
b. There has been an increase in the size of the orgs I'm connected with. I've
seem lots of report on ars about how such and such an org appears to be
shinking and doing badly. I've no idea how true these are. As I've said before,
the three orgs I know well are doing very well and are expanding year by year.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Allen" <jane_...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: To any reasonable Scientologists (Repost 1. From 9/27/00)
> In article <970643955.3...@webmail.cotse.com>,
> <He...@cotse.com> wrote:
> >
(snip)
>You underestimate the dedication of people bent on self-improvement.
I don't think I do. I love people who are interested in self-improvement -
particularly when this manifests itself in things which make the world
brighter for people and the environment around them. I'm lucky to know a
number of people (Scientologists and non-Scientologists) who are like that. One
of the guys I know has a great party in aid of different charities at his house
every month. He also organizes beach clean-ups.
If the Church fell, the freezone would have a resurgence; the question is
whether the resurgence would last. I agree with you that people around the
world would keep doing self-improvement. There would be little or no change at
all for almost all of those people .
However standard Scientology is not easy to deliver; the various
splinter.groups who've broken from the from the Church are very interesting,
but not, IMO, viable alternatives. Providing good-quality courserooms and
holding the line about what exactly should be done to get a result is not an
easy business and I think it demands a certain persistence and toughness to get
it done.
>
> > If the Church ceased to exist, then a few things would be better,
>
> Which things specifically?
I've been thinking about this question and I've changed my mind now. : )
Ok. For a relatively few, already trained people, the full range of services
would be
easier to obtain. Some comm lines that IMO don't need to be so closed would be
opened and many of the injustices that have occured over the years would lose a
lot of their force.
>
> > but I'm afraid that in short order things might well get a lot worse.
> > Ideally, I'd like to see some reconciliation between the Church and the
> > Free-Zone.
>
> You can get in trouble for such wrong-think, ya know.
>
Well, I'm not advocating teaching Dianasis or using Bilateral meters in
session. The things that I'm suggesting absolutely don't require the downfall
of the
orgs, or even any very big changes.
I'd like to see a broad, unconditional amnesty for almost everyone and a
thorough review of all past declares. I'd like it to become very easy for
auditors to get their upper bridges - utilizing perhaps a supervised read it-
drill it-do it regime. I'd also like to see the prices come down and the Church
using the internet and DVDs to cheaply and broadly disseminate the entire LRH
library.
No big deal. It could be done within a few months.
> > The Church is a big, bureaucratic organization
>
> Agreed. But it's much more than that and at the same time far, far less.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand Scientology very much at all.
>
> > Scientology, as practiced in the official centers, is workable for
> > a lot of people. In my opinion it's safer and much better to keep it as
> it is.
>
> You know what else is workable for a lot of people? Hypnotism. You know
> what else? Capital Punishment. Numbers don't interest me. Except when I
> see how un-workable for a lot of people some of the Church's activities
> are.
>
> Your statements seem to avoid addressing any intentional harm caused by
> the Church. Do you believe that there are merely "bad apples" in the
> bunch or do you think Declaring SPs both within and without the church is
> a practical and efficient method of keeping things pure?
In the early eighties and during certain periods before that it was very
easy to get declared. Particularly if you had a position of authority.
A number of reasons for the harsh ethics have been argued for - one
of the most interesting to me is the idea that a lot of the problems stemmed
from covert infiltration. Variations of this idea have been suggested by a
number of diverse people. For example:
Bill Robertson; by the Ace of Clubs (fantastic prose style by the way, if
you're reading; some of the funniest stuff I've ever read); in the time line
put out by "The Librarian" (and revisited recently by CL); the rumor line; and
finally by David Miscavige (in the satellite broadcast announcing the deal with
the IRS).
To summarise, the theory is that the church was infiltrated by its enemies;
this caused a lot of problems with things like false reports, sabotage and
plenty of injustices. The damage was not just in what those people did, but in
the ripples that were created - for example the mis-training of outer-org
executives who then went back and messed up their areas. And also, and not
least, because of the subsequent paranoia and witch hunts.
Of course the different people I mentioned above have very divergent views
whether the plants within the church have been fully cleared out and also about
the degree to which the damage has been repaired.
Hardly anybody knows for sure, but I'm in the camp which would hold that the
church is in good hands.
Here are my observations on SP declares:
Justice is working better than it used to. Since the late eighties it has been
much more difficult get somebody declared. One of my friends was something of a
rogue (he was a reg in the mid/late 80s) and eventually had a lot of people
baying for his blood. He very nearly got declared suppressive, but it was too
difficult. There is a long form to go through to check that no gradient steps -
like warnings and suspensions - have been missed. Also a review of the good
things the person has done. Finally the declare proposition was disapproved
(more than once I think) and he escaped with being routed off staff (fired).
I believe that previously missionaires could more or less declare people at
their discretion. Now, sensibly, the final decision is with someone up lines
and its a long, laborious business.
>What about the
> RPF, is it merely a boot camp for malcontents or a concentration camp for
> wayward undesirables? Or don't you think it exists?
>
A couple of my friends have done the RPF. Perhaps the most perceptive auditor I
ever had learned his trade there. He could really trace down an exact read on
the e-meter and find something that was charged but of which I was absolutely
unaware until he steered me with the meter to find it and look at it.
I've also worked along with the RPF on a couple of projects. They were working
hard but it wasn't _terrible_. A number of people I knew in the SO in the
eighties had done the RPF at one time or another.
I think a lot of the critical stories we can read about it are overlarded. I
guess that some of them are probably more or less true. It's difficult for most
people to know which ones. Once again I think that things in the RPF are
probably easier than they ued to be (I've heard one or two things about this
although I have far, far less direct knowledge here than I do with the orgs) .
> I concede that I may have been misinformed about the routines I was
> attempting, but I just wanted to see if an unblinking stare was possible.
> I discovered that it was and I was content that I had the attention and
> concentration needed for such an uncommon act. Doesn't mean I'm going to
> join a yoga class either.
>
> Some people just want a little bit of help, others want to see the world
> become a bunch of non-blinkers. I'm somewhere in the vast middle, but I
> like to watch the people bicker as their eyelids flicker.
>
Poetic, and good luck to you as you watch, but blinking really isn't an issue
in Scientology.
Sometimes I meet someone and I think, "Hey, this guy is living his life just
fine. He doesn't need all the hassles that go along with doing Scientology."
However, almost invariably as I get to know them better I find areas of upset
and worry that cause them all kinds of hassle. With one very pleasant middle-
aged lady I talked with last week I found that as far as possible she didn't
allow herself to look at the past because of the regret that welled
up out of her. Another, aparently successful lady lady who was part of the same
conversation then said
something similar - that if she ever looked back, she realised just how much
her life was filled with sadness. Now that kind of thing is something that
Dianetics is good at dealing with.
At other times I've met good people who turn out to have huge problems with
their boss, or their mother, or ... .
These are areas of life that are well understood in Scientology. If more people
were able to apply Scientology basics to their lives - the tone scale, the
principles of ARC, etc, then I think the world would be an easier place to live
for everyone.
I know this sounds excessively Pollyannaish, but hey kids, let's eat, drink,
and be merry and bright, it's Christmas! (No, it's not. Ed).
Freddie T
p.s. If anyone would like to exchange book lists - recommendations of good
books, please e-mail me. I mostly like sci fi, comedy,and travel stories - but
more or less anything written with a good prose style is fine.
p.p.s. Quite apart from my decision not to post here much longer, I won't be
writing on the newsgroup for at least the next week as the harem girls are
complaining of feeling neglected.
(adjusts cravat, feeds a rather delicious sausage to the llama who spits it
back in disgust, exits stage right)
Jane Allen
> As far as I can make out, you weren't willing to tell the staff what
> you were thinking about and so you couldn't make any gains in your
> auditing.
This is the chronology.
1) Saw Dinaetics advertised on TV.
2) Moved to Hollywood
3) Confronted by Scientologist on the sidewalk outside testing center.
4) Walked around the individual.
5) Went to a movie.
6) Was curious about Scientology, went back to testing center.
7) Took personality test (200 questions if I recall), then IQ test (80
questions).
8) Scores were checked. Outlook (according to test) was low (I had
JUST moved to Hollywood and was still trying to get settled). IQ
(according to the test) was very high. Higher than any of them had
ever seen in "new meat" (they apologized for calling me that).
9) Was walked the half-mile or so to the Life Center (Museum of LRH).
10) Took the tour and bought a copy of Battlefield Earth.
11) Was invited to Celebrity Centre.
12) Spoke to registrar, signed up for a course.
13) Started class that same day after chatting with other staffers
about their experiences. Was told to close my eyes and think of a cat.
I did so. That image is not thanks to your eyes, but that core part of
you we call the Thetan. This was in a hallway.
14) In the course room I saw the box of toys that people used to make
concrete their abstract ideas.
15) I started to read Dianetics and liked it's straight forward
attitude. Made good progress first day.
16) Chatted some more with staffers. Talked to an aspiring actor who
was presently more focused on the mission of Scientology to Celar the
World. I've met people with such dedication before so that didn't
bother me.
17) Everyone was upbeat and pleasant and seemed very interested in
showing me as much of the Manor Hotel as I wanted. I was given a tour
of the rooms and shown where Kirstie Alley likes to stay.
18) I spoke to a Class V auditor there who was very nice even though I
though it odd that he couldn't stop smoking cigarettes.
I like talking to people and learning new things. Everyone there
seemed very genuine in their interests to help others and do their
jobs. They all smoked cigarettes and worked 15 hour days, yet
maintained their chipper attitude through out. Very interesting. They
asked me every day if I wanted to join staff. I told them that I
wanted to see if this stuff worked first. That was their daily
question, that was my daily answer. My status as scoffer/skeptic was
plain to all.
19) I made it late to class once and had to go to Ethics. I called
ahead to say I'd be late and had to go to Ethics. I called to say I
couldn't make it and had to go to Ethics upon my return. I didn't take
it personally. I stopped calling ahead and either showed up or didn't
show up as I saw fit. The result was the same either way.
20) Would I like to join? I'd like to see it work first.
21) I was invited to a Clear Graduation and the audience applauded
Ron's photo. I mentioned how odd this was and the staffers downplayed
it as "appreciation, not deification."
I got to know these people as well as someone who sees them every day
week in week out can. Our communication was good, I'm likebale and
friendly and so were they. No Black PR. This was the only info I had
about these people and their group and I took it all with a grain of
salt. I'm not much of a joiner, but the idea of not having to pay for
studying, food, clothing or shelter sounded appealing enough--IF only I
could see if the stuff worked. After much studying, talking, and
showing up I was asked to help someone with their Training. So I did.
It was a teen and he didn't want to be here. We did the routine anyway
until class ended. I went down to the cafe and hung out with the
Auditor/Minister who had his office on the ground floor. He chain
smoked along with the other staffers as they still had several hours to
go before quitting time at 11:30 PM.
22) Next time I was there I was asked if I wouldn't mind starting the
process of checking my background. I said sure. This was informal.
These are the kinds of questions they'll ask you, I was told. No big
deal.
23) Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
24) No.
25) Have you ever done LSD?
26) Yes.
27) You have? Are you sure?
28) I think I'd know.
29) Because if you're not sure you should find out.
30) Do I sound like I'm not sure?
31) Well, think about it. Go home and think about it and if you find
that you *haven't* then come in and say you haven't.
Now if this doesn't sound like "You should really say 'No' to that
question if someone asks" that I don't know what. So I took the hint
and wrote up a two page report saying how all the times when thought I
had taken acid I really hadn't. i heard them talking about how LRH
said this about acid and that about acid and NONE of the things they
said were true. This struck me as odd, because there is absolutley no
shortage of information about LSD. The were repeating myths about the
drug that had been debunked early on: Example: according to LRH blotter
acid dissolves on the tongue. They weren't talking about gel caps,
they were referring to my statement and the subject was blotter paper
acid. Paper will not dissolve on your tongue no matter what you do to
it. Anyone in high school chemistry knows this. LRH was flat out wrong
on this matter and these staffers were trying to get me to join in
spite of the rule against recruiting anyone who had every indulged.
This is not a small point here people. This is a major breech of
security and falsification of registration data. I went along with it
because it afforded me the opportunity to get first hand infomation
about the practices of this group of people and their standard
operating procedure.
31) My statement was forwarded to security. They were interested in
seeing me and discussing the matter. First I wanted to see if this
stuff worked. When was I going to get some help on this matter.
32) I met with President in his office. He explained to me that
auditing is not cheap. I told him that I understood that fact, but the
reading I had done was interesting and I wanted to see it in action.
33) It was finally arranged that I should have an auditing session.
Remember now that I had been coming on an almost daily basis for
weeks. I knew everyone by name and they greeting me in kind.
34) The actor audited me. I wasn't being silly, I wasn't being
skeptical. I went in with an open mind.
He put me in "reverie" and asked me to go back to an incident and bring
back any data from it. I'm a writer. Whenever an incident occurs in
my life I relive it and rewrite it until I'm sick to death of it. This
is the same tactic being employed here so I felt somewhat validated
while at the same time disappointed. All of this stuff was common
sense. Talk through your problems. Simple. I went along with it. I
didn't fight it. I went to an incident, I recalled the data again and
again until I couldn't recall anything more and then when I was
satisfied that I had done all I could we moved on. I tried to do as
Dianetics instructed and what this auditor instructed. I just didn't
have enough of it. I didn't see anything here really unique except for
the Engineering aspect of precise wording and so forth. Seemed
perfectly logical to me to be precise.
I didn't get any big win that day, but I didn't blame the session or
the auditor, I just figured that there were no incidents which were
immediately recallable at that time.
35) I went home and "audited" a friend and he got a win out of it, so I
felt encouraged.
More classes, more requests to get me to join. I still wanted to get
more auditing. They conferred. How about Scientology auditing? Great.
36) Went to AOLA and got the repeater technique from a student. Wasn;t
impressed and said so.
37) Ethics.
38) Back to Celebrity Centre. This time I got a real auditing session
from a seasoned pro. Questions like What do you want? (Also repeater
technique, but he wasn't thrown as easily as the student at AOLA when I
said this wan't doing it for me. He asked me to bear with the exercise
and see what happens. I figured I'd give it a try. I was there for a
while. I said things that I got a little embarrassed about, but
nothing big. This wasn't a painful thing. I wasn't being difficult.
39) I was told again that these sessions aren't cheap.
40) Would I be joining?
41) I told them that while I appreiated their goals, I had similar
goals and felt that I could better serve those goals on my own.
42) They still tried to get me to join.
43) I suggested that perhaps I was already clear and that's the reason
why the wins weren't as big.
44) They doubted the veracity of that.
45) I joked about slow progress and got yelled at by the President.
Not spoken harshly too--yelled at.
My list was complete, as far as I was concerned. Smoking, yelling, and
lying were at the top. Over-strictness, inefficiency and
misinformation were just below that. I have seen other groups, be they
religious or secular. I have seen other countries, I have seen other
cultures and I have studied history and I felt confident that if there
was something to be learned from this group it would best be learned
from the outside.
I talked about Scientology to people and they were curious. I told
them that the methods used to unlock the problems a person has are
really just as basic and effective as those methods used by certain
therapists in other fields. I told them that the point where I felt
Scientology fell short of its aims was by calling it a religion.
Chemistry works because those are the laws of physics at work. You
don't start calling it the Church of Chemicology. Organized Religion
takes on a Righteousness and Corruption that is unconducive to the
scientific process. That's common sense.
Study the tech all you want, I do. But don't throw out Psychology,
because you don't like Psychiatrists--that's unscientific. Cross-
studying is crusial to any holistic and comprehensive study. The
second you discount anything you discredit everything.
I put a lot more into my Scientology experience then I may have
dutifully recorded, but trust me when I say I gave it every chance to
succeed. I have been doing this for years. I have been to Catholic
services, Jewish services, Christian Scientist, Unification Church,
Episcoplean, Baptist, Lutheran, Agape, I've been to a Mosque, I've
study polytheism, Eastern Mysticism, Physics, Psychology, witchcraft,
the paranormal, Transcendental meditation and so on.
I know you like your group. I know you think it's infallible, I know
you think that all failures of the tech are failures in procedure, I
know you think anyone who has no wins is either withholding or stupid,
I know you think that LRH was perfect, but these are your withholds not
mine.
I only started reading Out Tech years after being on course, because I
wanted to know what others were saying. I read accounts by people who
were in the Sea Org, I met people who were active on a.r.s. I saw Ron
for who he really was: a person. I'm one too. I'm not a rabid anti-
scio, I'm not pro-scio either. I'm just someone who is curious and
wants to find the truth.
How do you find the truth? You look everywhere that's how. You don't
limit yourself to just this field of study or just that. You test, you
hypothesize and you re-test.
Your group has some reformers and some closet-freezoners who want to
live up to the promise of the Tech. Who welcome testing and
verification. This is the only way science advances. If you can't see
that than I'm afraid you shouldn't have responded to this.
I remind you that the subject line says: To any resonable
Scientologists.
Jane
> --
"Hello, Nurse!" ~Sappho
Michael Reuss
> Well, it's been fun, but I don't think that I'm going to be a long-term poster
> on the newsgroups.
No, I guess not...
> If an individual wants to go through the levels of Scientology I think that's a
> very fine thing.
Sure, if you want to end up as a condescending elitist, it's a fine
thing to do.
> Some people will try and they won't make it, and often this
> will be because they aren't dealt with properly during their
> courses and auditing. Almost everyone will have _some_ problems; Scientology
> is still a pioneer activity and it's not as smooth as it could be yet.
> Helping people to move along more smoothly is very rewarding.
Before you leave, could you just explain to me exactly and
specifically what you think a Scientologist who's doing the upper
levels is moving toward?
Do you really think OT Scientologists are becoming superhuman,
God-like uber beings? If so, what evidence do you base that on?
> On the other
> hand, if people aren't interested in spiritual philosophy/don't want to do
> Scientology, my strong inclination is to give them a cheery wave, and then
> either pass on my way or talk about any other interests we have in common.
I'm glad you're courteous to those who disagree with you. So many of
your fellow Scientologists think that by being on the (alleged) path
enlightenment makes them superior to others, and that they someone
have earned the treat non-Scientologists badly. Ironically, in the
process, all they prove is that they're NOT on a road that leads to
enlightenment.
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid