Dianetics test
Robert D.
reference to setting up a test to prove whether the tech or any part
of it worked.
I was hoping to set up a simple test that could be done over the phone
and which would show that at least some aspects of scientology are
provable by test. To do this I had asked her to recall a traumatic
incident from her past that she was recoiling from in any way. What
she told me was that she tried but was unable to find one. She'd had
traumatic incidents occur in her past, which I believe could have been
processed with dianetics, but I was looking for something that was
could be upsetting in the present upon recalling it.
I really didn't want to get into anything that wasn't cut and dry for
the purpose of testing. So we had a chat for a few minutes and ended
the conversation on a congenial note.
The conversation did make me ponder a point that seems to be
overlooked by those who say that dianetics doesn't work. That is that
if there is a mechanism by which a person created a traumatic memory
for himself, as opposed to a normal memory that doesn't haunt him,
then wouldn't it be logical that there must be some way to
"reverse-engineer" that mechanism, thus undoing the psychological
damage created by an event the person could not tolerate easily? I
believe that has been done and that dianetics is the way it's
accomplished.
Can anyone provide me with logical proof that the damaging emotional
effects of a traumatic event like a rape or mugging or severe
accident, or the death or departure of a loved one can not be reversed
as it is claimed dianetics can do?
Robert D.
thomlove
What kind of proof are you looking for? Wouldn't a reactive needle
before reduction and a smooth needle after reduction indicate that there
was a change? This would keep it from being purely anecdotal.
This would require for the 'others' involved that they understand how
the meter works, I suppose.
Is this a project you are working on?
thomlove
thomlove
In the HCL tapes, I think it is number 9 or 10, LRH goes into how you
can get someone who is totally blank on the track, to find the
incidents. Part of it is in the tape, "Indoctrinating the PC".
It is quite interesting. He goes into the tone level, and why the tone
level is 'stuck' at that level, and why it is that a person may not see
anything, or see only black, and how to handle. It is good data to keep
in mind.
thomlove
CB Willis wrote:
>
> Robert D. (Vo...@ctinet.net) wrote:
> >To do this I had asked her to recall a traumatic
> >incident from her past that she was recoiling from in any way. What
> >she told me was that she tried but was unable to find one. She'd had
> >traumatic incidents occur in her past, which I believe could have been
> >processed with dianetics, but I was looking for something that was
> >could be upsetting in the present upon recalling it.
>
> I suspect she was out of touch with feeling, and had sufficiently
> repressed or rationalized the past incidents away. You don't say what
> coaching you did to prompt for kinds of traumatic incidents, then find one
> of the bunch that was most intense, which should have served the purpose.
>
> - CBW
Robert D.
thomlove <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Hi Robert;
>
> What kind of proof are you looking for? Wouldn't a reactive needle
> before reduction and a smooth needle after reduction indicate that there
> was a change? This would keep it from being purely anecdotal.
She lives in another state. That kind of test would be impractical
>
> This would require for the 'others' involved that they understand how
> the meter works, I suppose.
That too.
>
> Is this a project you are working on?
Nothing formal. She's an a.r.s. poster who took up my offer in a past
thread to do a test to see if scientology works in any capacity. I
figured that if a traumatic incident were destimulated, that would be
another notch in favor of the tech working. It wouldn't be scientific
for the purposes of the general audience or public who don't choose to
participate in active testing, but if it worked, it would at least
give the participant and maybe a few observers something to think
about.
Robert
>
> thomlove
Robert D.
> > >incident from her past that she was recoiling from in any way. What
> > >she told me was that she tried but was unable to find one. She'd had
> > >traumatic incidents occur in her past, which I believe could have been
> > >processed with dianetics, but I was looking for something that was
> > >could be upsetting in the present upon recalling it.
> >
> > repressed or rationalized the past incidents away. You don't say what
> > coaching you did to prompt for kinds of traumatic incidents, then find one
> > of the bunch that was most intense, which should have served the purpose.
> >
> > - CBW
I didn't want to get into anything involved for this test. I
preferred to stick with a simple test and work on an easily available
charge.
Besides, stirring up the past only to desensitize it might not appear
have any useful purpose to those who don't believe that stored traumas
can have any detrimental effects unless they are actively affecting
the person adversely in the present.
Robert
Gerry Armstrong
Willis) wrote:
>Yes, that's where dialogue comes in, I bet you could have shown her in
>less than 5 minutes that one of the old traumas she cited is still
>ACTIVELY affecting her adversely in the present, in a way that she will
>intuitively "get" and acknowledge,
Well, let's prove it then. Why don't *you* identify one of *your* old
traumas that is still ACTIVELY affecting you adversely in the present?
We'll take it from there.
A clear would never identify identify any old traumas that is still
ACTIVELY affecting him or her adversely in the present, because if he
or she did, he or she wouldn't be clear. What a fucked system!
>unless she deliberately hides
>expression or acknowedgement of any insights that arose from your
>question.
If insights arise from the question does that make the question
special, or the question recipient special?
The idea that clears, or OTs or $cientologists are special, as clears,
or OTs or $cientologists postulate, is not only insane, it is
destructive of their psyches.
What a fucked, suppressive tech!.
Hey, Andy Wilson, Esquire, lying cult lawyer scumbag, add this to your
list of my violations of your insane injunction.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>- CBW
Gerry Armstrong
Look, psychology says that recalling traumatic events is therapy. So
in that sense, psychology works.
But psychology doesn't promise a state of clear, which is free from
all reactivity, irrationality, pyschosomatic illness, etc, etc. and
has no subconscious mind. Dianetic$, or really the crime cult of
$cientology, makes this promise.
And to this date, neither Dianetic$ nor $cientology has produced one
clear.
Or are you such a clear?
Because if you are a clear, then you can be put to the test.
But if you're just talking about recalling incidents, you're just
talking psychology, which psychologists have been doing a whole lot
longer than the clams who simply plagiarize the psych tech.
Where's a clear for the test?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Robert D.
Gerry Armstrong
Would you agree that if the damaging emotional effects of a traumatic
event like a rape or mugging or severe accident, or the death or
departure of a loved one can be reversed by doing something other than
Dianetic$, then Dianetic$ is not the cause of the reversal at all?
Given, of course, that there are the things you've postulated:
"damaging emotional effects" and the "revers[al]" of "damaging
emotional effects."
Gerry Armstrong
<thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Hi Robert;
>
>What kind of proof are you looking for? Wouldn't a reactive needle
>before reduction and a smooth needle after reduction indicate that there
>was a change? This would keep it from being purely anecdotal.
Wouldn't the needle condition just add a bit to the anecdote?
If, let's say, the application of Christ tech produced an F/N on the
$cientology meter, would you endorse Christ?
$cientology is a dead end street in the middle of the bridge.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
Robert D.
>Yes, that's where dialogue comes in, I bet you could have shown her in
>less than 5 minutes that one of the old traumas she cited is still
>ACTIVELY affecting her adversely in the present, in a way that she will
>intuitively "get" and acknowledge, unless she deliberately hides
>expression or acknowedgement of any insights that arose from your
>question.
>
>- CBW
Considering the purpose was not for therapy but for testing, I didn't
see any urgency for doing so. It's difficult enough to work with a
voluntary client, I didn't want to run into problems with a person who
was basically skeptical. Had she been able to point to a traumatic
incident that haunted her, we would have been in business. I wasn't
willing to open up a can of worms where the case was already stable
and the session would be a one-time-only affair.
Robert
Robert D.
<arms...@dowco.com> wrote:
>On 10 Dec 2000 18:27:26 -0500, cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com (CB
>Willis) wrote:
>
>>Robert D. (Vo...@ctinet.net) wrote:
>>>Besides, stirring up the past only to desensitize it might not appear
>>>have any useful purpose to those who don't believe that stored traumas
>>>can have any detrimental effects unless they are actively affecting
>>>the person adversely in the present.
>>
>>
>>Yes, that's where dialogue comes in, I bet you could have shown her in
>>less than 5 minutes that one of the old traumas she cited is still
>>ACTIVELY affecting her adversely in the present, in a way that she will
>>intuitively "get" and acknowledge,
>
>Well, let's prove it then. Why don't *you* identify one of *your* old
>traumas that is still ACTIVELY affecting you adversely in the present?
>
What would THAT prove?
>We'll take it from there.
>
>A clear would never identify identify any old traumas that is still
>ACTIVELY affecting him or her adversely in the present, because if he
>or she did, he or she wouldn't be clear. What a fucked system!
You have a mistaken idea about what the state of clear is. A clear
can have some persisting problems, he just has the ability to
differentiate himself from them and to not actively contribute to
their perpetuation.
If a clear robs a grocery store and shoots the clerk, he will still
pull in bad shit, whether bad feelings or karma. He just will be able
to remain above the pain it causes him. But a clear would know how
stupid it would be of him to get himself into such a predicament. A
person is unlikely to remain clear in the presence of continuing
out-ethics.
>
>>unless she deliberately hides
>>expression or acknowedgement of any insights that arose from your
>>question.
>
>If insights arise from the question does that make the question
>special, or the question recipient special?
>
>The idea that clears, or OTs or $cientologists are special, as clears,
>or OTs or $cientologists postulate, is not only insane, it is
>destructive of their psyches.
Any "Scientologist" who puts himself above others is playing an "I'm
better than you" win-lose game and will at some point reap the
consequences. Same goes for any side playing that game. Being in a
games condition like that is not very emotionally healthy and is a
below-clear (out grade four) mode of operating.
Not all Scientologists are able to operate above their petty egos.
That doesn't mean one can't be clear and choose to exhibit ego
problems. But that can become a slippery slope.
yduzitmatter
overlooked by those who say that dianetics doesn't work. That is that
if there is a mechanism by which a person created a traumatic memory
for himself, as opposed to a normal memory that doesn't haunt him,
then wouldn't it be logical that there must be some way to
damage created by an event the person could not tolerate easily? I
believe that has been done and that dianetics is the way it's
accomplished.
Can anyone provide me with logical proof that the damaging emotional
effects of a traumatic event like a rape or mugging or severe
accident, or the death or departure of a loved one can not be reversed
as it is claimed dianetics can do?
Robert D.
Robert:
I don't think one ever engineers a reversal of a negative emotional
event. Over time with therapy or some equivalent of it (the talking
'cure') one learns to live with the effects of the trauma. Victims
of violent assaults do learn to stop the after effects such as
exaggerated fear ( bordering on phobias) and so forth - but no one
ever reverses completely the effects of a trauma. Having lost both
my parents ( my mother only recently) my life will never be the same
again and nothing I do will reverse the trauma; however, over time
I will learn to live with the loss. For example - Christmas this year
will be different for our family as our Mother is no longer with us -
so we will start some new traditions that will blend in with the old
ones. Yes, life goes on but it never changes the reality that
something very dear is lost.
I think it is the same for victims of violent crimes - life goes on
but it is different - one learns to live past the trauma but the
events will always be with you - you cannot erase a memory - you
can learn to deal with it in such a way that the trauma does not
grind you down or cower you. Life does not come with a rewind button
but we can learn to put trauma's behind us and move forward
regardless.
Just my $0.02.
Y
Gerry Armstrong
Willis) wrote:
>Gerry, I must have missed something.
Probably not.
> I do not claim to be Scn clear, have
>never claimed that, have written extensively over nearly 7 years on ACT
>regarding the subject of clear and clearing from an alternative
>perspective, have done a couple of sessions with Robert on past traumas,
>so I really don't know what you're on about here.
I was just making conversation in violation of an injunction obtained
by the crime cult in California.
However, since you have written extensively on "clear" and "clearing"
from any perspective, you are a logical person with whom to have this
conversation.
I'm just guided by God, which to anyone who thinks he might not be
looks like a branch of idiocy.
But you write that you could, and clearly would, have shown her (the
meter presumably running) that some old traumas she cited are still
ACTIVELY affecting her adversely in the present.
Everything I know moves me to say that one would rather that the
person be shown and learn that the past has *no* adverse effect
whatsoever upon her in the present.
I suppose what I'm on about is getting everything about $cientology
out in the open and openly discussable as rapidly as is artisticallly
reasonable, including every piece of its tech and every premise on
which the tech rests.
roger gonnet
Gerry Armstrong <arms...@dowco.com> a écrit dans le message :
9g783to94fs8ojffg...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:03:57 -0800, thomlove
> <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Hi Robert;
> >
> >What kind of proof are you looking for? Wouldn't a reactive needle
> >before reduction and a smooth needle after reduction indicate that there
> >was a change? This would keep it from being purely anecdotal.
>
> Wouldn't the needle condition just add a bit to the anecdote?
>
> If, let's say, the application of Christ tech produced an F/N on the
> $cientology meter, would you endorse Christ?
>
> $cientology is a dead end street in the middle of the bridge.
You meant, "in the middle of an unexisting Bridge" ?
roger
CB Willis
>However, since you have written extensively on "clear" and "clearing"
>from any perspective, you are a logical person with whom to have this
>conversation.
>I'm just guided by God, which to anyone who thinks he might not be
>looks like a branch of idiocy.
>But you write that you could, and clearly would, have shown her (the
>meter presumably running) that some old traumas she cited are still
>ACTIVELY affecting her adversely in the present.
I wouldn't have wanted to use a meter. Robert would likely have used one
successfully, but he can speak for himself if he wants.
Rather, I would depend on an attitude of sincerity, good questions, our
mutual use of intuition, and Spirit prevailing in the matter to help bring
a relevant truth to light for healing.
>Everything I know moves me to say that one would rather that the
>person be shown and learn that the past has *no* adverse effect
>whatsoever upon her in the present.
It's hard to prove a negative unless you're speaking of showing this a
priori by definition, perhaps, definition of "the person". By some
definitions of person, person as spirit only, there is no worldly
situation or event that can phase a person spiritually or in any other
way, spirit emerges unscathed and can nevr be touched or harmed by the
world. Witness the resurrection of Christ as perhaps the supreme example.
On other definitions of "the person," he is both spiritual and a worldly
personality/mind/emotions/body, while incarnate or having a body - on this
definition, I'm hard pressed to see how you will show a priori no adverse
effect of the past. If one adopts a materialist view of "the person,"
then again I don't see how you will show the past has no adverse effect on
the person.
>I suppose what I'm on about is getting everything about $cientology
>out in the open and openly discussable as rapidly as is artisticallly
>reasonable, including every piece of its tech and every premise on
>which the tech rests.
You may want to talk with someone else, as I'm not really talking about
Scn.
- CBW
>(c) Gerry Armstrong
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
> Yes, that's where dialogue comes in, I bet you could have shown her in
> less than 5 minutes that one of the old traumas she cited is still
> ACTIVELY affecting her adversely in the present, in a way that she will
> expression or acknowedgement of any insights that arose from your
> question.
Thank you for making assumptions about me, CBW. Here are mine about you:
You're an airhead
You are as woefully uneducated in the scientific method as every other
freezoner and scientologist I've encountered.
Beck
Robert D.
roland.rash...@virgin.net wrote:
>
> Though it seems to me that Scientologists get over the loss of a loved
> one very quickly. So in a sense the "tech" appears to work. The only
> worrying thing is that they have become so depersonalised through their
> involvement that they have lost the capacity for love and therefore do
> not suffer from such a loss.
That doesn't ring true for me at all. Scientologists are able to love
quite as fervently as anyone else, if not more so, but they can also
detach when the need arises. They tend to not be as easily
controllable as the average person, which fact some who enjoy control
over others find very disconcerting.
Robert
> I think that is more the case and that
> Scientology should receive recognition for that.
>
> Roland
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
> Rebecca Jo McLaughlin carried through on her promise to call me in
> reference to setting up a test to prove whether the tech or any part
> of it worked.
Yup. That I did.
> I was hoping to set up a simple test that could be done over the phone
> and which would show that at least some aspects of scientology are
> provable by test. To do this I had asked her to recall a traumatic
> incident from her past that she was recoiling from in any way. What
> she told me was that she tried but was unable to find one.
It's hell being well-adjusted. For the record, I tried very hard, even
enlisting family members to remind of times past when I was extremely
upset, angry or sad. I'm happy to report no charge on those incidents.
:-)
> I really didn't want to get into anything that wasn't cut and dry for
> the purpose of testing. So we had a chat for a few minutes and ended
> the conversation on a congenial note.
Confirmed. It was an interesting conversation. No minds were
changed, but dialogue, however brief, usually adds just a little more to
someone's understanding. Thanks.
Beck
CB Willis
My comments were not based on you personally, they come from an
understanding of case-history in general and how it operates in people's
lives.
I am not a freezoner or scn, and have never claimed to be either.
I have never claimed to be a scientist. Rather I am an educator and
minister for 30 years. I do pastoral counseling, not science.
Your insults are unnecessary and uncalled for.
- CBW
thomlove
Well, maybe you could straightwire some incidents for her. S/W is not
dianetics, but it would still be able to show her that running track is
real, and that incidents can be contacted and reduced by confronting
them. Maybe that would help.
It wouldn't have to be a great trauma. I did many hours of S/W before I
was ever in Scientology or Dianetics, with great success. I even flew
mwhs using S/W, ran secondaries and so forth. Only once did I get in
over my head, when we hit a family death, so I just S/Wired what we did
and ran out the restim.
Anyway, I've learned that the fastest and easiest way to get a result
the person can be aware of is S/W.
That may help open her track.
The HCL tapes on 'Indoctrinating the PC' may help you, since you tend to
be so active in the field. For example, on a case that cannot contact
incidents, you could have them S/W through the emotion of 'regret', and
that may move them off what they are stuck in, and open up the track.
Running an emotion this way, not for any specific incident OF regret,
but just run any incident she comes up with, or the track in general,
deliberately from the tone of 'regret', just viewing what comes up from
the tone level of 'regret'. That'll lead into the facsimile a person
could be stuck in. (I'm using 'regret' here as an example. In the HCL
tape, you could probably figure out what to do to help this fallen
angel.)
Anyway, with this tech, you may be able to unwind a few people from
telephone poles that are otherwise problems.
Have fun.
thomlove
thomlove
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> Would you agree that if the damaging emotional effects of a traumatic
> event like a rape or mugging or severe accident, or the death or
> departure of a loved one can be reversed by doing something other than
> Dianetic$, then Dianetic$ is not the cause of the reversal at all?
'Dianetics' is just a procedure to help an individual confront. It is
the confront of what actually happened that gets the lies and such off,
and it is that confront that reduces the incident. Any procedure that
can do that, help an individual confront the truth of an incident, is
valid.
Dianetics is just one procedure that does that. In my opinion, it is the
best procedure in doing that. Others will disagree.
thomlove
Rogers
> > Yes, that's where dialogue comes in, I bet you could have shown her in
> > less than 5 minutes that one of the old traumas she cited is still
> > ACTIVELY affecting her adversely in the present, in a way that she will
> > intuitively "get" and acknowledge, unless she deliberately hides
> > expression or acknowedgement of any insights that arose from your
> > question.
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin wrote in message
> Thank you for making assumptions about me, CBW. Here are mine about you:
(snipped)
Well, Rebecca, perhaps... on a more positive slant, Carol was complimenting
you. You know, it is often the case that the more dynamic and active a
person is - the more they are inclined to "bump into" things and/or get into
situations. After all, only those who sleep through their entire life
wouldn't.
So you might consider it a compliment to your (assumed) active lifestyle,
Rebecca, that you might have had some sort of traumatic experiences (as I
said, it IS the way it goes in this world). Now, admittedly, perhaps, lucky
you, NONE of those traumatic experiences have yet keyed in, so there might
be a missing "link" to those incidents which would render them difficult to
contact. I mean to say, there's a big difference between the vague
"recollection" of a trauma, and the energized key in of same.
Robert was right to just leave well enough alone on those things - for the
nonce at least. Consider it both an act of kindness and an act of
intelligence on his part.
May I suggest, Rebecca, that you leave off this "challenge" at this time.
And perhaps one day in the future there WILL be something that is rather
specifically irritating you (again, I'm just talking about the general
consequences of "life") and at that point a session with Robert could be in
order. I mean, this stuff is NOT faith-healing or anything like that, but
it IS better if the client is motivated.
Les.
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
> My comments were not based on you personally, they come from an
> understanding of case-history in general and how it operates in people's
> lives.
Then perhaps you could have made them in a much less personal terms.
Beck
Ixbalam
<roger....@worldnet.fr> wrote:
> Gerry Armstrong <arms...@dowco.com> a écrit dans le message :
> 9g783to94fs8ojffg...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:03:57 -0800, thomlove
> > <thomlov...@netscape.net> wrote:
[..snip..]
> > $cientology is a dead end street in the middle of the bridge.
>
> You meant, "in the middle of an unexisting Bridge" ?
Or an existing treadmill going nowhere.
--
Michael J. Rider, aka Ixbalam http://i.am/ixbalam
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
-Steven Wright
CB Willis
>Beck
The comments were made in response to Robert, who would have understood
this as fundamental.
- CBW
Brent Stone
>In article <3A3482...@virgin.net>,
> roland.rash...@virgin.net wrote:
>>
>> Though it seems to me that Scientologists get over the loss of a loved
>> one very quickly. So in a sense the "tech" appears to work. The only
>> worrying thing is that they have become so depersonalised through their
>> involvement that they have lost the capacity for love and therefore do
>> not suffer from such a loss.
>
>
>That doesn't ring true for me at all. Scientologists are able to love
>quite as fervently as anyone else, if not more so, but they can also
>detach when the need arises. They tend to not be as easily
>controllable as the average person, which fact some who enjoy control
>over others find very disconcerting.
>
>Robert
"Not as easily controllable"? I would think that the average person
would have great difficulty "disconnecting" from a spouse at the
direction of their church. It looks from here like scientologists,
just on that point alone, are not only amazingly "controllable", but
have managed through the "tech" to lose the capacity for the kind of
emotional attachments that other people normally have.
Hello-...@cotse.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Stone" <bst...@kudonet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology,alt.religion.scientology
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: Dianetics test
Roland>>> it seems to me that Scientologists get over the loss of a loved one
very quickly. So in a sense the "tech" appears to work. The only worrying thing
is that they have become so depersonalised through their involvement that they
have lost the capacity for love and therefore do not suffer from such a loss.
Robert Ducharme> >That doesn't ring true for me at all. Scientologists are
able to love quite as fervently as anyone else, if not more so, but they can
also detach when the need arises. They tend to not be as easily
controllable as the average person, which fact some who enjoy control over
others find very disconcerting.
Brent Stone> "Not as easily controllable"? I would think that the average
person would have great difficulty "disconnecting" from a spouse at the
direction of their church. It looks from here like scientologists, just on
that point alone, are not only amazingly "controllable", but have managed
through the "tech" to lose the capacity for the kind of emotional attachments
that other people normally have.
Balderdash.
Let me set the scene here for my response. I once wrote the following four
paragraphs:
It's hard for some Scientologists to leave the Church, because for some of
them large parts of their lives have been built around it. However it can also
be hard for critics to stop being critics. I spoke to one guy who had
met his wife at an anti-cult meeting; his friend were anti-cultists; and he
made his living giving anti-cult lectures and doing exit
counseling/deprogrammings.
How easy would it be for him to change his mind and realize he wasn't actually
doing a good thing with his life? Pretty difficult I'd say. How would he feel
if he recognized what ~I~ would call the truth about the whole
thing? He'd probably feel quite sick. What would he say to his colleagues? How
would he support his family? Much easier for him to stick to his old
comfortable certainties.
There is more than enough information for both sides in the Scientology/anti-
Scientology struggle to be able to adequately support their point of view.
It's easy to build up a case to say that the church is really wicked. There's
tons of anti-Scientology and anti-cult material. You just have to give much
more credence to that type of material and ignore and justify away the other
stuff. Equally, it's quite possible to build up a perfect picture of the Church
and all its work - again we simply justify away any contrary facts and give no
credence to the critics.
If you are enjoying my posts I'd like you, the reader, and particularly anyone
who posts, to help out by pushing a little more tolerance of people taking
paths that you yourself don't fancy.
***********************************
Brent then came back to me with the following question.
Brent Stone (November 14): ~All~ his friends were "anti-cultists"? Did they
threaten to "disconnect" from him if he changed his mind? Would his family
have been forced to "disconnect" from him by the other "anti-cultists" on the
threat of damage to their eternal souls?
I'll break this down into two parts:
BS> ~All~ his friends were "anti-cultists"?
That's what he said. I'd never really thought about ~why~ he'd say it until you
asked me. But at the time of that conversation he was trying to convince me of
his credentials, and I guess that this was just a part of him demonstrating
that the subject was his life and that he really knew what he was talking about.
The reason I was talking to him at all was that I was thinking of booking him
to give a lecture. (!)
BS> Did they threaten to "disconnect" from him if he changed his mind? Would
his family have been forced to "disconnect" from him by the other "anti-
cultists" on the threat of damage to their eternal souls?
Now, now, Brent. Play nice.
Let me remind you of my own experience in Scientology.
This is from a post of 2 November in the "IT'S OFFICIAL! Magoo is declared SP"
thread.
***********************************************************
FT >>SP declares have become much less common in Scientology as far as I can
see. Check my posting of the 26 October for some details.
>> In the early eighties, the EDs of my org seemed to get declared on a fairly
regular basis. It was wild. Recently however, I haven't heard of any declares
at all (apart for this one of Tory's). I am sure they do happen,
but it seems to be a lot rarer.
>>Good news, huh?
Gerry Armstrong (October 31)> No, bad news. It just means that $cientology and
$cientologists are going more and more down tone. Now declares are more covert.
$cientology has become more and more covert. It was once more openly hostile.
Now it's more covertly hostile.
That's not what I observe.
When the declares were coming hard and heavy it was definitely a nervous,
worried scene in some areas (this was in 82/83). However these declares
trickled to a halt by about mid '85 I think. Also almost all the people I knew
personally who had been declared later got back into good standing fairly
quickly. There were two fairly newish people who got promoted over their heads,
got declared when the org crashed and left Scientology - but the other people
came back.
I've ~never~ ~known~ a Scientologist who was instructed to disconnect from a
family member or friend (parent, spouse or anyone else). As I wrote earlier,
the one time I've known one half of a Scientologist couple to get declared
suppressive they continued living together.
Hey, it's possible that things are a bit easier than when you left Gerry.
Let's both hope so, huh?
. . . .
Yes, it's very, very difficult to get declared these days. You've got to
~really~ work on it. The easier thing for the Church to do is to just ignore
the bad behavior.
In Scientology we want to help people to ~improve~ their communications with
those around them. When I was on staff I used to work very hard to help people
restore and improve their relationships - with their family members, with their
friends, and with people they were having problems with at work.
The only time I ever had trouble with my family it was caused by my dad reading
anti-cult books. It makes an interesting story for ars.
I've gotten on with my (non-Scn) family far, far better since I've been doing
Scientology. We now have a great
relationship. The only tricky time was in the first year when my father read
some of the critical books - Corydon was one, possibly Hassan - and he believed
that I was in danger. After a year he could see that I was doing
better and since then our relationship has gotten stronger and stronger. At one
point during that year he was at a dinner party and mentioned the situation to
someone. This guy was rather an angry, fascistic Victorian-dad type fellow and
he suggested having me kidnapped and deprogrammed. (!). Luckily, my father was
appalled by that idea, even more than by the very twisted picture he had
gleaned from the critical books of life inside Scientology.
The point being that the critics can actually cause a lot of the problems that
they ~claim~ to be preventing.
. . . . .
And finally here is the official line on the subject of disconnection from the
excellent new on-line faq:
http://www.scientologytoday.org/Common/question/pg78.htm
Hope this helps
Freddie T
Thomas J Best
CB Willis <cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:3a343...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Robert D. (Vo...@ctinet.net) wrote:
> >Considering the purpose was not for therapy but for testing, I didn't
> >see any urgency for doing so.
>
>
> Processes don't work on pretense, they work on real life situations.
>
>
> >It's difficult enough to work with a
> >voluntary client, I didn't want to run into problems with a person who
> >was basically skeptical. Had she been able to point to a traumatic
> >incident that haunted her, we would have been in business. I wasn't
> >willing to open up a can of worms where the case was already stable
> >and the session would be a one-time-only affair.
>
<snip>
The 'able' babbling to the 'abler'. This is your mind on Dianetic$ and/or
$cientology. Are you people glad that your mothers missed the mark
with those knitting needles? Or did they?
tam
AMI
In the Scn world view, approaching auditing from an "open-minded"
perspective - lets' try it, though I don't believe it, and see if you can
make a change in me - is pretty much guaranteed to fail. You would need to
come up with something you really wanted to change, and give it a good try,
to make a real test.
A simple possibility is to get some word clearing on a subject you are
trying to study (from someone who really knows how to word clear).
Theoretically at some point the subject woud get interesting and start to
come together for you. It would be interesting to see if this is the case.
ami
Zinj
Word Clearing as practiced in Scientology® is part of the combined
behavioristic/hypnotic control mechanism.
While there is nothing wrong with looking up words in a dictionary, in Scn it
is *dogma* that if you don't agree you must not have understood.
Any disagreement, or desire for clarification of any study materials is handled
by 'word clearing', which becomes a negative reinforcement.
Example: 'anyone who critizes scientology has major crimes to conceal'.
If you disagree, you are sent back to 'word clearing' until you agree.
Since this is on your dime, courses being hourly, you will program yourself to
agree.
Zinj
yduzitmatter
The other half of the equation with word clearing is it becomes
a thought stopping technique when a person runs into "entheta"
The person word clears the words and the meaning of the sentence
is lost and becomes harmless. Free thought is stopped and the
cult mind-set is re-established.
Y
fluffygirl
Zinj wrote:
>
> In article <K8eZ5.1915$ZJ.2...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net>, am...@gte.net says...
> >
> >It's certainly must be a bummer to be in good shape.
> >
> >In the Scn world view, approaching auditing from an "open-minded"
> >perspective - lets' try it, though I don't believe it, and see if you can
> >make a change in me - is pretty much guaranteed to fail. You would need to
> >come up with something you really wanted to change, and give it a good try,
> >to make a real test.
> >A simple possibility is to get some word clearing on a subject you are
> >trying to study (from someone who really knows how to word clear).
> >Theoretically at some point the subject woud get interesting and start to
> >come together for you. It would be interesting to see if this is the case.
> >
> >ami
> >
>
> Word Clearing as practiced in ScientologyŽ is part of the combined
> behavioristic/hypnotic control mechanism.
Nothing hypnotic about it.
Also, behaviorism and hypnotism are far from the same things.
>
> While there is nothing wrong with looking up words in a dictionary, in Scn it
> is *dogma* that if you don't agree you must not have understood.
Really. Then that explains why I've personally seen someone in a
wordclearing session indicate that she did not agree with the way the
thing was done and never would. She was checked for misunderstood words,
the wordclearing was complete and she still had the same opinion. And
guess what! It was accepted!
*Pop* goes the stereotype!
Wordclearing tech gives other reasons someone might not agree with or
get something.
>
> Any disagreement, or desire for clarification of any study materials is handled
> by 'word clearing', which becomes a negative reinforcement.
Sometimes. But not always. Sorry to disappoint.
>
> Example: 'anyone who critizes scientology has major crimes to conceal'.
>
> If you disagree, you are sent back to 'word clearing' until you agree.
Uh...if someone was thought to have *crimes* I think they'd be scheduled
for something *other* than a wordclearing session...
>
> Since this is on your dime, courses being hourly, you will program yourself to
> agree.
Courses are not and never have been, billed at an hourly rate.
There *are* things in Scn billed at an hourly rate. Plenty of 'em. But
not courses.
Claire
M. C. DiPietra
wrote on 12/11/00 7:17 PM:
> It's certainly must be a bummer to be in good shape.
>
> In the Scn world view, approaching auditing from an "open-minded"
> perspective - lets' try it, though I don't believe it, and see if you can
> make a change in me - is pretty much guaranteed to fail. You would need to
> come up with something you really wanted to change, and give it a good try,
> to make a real test.
At what point is the change attributed to auditing? How do I know that I
didn't just mock up my reactive mind and am postulating the positive change?
If there is something about myself I really want to change, I just do it.
> A simple possibility is to get some word clearing on a subject you are
> trying to study (from someone who really knows how to word clear).
> Theoretically at some point the subject woud get interesting and start to
> come together for you. It would be interesting to see if this is the case.
I already have the power to change my mind about a subject of study, and
find something interesting about it. I generally don't have to look up words
in order to do this. That process simply distracts me from the concepts
presented with collections of words, that mean more than the individual
words taken alone. Like not being able to see the forest for the trees.
At some point, if you keep studying anything, your mind will make it "come
together" for you anyway.
You don't have to pay for auditing for any of this to happen.
So what is the auditing for, then?
http://mp3.com/MaggieCouncil XENU WORLD ORDER CD now available
M.C.DiPietra <mdip...@earthlink.net>, SP4, KoX
"Hell, if you understood everything I say, you'd be me!" -Miles Davis
>
> ami
>
>
J. R. Ford
<mdip...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>You don't have to pay for auditing for any of this to happen.
>
>So what is the auditing for, then?
Someone has to pay for The Lawn Ornament's private golf course.
Robert D.
<mdip...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Not everybody is so perfect and faultless that they have no room for
improvement.
Robert
yduzitmatter
Read it again Robert - it didn't say that there is no room for
improvement - it said that improvement can exist outside of
auditing and word clearing.
It is possible for people to think for themselves - to study new
things and find them interesting - without the aid of
pseudo- scientific methods that have never been scientifically
verified by independent means.
Y
M. C. DiPietra
wrote on 12/12/00 12:04 PM:
Robert, I am hardly perfect, nor am I faultless; I was merely demonstrating
the fact that not one of the "wins" that Scientology attributes to itself is
exclusive to Scientology; one can do all these things without it! I cannot
think of one Scientological service that provides the kind of goal-reaching
assistance that people don't find elsewhere every day.
For instance, any librarian, even Diane, would probably happily show you how
to look up words in the dictionary, for free!
It's a great thing to want to improve oneself; many people do this without
Scientology.
-maggie
AMI
> > It's certainly must be a bummer to be in good shape.
> >
> > In the Scn world view, approaching auditing from an "open-minded"
> > perspective - lets' try it, though I don't believe it, and see if you
can
> > make a change in me - is pretty much guaranteed to fail. You would
need to
> > come up with something you really wanted to change, and give it a good
try,
> > to make a real test.
>
>
> At what point is the change attributed to auditing? How do I know that I
> didn't just mock up my reactive mind and am postulating the positive
change?
>
> If there is something about myself I really want to change, I just do it.
>
The theory of course is that none of the change is caused by the auditing,
it is all your own doing: the auditing helps you to get to where you can
more easily do it. Indeed you do mock up your reactive mind and you can
change it. However most people find this dificult.
It may be easier for you to look at an area where you think that you are
right. For example, some disagreement or other where things didn't go too
well, but you are certain that you are in the right of it. It can be very
hard to change you rmind about something of which you are certain! It's
also hard to spot it, since you don't think there's anything wrong with it.
This is generally true of auditing, that it isn't what you think is wrong
that messes you up. It's things you are sure are right. It is very hard to
change these things, since you have no reason to and don't want to.
Imagine that you were someone like Pat Robertson, absolutely sure in your
own self righteousness. You wouldn't have any need to change. It's only
the rest of us who would despise you!
> > A simple possibility is to get some word clearing on a subject you are
> > trying to study (from someone who really knows how to word clear).
> > Theoretically at some point the subject woud get interesting and start
to
> > come together for you. It would be interesting to see if this is the
case.
>
> I already have the power to change my mind about a subject of study, and
> find something interesting about it. I generally don't have to look up
words
> in order to do this. That process simply distracts me from the concepts
> presented with collections of words, that mean more than the individual
> words taken alone. Like not being able to see the forest for the trees.
> At some point, if you keep studying anything, your mind will make it "come
> together" for you anyway.
>
I think that there is a point here that you are missing, as do many people
talking on this subject. It isn't the words you don't know that are the
problem. You are perfectly able to make reasonable guesses as to what they
mean and to correct errors as you go. The issue comes with words of whose
meaning you are certain, but which were not written with that meaning in
mind. You therefore interpret the concept described in a way that was not
intended by the writer, but you are absolutely certain that you have it
right. You are now perhaps in disagreement with him, since he isn't making
much sense. Your attitude to his work is now other than what it would be if
you knew what he actually meant. However you are certain that your position
on it is correct, so he is wrong. In this case, word clearing (which in Scn
terms is free as part of the overall course cost) can clarify at least what
the author meant, and at that point you are of course free to agree or not
with it. I won't get into the ramifications of telling the sup that you
think LRH is full of it!
The purpose of word clearing is to enable you to duplicate the concept being
presented by the writer. If you are already doing that, there isn't much
point to the word clearing!
You may wonder why I seem to be saying that the effect of Scn is to enable
you to be willing to be wrong, when all indications are that Scnists are as
unwilling to look at other points of view as the most rabid Ku Klux Klan
member. Well, that just shows the depths to which the church has sunk, I su
ppose. As you see, I am defending the ideals, not the CoS!
> You don't have to pay for auditing for any of this to happen.
>
> So what is the auditing for, then?
>
Auditing is a process of gradually opening your eyes to a reality of
existence that is denied to you by your own certainties. To the ex-Scns
here, your position is like a blind man questioning the value of sight.
It's kinda hard to persuade you, but if you were only willing to open your
eyes, your experience and general beingness would be much enhanced in your
own estimation.
ami
J. R. Ford
I beg to differ. In the one scientific study of Dianetics i.e.
$cientology, that was done there was conclusive evidence. Evidence
that it does not do anything out of the ordinary. It in no manner
enhanced any of the participants in any manner.
>
>Y
El Roto
"M. C. DiPietra" <mdip...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Robert, I am hardly perfect, nor am I faultless; I was merely
> demonstrating the fact that not one of the "wins" that Scientology
> attributes to itself is exclusive to Scientology; one can do all
> these things without it! I cannot think of one Scientological service
> that provides the kind of goal-reaching assistance that people don't
> find elsewhere every day.
>
> For instance, any librarian, even Diane, would probably happily show
> you how to look up words in the dictionary, for free!
>
> It's a great thing to want to improve oneself; many people do this
> without Scientology.
Amen to that! The whole "Our way is the only way." line is sooo
laughable.
I'm reminded of Jenna Elfman's first Scientology Win: (paraphrasing)
she used to be late to rehearsals all the time and would arrive very
upset and frazzled until one day when she recalled something from Ron,
relaxed, and arrived late but calm. Wow! So what?! I gained that
same ability without paying Co$ a dime. If the Tech had allowed her to
levitate her car over traffic and arrive *on time*, I'd say "Hey,
they've got something no one else does.", but it doesn't, so I don't.
Steve G.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Rogers
> Auditing is a process of gradually opening your eyes to a reality of
> existence that is denied to you by your own certainties.
Yes, yes, yes. We are victim to our own convictions. Held fast in our
victimhood by our "necessity" to be right.
Les.
M. C. DiPietra
Thanks, CB, Roger and Ami for answers I know are from the heart. It is not
for me to step on your perceptions that you are getting something out of
auditing, and that is not my intent. I truly appreciate that you are willing
to openly discuss something this personal to you with someone you know is a
critic.
It is, however, for me to point out that it is not for everyone, is not
100% workable, and the gains I've seen ascribed to the procedure are
available elsewhere, just like hamburger is available elsewhere than
McDonald's.
Frankly, I don't see what one would get out of it that having a coffee with
some good friends wouldn't provide, but that may just be my limited
imagination.
I don't trust the idea that if you don't give yourself over to it [which
sets you up for expecting something to happen, and allows for the
misinterpretation of the effects of electrical current and the deeply
introspective assessment of one's experiences as 'gains'], it "won't work",
and no other therapies exist that can assist in dealing with traumas or
unwanted behaviors.
-maggie
in article 3a368...@news2.lightlink.com, CB Willis at
cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com wrote on 12/12/00 2:50 PM:
> M. C. DiPietra (mdip...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>> So what is the auditing for, then?
>
> Auditing and therapies are for permanent resolution of traumas or
> undesirable recurring patterns in the life the person has been unable to
> resolve for himself, and/or blind spots including false conclusions drawn,
> etc. The approaches/methods may be quite different, even vary widely from
> therapist to therapist, or pastoral counselor to pastoral counselor, and
> have a wide range of effectiveness depending on the practitioner and the
> kind of case issues, but there is a lot of overlap in the goals or
> purposes. On my view, good therapy is also an education in applied
> intuition, and much more. As in any subject there is a lot of mediocrity,
> ineffectiveness and even abuse to be found, but there are also a
> percentage of high effectiveness for good reason, and unfortunately
> sometimes an incongruous mix of both in the same practice. We need to
> find what is best for good reason, and build on it. It's my own belief
> that no one should go for therapy unless they actively want to. And when
> they're ready, either to resolve trauma or just for personal development,
> it's the only show in town for them. Discernment in locating the best
> practices and practitioners is part of the process.
>
> - CBW
>
M. C. DiPietra
wrote on 12/12/00 12:50 PM:
> I wrote:
>>> It's certainly must be a bummer to be in good shape.
>>>
>>> In the Scn world view, approaching auditing from an "open-minded"
>>> perspective - lets' try it, though I don't believe it, and see if you
> can
>>> make a change in me - is pretty much guaranteed to fail. You would
> need to
>>> come up with something you really wanted to change, and give it a good
> try,
>>> to make a real test.
>>
>>
>> At what point is the change attributed to auditing? How do I know that I
>> didn't just mock up my reactive mind and am postulating the positive
> change?
>>
>> If there is something about myself I really want to change, I just do it.
>>
>
> The theory of course is that none of the change is caused by the auditing,
> it is all your own doing: the auditing helps you to get to where you can
> more easily do it. Indeed you do mock up your reactive mind and you can
> change it. However most people find this dificult.
You have to believe in a reactive mind in the first place, though. I don't
have that problem. I understand your point that auditing is a catalyst to
behavioral change; I just think there are other, more tested, safer ways to
do it.
>
> It may be easier for you to look at an area where you think that you are
> right. For example, some disagreement or other where things didn't go too
> well, but you are certain that you are in the right of it. It can be very
> hard to change you rmind about something of which you are certain! It's
> also hard to spot it, since you don't think there's anything wrong with it.
> This is generally true of auditing, that it isn't what you think is wrong
> that messes you up. It's things you are sure are right. It is very hard to
> change these things, since you have no reason to and don't want to.
>
> Imagine that you were someone like Pat Robertson, absolutely sure in your
> own self righteousness. You wouldn't have any need to change. It's only
> the rest of us who would despise you!
But I'm not that self-righteous. I can admit when I'm wrong, and learn from
my mistakes. I don't have to always be right. THat's the beauty of science,
I think, in that it is open enough for mistakes such as "the earth is flat"
to eventually be self-corrected. A closed system such as Scientology, INc's
approach to auditing does not allow this.
Besides, I thought you can't test auditing with an open minded approach.
Thanks! I hope you didn't have to deal with that!
However, as a professional writer, I rarely use the dictionary to look up
precisely what I mean while writing; often meaning is obscured when words
are taken out of context. If the work is so nebulous and vague as to be
incomprehensible, then it's *my* fault for not writing something clearly
enough to be understood.
It makes me wonder how valuable it is to take words out of context and look
them up when they probably weren't assembled that way!
Why on earth did L Ron create his own meanings in dictionaries not used by
the general public if he truly wanted to be understood?
Your scenario above indicates that disagreements are ,mainly caused by
misunderstood words. This is extremely oversimplified, imho. Other factors
would include perspective, cultural values, etc.
> The purpose of word clearing is to enable you to duplicate the concept being
> presented by the writer. If you are already doing that, there isn't much
> point to the word clearing!
The English language in particular is full of vagueness. In Russian, there
is no such thing as a pun; the language is too precise [and the humor is
very dry]. You can say more in one sentence in Russian than in paragraphs of
English.
>
> You may wonder why I seem to be saying that the effect of Scn is to enable
> you to be willing to be wrong, when all indications are that Scnists are as
> unwilling to look at other points of view as the most rabid Ku Klux Klan
> member. Well, that just shows the depths to which the church has sunk, I su
> ppose. As you see, I am defending the ideals, not the CoS!
>
I see that, and I do appreciate your taking the time to explain your views.
>
>> You don't have to pay for auditing for any of this to happen.
>>
>> So what is the auditing for, then?
>>
> Auditing is a process of gradually opening your eyes to a reality of
> existence that is denied to you by your own certainties. To the ex-Scns
> here, your position is like a blind man questioning the value of sight.
> It's kinda hard to persuade you, but if you were only willing to open your
> eyes, your experience and general beingness would be much enhanced in your
> own estimation.
You seem to have gotten a lot out of it, and I hope it brings you peace. I
don't see how it could possibly enhance my experience, and I don't know what
my "general beingness' is [not in my dictionary, anyway].
To suspend disbelief until proof of a "science" is obtained is not a bad
thing. Do you not agree that doing so opens up one to every snake oil
salesman who comes by?
But again, I appreciate the time you took to explain. It just seems not
worth the effort to me to dissect the procedures and practices of Hubbard
from the cancerous part that has affected all of us here to the point where
we're here in the first place.
-maggie
CB Willis
M. C. DiPietra (mdip...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>Thanks, CB, Roger and Ami for answers I know are from the heart. It is not
>for me to step on your perceptions that you are getting something out of
>auditing, and that is not my intent. I truly appreciate that you are willing
>to openly discuss something this personal to you with someone you know is a
>critic.
> It is, however, for me to point out that it is not for everyone, is not
>100% workable, and the gains I've seen ascribed to the procedure are
>available elsewhere, just like hamburger is available elsewhere than
>McDonald's.
For the record, I don't do auditing, which is why I mention other
approaches, and regarding some other approaches, the results are not
available elsewhere, and if they are they are not at all easily findable
elsewhere.
Regarding auditing and the tech [scn tech] in general, repost below:
MAKING SENSE OF "THE TECH"
by C.B. Willis, MA
(C) Copyright by C.B. Willis, 1997
All rights reserved.
"The Tech" works! "The Tech" doesn't work! "The Tech"
is dangerous! All of the above are claims variously made
about Dn and Scn "technology," also known as "The Tech."
It's my understanding that only a fraction of the
processes and methods developed within that organization over
the years are currently in use, for whatever reason. So if
we limit any claims about "The Tech" to just the processes
and methods used in the organization today, we have a
listable set of elements:
S = {p1, p2, p3,...pn}
where S is the set of all current processes and methods
used in CoS Dn and Scn ("The Tech"), and p is a process or method
in that set.
In order for "The Tech" to be true/valid/workable, each
element of the set must be true, and then their sum total
will also be true. If any element if the set is
false/invalid/unworkable, then the entire set is deemed to
be false or invalid, unworkable _as a set_. Here we see the
ideal, that all elements of the set are true/valid/workable.
Furthermore, practicality demands that the set, if
applied, regularly facilitate accomplishment of the
spiritual goals of the organization and its members, and in
a timely manner.
Then and only then can we truthfully say that "The
Tech" works! -- even if there are better processes or
methods that are not listed in the set. Perhaps actual or
hypothetically better methods are not the issue as long as
we are able to accomplish our goals effectively, safely, and
reasonably quickly with existing methods. This last point is
debatable.
So when we say "The Tech" works, we mean that not just
some processes and methods currently in use substantially
help accomplish spiritual and case clearing goals, but that
ALL of them do. That is a tall order. I think it would be
useful to be able to select certain processes or methods for
analysis, find we can embrace them as true/valid/workable,
even if we do not so embrace each element of the set. Thus
we could say that in our own estimation, process p1 works,
but not process p99. We could say that at least some of
"The Tech" works. Some elements of the set are
true/valid/workable. We could also say that process p1
works, and p8 works, but p1 works better than p8 most of the
time on more clients, in a certain kind of situation, so we
now get into _degrees of workability_.
We can also get into questions of _how_ a process is
applied, to whom it is applied, and at what point in the
person's case is it applied. Those sorts of judgments are
themselves part of "The Tech," a sort of meta-tech, but may
not be able to be fully documented or articulable even with
the best efforts. A therapist grasps much of this through
experience alone, though much can be done by mentors and
master teachers to facilitate the learning curve.
Unless "The Tech" is understood to be the totality or
set of processes and methods in use by the organization at
this time, and this set is itemized so we know what we're
dealing with, no one has any way to evaluate "The Tech"
except by blind faith, which I believe is inadequate to the
task, even using purely spiritual criteria. Blind faith is
only adequate using authoritarian dogmatic criteria, which
can be erroneous. Personal experience and training may be
helpful. Testimonials may not be helpful, especially if
testimonials are made immediately after a process, so that
long term evaluation is absent, or if testimonials are made
under duress. Furthermore, negative testimonials are never
flaunted by any business or organization. Good businesses
matter of factly correct their errors; bad businesses hide
their mistakes while continuing to make the same mistakes.
The bottom line is that I think "The Tech" is a
meaningless term, because those who use it do not have ready
access to the complete set of processes and methods
currently in use, and/or the wider perspective of experience
needed to evaluate them. By "wider perspective" I mean, not
only personal experience with the processes and methods on
both the receiving and delivery ends, but also with
extensive experience in the theological, therapeutic
(including "alternative therapies"), educational, and
management fields so as to have some basis for fair
evaluation and comparison.
What IS meaningful is whether any given element of "The
Tech," whether a particular process or method works with a
particular client at a particular point in his case -
whether it is appropriate to his case now. Quality of
delivery is yet another variable. Let's assume that if all
these factors are in place, and the client achieves some
valid spiritual goals that he wants to achieve and makes
lasting case gain, then and only then can we say that a
particular piece of tech "works." That's as far as we
can go, but it's an accurate and fair claim. I believe that
accuracy and fairness are the goals here, regardless of
one's own religious beliefs.
As for particular pieces of Scn "tech," at the very
least I am consider the following to be workable: 4 flows,
repeater process, the ARC triangle, and the emotional tone
scale, comparable magnitude exercises, rudiments - all of
which are very basic and publically available processes. I
also like Dn, but think it could be made much more
spiritually powerful, and yield much more predictable and
powerful results. Furthermore, I do not believe that Dn
succeeds by densensitization but rather by open and frank
experience of spiritual liberation.
Having an extensive background in theology, alternative
therapies, metaphysics and spiritualism, I believe there may
be better and less costly routes to achieve the advanced
goals of what I call "conscious spirit." This angle should
be worked more or less concurrently with case clearing as
"two ends of the stick" of "the great Work of liberation."
I like to have students operating as "conscious spirit" from
day one of our Work together. The Work then proceeds very
rapidly, because the student is spiritually empowered every
step of the way.
Much of how the Work is designed and proceeds depends
on theology and religious alignment. I do not believe that
in today's world where so many young people have no
religious foundations, where spiritual life has been more or
less neglected, that a purely secular approach is optimally
workable, since students will likely remain spiritually lost
without spiritual teachings and practices to experiment with
and make their own, as a basis for their further unfoldment.
My own Work with students is along the lines of mystical
Judeo-Christianity, New Thought, Vedanta, Sufism, and
Spiritualism. In other words, it is not an atheist,
agnostic, humanist, or pagan path. There need to be various
options available in the community, where people can select
a path of spiritual unfoldment based on their actual and
desired religious beliefs and experiences, and have all this
be very open and upfront so there are no unnecesary
unpleasant surprises or religious misalignments down the
road. That's not to say a person can't change his religious
beliefs midstream based on inspiration or experience, and he
will probably change spiritual teachings, guides and
communities accordingly.
Returning to the particular piece of "The Tech," we can
hope that the particular process was elegant and that it
accomplished the purpose relatively quickly, thus saving the
client unncessary expense and freeing the
minister-therapist's time to help other clients.
Whether something is _the best_ piece of tech available
anywhere for the purpose at hand is another question, but if
it works, and works for good reason(s), perhaps this last
question can be safely ignored except by technical purists
and therapeutic "mad scientists" - those intrepid spirits
who blaze trail in theological revelation and therapeutic
revolution. What's important is that the inner workings of
a piece of tech be understood by everyone involved, revealed
appropriately, and that the person makes changes based not
just on technical gimmicks but on valid and intelligible
spiritual processes and practices. It is my belief that a
"technical" process should have the effect of reaffirming
spiritual truths or even initiate a student/client into a
deeper spiritual awareness and practice.
References articles by C.B. Willis:
"The Great Work of Liberation"
"Overview of the Gurdjieff-4th Way Tradition"
"Eternity and Time: Parallel Universes"
"Fundamentals of Creation"
"Qui Tollis"
"Reich Revisited"
"My Case Made Me Do It"
"Expanded Integrity"
"Do You Have Reservations?"
C.B. Willis, MA
Sunnyvale CA
December 6, 1997
revised December 13, 1997
cbwi...@lightlink.com
http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/1802
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| cbwi...@lightlink.com | "Values are the infrastructure |
| | upon which civilization |
| | will be reinvented." - CBW |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CB Willis
>Frankly, I don't see what one would get out of it that having a coffee with
>some good friends wouldn't provide, but that may just be my limited
>imagination.
Yes, even sincere, bright people have absolutely no clue of what happens
for the person in the best approaches, nor the results that come from them
as compared to results of ordinary cultured, educated, and social life.
There are just no ordinary hooks to hang it on. It is not so much a
failure of imagination, rather a lack of relevant experience upon
which to understand and imagine further possibilities. The experience and
results are not something you can understand or figure out in advance, as
understanding only happens only after the experience. One or two hours of
private work, or a month of effective group therapy should produce the
opening, the experience, the beginning of a basis for further development.
Ordinary life does not provide that opening, even the most educated and
cultured life (though that's good as far as it goes).
- CBW
CB Willis
Not necessarily. I've always maintained that what LRH called the reactive
mind was just a convenient term for the sum total of traumas and pain,
some automaticities (i.e. the classical "unexamined life"), including
tendencies to logical fallacies and false conclusions drawn (kneejerk
"logic" with false conclusions).
> I don't have that problem.
Good.
>I understand your point that auditing is a catalyst to
>behavioral change; I just think there are other, more tested, safer ways to
>do it.
There's an element of risk involved in any form of therapy, and in many
other areas of life, where we give up control for brief periods, and soon
get to see a desired result. It comes down to trusting the competence of
your practitioner, as well as your intuitions of truth and connection to
Spirit. These latter, which are intimately connected for many religious
persons, will not let you go far wrong even if a practitioner were
incompetent. It doesn't take long to give you an experience that should
ring true for you as your being on the right track and a step in the right
direction. Later experiences should also give you an intuitive sense of
this, and you should see your life beginning to change in desired
directions. If a therapist can't produce that opening you intuitively
feel right about in 1-2 hours, next.
>But I'm not that self-righteous. I can admit when I'm wrong, and learn from
>my mistakes. I don't have to always be right.
Always a plus.
- CBW
Boudewijn van Ingen
Willis) wrote:
>M. C. DiPietra (mdip...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>>You have to believe in a reactive mind in the first place, though.
>
>Not necessarily. I've always maintained that what LRH called the reactive
>mind was just a convenient term for the sum total of traumas and pain,
>some automaticities (i.e. the classical "unexamined life"), including
>tendencies to logical fallacies and false conclusions drawn (kneejerk
>"logic" with false conclusions).
In other words, Hubbard didn't know what he was talking about. He
never established that there actually was something worth calling "the
reactive mind". It was all along a "convenient term" for describing
things he did not understand. Yet he asked money for you guys to
believe this crap.
>> I don't have that problem.
>
>Good.
>
>>I understand your point that auditing is a catalyst to
>>behavioral change; I just think there are other, more tested, safer ways to
>>do it.
>
>There's an element of risk involved in any form of therapy, and in many
>other areas of life, where we give up control for brief periods, and soon
>get to see a desired result.
In what other areas of your life do you give up control, ever?
I know I do not. And what do you claim to be?
> It comes down to trusting the competence of
>your practitioner, as well as your intuitions of truth and connection to
>Spirit.
I should strongly encourage you to examine the "competence" of your
"practitioners". (BTW What is that "Spirit" you're talking about?)
> These latter, which are intimately connected for many religious
>persons, will not let you go far wrong even if a practitioner were
>incompetent.
Allow me to understand. You're saying here that you do not care if any
"true believer" makes a mistake. Am I right?
> It doesn't take long to give you an experience that should
>ring true for you as your being on the right track and a step in the right
>direction. Later experiences should also give you an intuitive sense of
>this, and you should see your life beginning to change in desired
>directions. If a therapist can't produce that opening you intuitively
>feel right about in 1-2 hours, next.
Next? Did you really mean to encourage people to go shopping around
for a "religion"?
>>But I'm not that self-righteous. I can admit when I'm wrong, and learn from
>>my mistakes. I don't have to always be right.
>
>Always a plus.
>
>
>- CBW
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
CB Willis
[CBW:]
>>There's an element of risk involved in any form of therapy, and in many
>>other areas of life, where we give up control for brief periods, and soon
>>get to see a desired result.
>In what other areas of your life do you give up control, ever?
Sleep, swallowing, breathing, acts of elimination, orgasm, being in
love, laughter, surgery (anesthetic), to give a few examples.
>I should strongly encourage you to examine the "competence" of your
>"practitioners". (BTW What is that "Spirit" you're talking about?)
When I use Spirit with a captal S, I refer to the Holy Spirit (of the
Christian trinity).
And as I have stated countless times before, I am not Scn nor a freezoner.
>> These latter, which are intimately connected for many religious
>>persons, will not let you go far wrong even if a practitioner were
>>incompetent.
>Allow me to understand. You're saying here that you do not care if any
>"true believer" makes a mistake. Am I right?
I believe you've completely misconstrued my remark, so badly I can't
relate the two statements.
>> It doesn't take long to give you an experience that should
>>ring true for you as your being on the right track and a step in the right
>>direction. Later experiences should also give you an intuitive sense of
>>this, and you should see your life beginning to change in desired
>>directions. If a therapist can't produce that opening you intuitively
>>feel right about in 1-2 hours, next.
>Next? Did you really mean to encourage people to go shopping around
>for a "religion"?
Again you misconstrue my remarks.
- CBW
Rogers
> You have to believe in a reactive mind in the first place, though. I don't
> have that problem.
Hi Maggie,
It strikes me that a lot of the critics of Dianetics belong to the possibly
50 percent of the population that "don't see pictures." Note that I
specifically said "Dianetics" not "Scientology," but I do believe that the
inability to accept Dianetic theory serves as a barrier to the appreciation
of Scientology.
Interestingly, when LRH himself was working up the Dianetic tech in, say,
1947, he himself never had any problem "turning on" the ability to perceive
pictures. He would start out having the person recall, say, breakfast, and
then move them to that "incident" and have them go through it a few times to
where they could pretty much taste what they were eating and re-live the
breakfast experience, and so forth. From that point he would get them to
(gradually) inspect slightly upsetting incidents and move from there to
"heavier" incidents. It was all on a gradient.
When other auditors got involved, all of a sudden it appeared that 50
percent of the clients couldn't run Dianetics because they couldn't see any
pictures (and although provision was made for this in Dianetic procedure, it
apparently wasn't that workable to run through incidents "blind" as it
were).
In the early fifties all sorts of tech was developed and tried to overcome
this "occlusion" barrier, with various degrees of success. But these
attempts were more in the subject of Scientology at that time. In about
1963 Ron dusted off Dianetics again and worked it over and the new
streamlined procedure also remedied the problems of occlusion.
Now, talking about the "breakfast" technique. There was another technique
sometimes exploited. A date and time could be chosen at random - years in
the past perhaps - (and hopefully this would NOT coincide with a traumatic
experience but rather just a common day-to-day sort of experience) and the
Dianetic client was instructed to move to that date and time and then from
that point to go through to a moment, say, ten minutes later, and relate
what was going on during that ten minutes. After possibly multiple passes
through, the "incident" would get clearer and clearer and more and more
detail would show up and occasionally it would get quite vivid.
The above procedure was a bit more experimental than standard but it did
demonstrate the unlimited capacity for recording available in the mind - the
bulk of which is "forgotten" and submerged.
But as I said to begin with, the (remediable) inability to see pictures
serves as a barrier to the acceptance of Dianetics, the reactive mind, and,
subsequently, Scientology.
Les.
M. C. DiPietra
cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com wrote on 12/12/00 9:20 PM:
> M. C. DiPietra (mdip...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>> You have to believe in a reactive mind in the first place, though.
>
> Not necessarily. I've always maintained that what LRH called the reactive
> mind was just a convenient term for the sum total of traumas and pain,
> some automaticities (i.e. the classical "unexamined life"), including
> tendencies to logical fallacies and false conclusions drawn (kneejerk
> "logic" with false conclusions).
>
What would LRH call the sum total of experiences in one's life perceived as
good? Why is there a difference? Don't all experiences teach, or have the
potential to teach? The good/bad dichotomy is not universal.
Sometimes bad feelings are revisited until the person is ready to work them
out. This is healthy. It includes actual learning from the experience
instead of covering it up. I don't know about you, but I *want* my bad
experiences to teach me something!
>
>> I don't have that problem.
>
> Good.
>
>> I understand your point that auditing is a catalyst to
>> behavioral change; I just think there are other, more tested, safer ways to
>> do it.
>
> There's an element of risk involved in any form of therapy, and in many
> other areas of life, where we give up control for brief periods, and soon
> get to see a desired result. It comes down to trusting the competence of
> your practitioner, as well as your intuitions of truth and connection to
> Spirit. These latter, which are intimately connected for many religious
> persons, will not let you go far wrong even if a practitioner were
> incompetent.
I agree that trust is a big part of healthy relationships, but I don't share
the view that spirituality is an individual journey, nor is it one that can
be safely "led" by a "practitioner" on a one-to-one basis all the time. I
also think that subjective concepts such as "truth and connection to Spirit"
are vulnerable to suggestion, perhaps too much so to invoke the required
trust.
I agree also that people's intuitions are important and should be listened
to, but when you demand total trust, in your model, a practitioner's
incompetence would never be revealed. I still think there are safer ways
than auditing to reach the desired conclusion. Auditing has not been
extensively tested as to the effects of the electric current, etc. I know
that my TENS unit, which is regulated by prescription, generates less
current than an e-meter.
> It doesn't take long to give you an experience that should
> ring true for you as your being on the right track and a step in the right
> direction. Later experiences should also give you an intuitive sense of
> this, and you should see your life beginning to change in desired
> directions. If a therapist can't produce that opening you intuitively
> feel right about in 1-2 hours, next.
>
I don't think it's the therapist that is responsible for producing an
"opening". I think it comes from the perception of the relationship between
an individual and his or her community, as well as whatever preferred
spiritual concept. No one is an island, and it confuses me that people seek
spiritual "development" as if they were. One person is not responsible for
another's "spiritual development". Some belief systems, imho, are modeled
too much on the European concept of heirarchy, as if a priest owned more
spirituality somehow than, say, a duck.
Like those who look to indigenous religions and take the bits and pieces
they like out of them for "personal spiritual development" and see nothing
wrong with it, while the people who grew up with it see it as a community
thing, where it is important that everyone understand the symbols, not just
one person, and if one's going to take a ceremony that appeals then one
should stay and address the poverty, alcoholism, and problems associated
with the community, not just the parts one likes and is attracted to.
CB, I'm not saying you do that here, especially since I appreciate the way
you have approached the subject from outside the box. It's just that my
perceptions of spirituality must be inclusive of community, and I'm asking
how auditing does that, because I don't see how it does.
>
>> But I'm not that self-righteous. I can admit when I'm wrong, and learn from
>> my mistakes. I don't have to always be right.
>
> Always a plus.
>
OK, *sometimes* I always have to be right <g>
>
> - CBW
CB Willis
>CB, I'm not saying you do that here, especially since I appreciate the way
>you have approached the subject from outside the box. It's just that my
>perceptions of spirituality must be inclusive of community, and I'm asking
>how auditing does that, because I don't see how it does.
We are simply talking past each other here. Therapy and community and not
mutually exclusive. We can learn, and give and receive support from
aspects of life. The kind of learning is different, they are both useful
and needed.
Indeed, I favor 2-3 years of very effective group therapy as an excellent
education for most people, as there is an immediate social integration
of sorts, people of total good will who stand witness, then it's far
easier to integrate the gains socially into the world at large. In this
respect, group Work is far superior to individual therapy. In the best of
all possible worlds, I'd like to see 3 years of group therapy as a matter
of course in the person's late 20's, supplemented with individual therapy
as needed to process some of the more intense traumatic incidents and
projection/disowned parts of the self, plus the person throwing themselves
into the best of a traditional spiritual path of any denomination. Purity
of heart and love of God make therapy 100x easier.
I will not address the subject of auditing with you, since I'm not an
auditor.
- CBW
M. C. DiPietra
cbwi...@adore.lightlink.com wrote on 12/13/00 1:22 PM:
I gotcha. I thought we were talking about auditing! My mistake!
>
>
> - CBW
-maggie
Jim Bianchi
>> At what point is the change attributed to auditing? How do I know that I
>> didn't just mock up my reactive mind and am postulating the positive
>change?
>>
>> If there is something about myself I really want to change, I just do it.
>>
>The theory of course is that none of the change is caused by the auditing,
>it is all your own doing: the auditing helps you to get to where you can
>more easily do it. Indeed you do mock up your reactive mind and you can
>change it. However most people find this dificult.
Huh? I thought one of the 'scientifically validated' parts of the
human mind was the reactive mind? Either this is true, or we 'mock it up.'
Can't be both (though it can be neither).
--
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS, (707) 539-1279
CB Willis
>I gotcha. I thought we were talking about auditing! My mistake!
As I stated earlier in this thread there is some overlap in goals and
objectives of auditing and therapy and pastoral counseling, and rarely
also in method (it's very common for therapists to ask what decisions did
the person make in or after a particular situation, for example), however
I'm not an auditor, to clarify.
- CBW
Rogers
> It includes actual learning from the experience
> instead of covering it up. I don't know about you, but I *want* my bad
> experiences to teach me something!
Maggie, everything you experience IS to do with you - or at least it is
based on your own decisions and agreements of yore.
But you have it backwards. Running a traumatic incident, Dianetically, does
NOT cover it up but rather the opposite. It UNCOVERS the incident, reveals
it to the analytical mind, as it were, and then makes the experience...
well, at least as "useful and educational" as any experience can be.
In the absence of auditing so much remains submerged. And your reactive
mind can encourage the "pulling in" of experiences that have not the
slightest educational value - unless you philosophize the crap out of the
experience and justify it all away. People are often inclined to do that or
just attribute the experience - no matter how bloody, traumatic and no
matter how many fatalities were involved - to God.
A couple of weeks ago, I heard a shopkeeper - consoling somebody whose
father had just died - give the following line, "God doesn't give out more
pain that we can stand." And I thought to myself, "What a kind God that is.
Doesn't torture us more than we can stand. What a wonderful fella." But
meanwhile, the poor suffering daughter was busily trying to explain the
death all away - trying to figure out the significance of the experience.
Both of them were caught up in idiocies and lies.
Les.
Rogers
> Huh? I thought one of the 'scientifically validated' parts of the
> human mind was the reactive mind?
Jim, I doubt that your penis has been 'scientifically validated' either, but
I assume you have one.
And I wouldn't (necessarily) assume you were dickless just because you
didn't have the appropriate 'scientific validation."
I'm just saying that scientific validation is neither here nor there. As
far as I know bumble bees have still not been scientifically validated as
capable of flight, or certainly they weren't for a very long time.
Les.
M. C. DiPietra
here-...@email.msn.com wrote on 12/14/00 6:44 AM:
My father is dying now, Les. Just last week he told me "sometimes [God]
heals your body, sometimes it's your spirit." When I looked in his eyes I
saw peace there. We had a good time!
I held my baby son as he died, too, of glass bones disease. My first husband
also died tragically. If I make it so their deaths don't affect me, I negate
their lessons on the value of life.
Life is bigger than you or me, imho.
I do not believe in the reactive mind, so I don't have to rationalize its
capacity to "pull in" anything. Again, it is only my opinion, but I think
maintaining that it does falsely releases one of responsibility for the
consequences of one's actions.
The daughter you mention above is grieving right now; that is a normal
process, part of being alive, and people take different amounts of time to
do it. Eventually, she will probably figure out the significance of the
experience for herself.
Starshadow
"Rogers" <here-...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:3a38b...@news2.lightlink.com...
You don't know anything about science, do you?
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
Boudewijn van Ingen
<mdip...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I am somehow always emotionally impacted when I read stuff like this.
I cannot understand that people like Les are still talking about
suffering like this (he gave the example, see above) in this way. It
seems to me as if those people simply do not understand even the most
basic things of life.
I was born "handicapped". I have consistently been asking those that
claimed to know more about life than me how that could have happened.
And I have never ever found anyone that could explain anything, once I
started asking.
(Nowadays, I do not have a need of any other faith than that in
myself.)
And I end up wondering -sometimes- if all the other people in the
world are perhaps -slightly or more- masochistic.
Those of you that believe that there is a "doG" that brings you all
your miserey and happiness, you have my blessing, for what it's worth.
And followers of most other "regular faiths" have my -limited- support
too.
But I will not be caught, letting a "snake-oil salesman" like L.Ron
Hubbard get away. He was and is a complete fraud, when it comes to
"helping people". He could only help himself, and he did.
There is no scientific proof for a "reactive mind" as Hubbard
described it. In fact there is not even the slightest scrap of
evidence that *any* of his own theories had any base in reality.
According to Hubbard's writings, my disease would have to be my own
"accomplishment". In this life or any life before this. But Hubbard
was blissfully ignorant about genetics, and so he came up with his
"implant stations" where our imprisoned souls ("thetans" in
scientologese) would be reprogrammed. And after being reprogrammed
these "thetans" would -still according to Hubbard's fantasies- be
attached to a completely unrelated new "human" body (regardless what
exactly is or was the mock-up in his various stories does not matter
now).
Following his own "theories", Hubbard believed that his own "thetan"
had clinged to important people's bodies before. Hubbard actually
believed he had been Napoleon, Jaenne D'Arc, Adolf Hitler, and a whole
host of other people. He even made his followers pay for an expidition
to find the "hoard of gold" he stashed away in a previous life as a
"famous pirate". Needless to say that nothing was found...
His inability to cope with the real world echo through in his
followers today.
None of them -either from the offcial "org" or from the "Freezone"-
have any explanation about genetically inherited diseases.
And the most worrying fact is, that they will try to sell you their
services as long as possible. That means that they are willing -and
able- to actually *not hear* the words "genetically inherited",
because it doesn't fit into their socalled "belief system".
Their belief system is meant to make money, not for anyone else to
benefit from.
Allow me to be sick for a moment (again).
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
anon...@electra.lightlink.com
wrote in thread "Re: Dianetics test", on Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:53:25 GMT, :
M. C. DiPietra <mdip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> It includes actual learning from the experience
>>>> instead of covering it up. I don't know about you, but I *want* my bad
>>>> experiences to teach me something!
Lesster:
>>> Maggie, everything you experience IS to do with you - or at least it is
>>> based on your own decisions and agreements of yore.
>>>
>>> But you have it backwards. Running a traumatic incident, Dianetically,
does
>>> NOT cover it up but rather the opposite. It UNCOVERS the incident,
reveals
>>> it to the analytical mind, as it were, and then makes the experience...
>>> well, at least as "useful and educational" as any experience can be.
>>>
>>> In the absence of auditing so much remains submerged. And your reactive
>>> mind can encourage the "pulling in" of experiences that have not the
>>> slightest educational value - unless you philosophize the crap out of the
>>> experience and justify it all away. People are often inclined to do
that or
>>> just attribute the experience - no matter how bloody, traumatic and no
>>> matter how many fatalities were involved - to God.
>>>
>>> A couple of weeks ago, I heard a shopkeeper - consoling somebody whose
>>> father had just died - give the following line, "God doesn't give out more
>>> pain that we can stand." And I thought to myself, "What a kind God
that is.
>>> Doesn't torture us more than we can stand. What a wonderful fella." But
>>> meanwhile, the poor suffering daughter was busily trying to explain the
>>> death all away - trying to figure out the significance of the experience.
>>>
>>> Both of them were caught up in idiocies and lies.
>>>
>>> Les.
Maggie:
>>My father is dying now, Les. Just last week he told me "sometimes [God]
>>heals your body, sometimes it's your spirit." When I looked in his eyes I
>>saw peace there. We had a good time!
>>
>>I held my baby son as he died, too, of glass bones disease. My first husband
>>also died tragically. If I make it so their deaths don't affect me, I negate
>>their lessons on the value of life.
>>
>>Life is bigger than you or me, imho.
>>
>>I do not believe in the reactive mind, so I don't have to rationalize its
>>capacity to "pull in" anything. Again, it is only my opinion, but I think
>>maintaining that it does falsely releases one of responsibility for the
>>consequences of one's actions.
>>
>>The daughter you mention above is grieving right now; that is a normal
>>process, part of being alive, and people take different amounts of time to
>>do it. Eventually, she will probably figure out the significance of the
>>experience for herself.
Boudewijn van Ingen:
>I am somehow always emotionally impacted when I read stuff like this.
>
>I cannot understand that people like Les are still talking about
>suffering like this (he gave the example, see above) in this way. It
>seems to me as if those people simply do not understand even the
>most basic things of life.
Lesster is down in psychotic delusion
and does NOT understand even the
most basic things in life. He thinks
life exists to demonstrate the disproven
theories of his phat dead phraud.
>I was born "handicapped". I have consistently been asking those that
>claimed to know more about life than me how that could have happened.
>
>And I have never ever found anyone that could explain anything, once I
>started asking.
>
>(Nowadays, I do not have a need of any other faith than that in
>myself.)
Excellent!
>And I end up wondering -sometimes- if all the other people in the
>world are perhaps -slightly or more- masochistic.
>
>Those of you that believe that there is a "doG" that brings you all
>your miserey and happiness, you have my blessing, for what it's worth.
>
>And followers of most other "regular faiths" have my -limited- support
>too.
>
>But I will not be caught, letting a "snake-oil salesman" like L.Ron
>Hubbard get away. He was and is a complete fraud, when it comes to
>"helping people". He could only help himself, and he did.
*IF* he helped himself!
He DID make a lot of money,
but he was psychotic and
lost it all to his traitors, just
as he was a traitor to them.
>There is no scientific proof for a "reactive mind" as Hubbard
>described it. In fact there is not even the slightest scrap of
>evidence that *any* of his own theories had any base in reality.
I agree.
>According to Hubbard's writings, my disease would have to be my own
>"accomplishment". In this life or any life before this. But Hubbard
>was blissfully ignorant about genetics, and so he came up with his
>"implant stations" where our imprisoned souls ("thetans" in
>scientologese) would be reprogrammed.
Even if implants DO exist, that
does NOT validate his "therapy".
>And after being reprogrammed
>these "thetans" would -still according to Hubbard's fantasies- be
>attached to a completely unrelated new "human" body (regardless what
>exactly is or was the mock-up in his various stories does not matter
>now).
That follows the general beliefs of
most of the people on this planet.
>Following his own "theories", Hubbard believed that his own "thetan"
>had clinged to important people's bodies before. Hubbard actually
>believed he had been Napoleon, Jaenne D'Arc, Adolf Hitler,
I highly doubt Phatso thought he had been Hitler.
>and a whole
>host of other people. He even made his followers pay for an expidition
>to find the "hoard of gold" he stashed away in a previous life as a
>"famous pirate". Needless to say that nothing was found...
NOT according to one of the people I knew
who was on that expedition. He told me they
found an ancient wooden chest filled with
gold and jewels, right where Scumbag told
them it would be. Just because Phatso said
it does not make it false, tho it's a good guess.
>His inability to cope with the real world echo through in his
>followers today.
Agreed.
>None of them -either from the offcial "org" or from the "Freezone"-
>have any explanation about genetically inherited diseases.
Genetics!
>And the most worrying fact is, that they will try to sell you their
>services as long as possible. That means that they are willing -and
>able- to actually *not hear* the words "genetically inherited",
>because it doesn't fit into their socalled "belief system".
They are willing to "not hear" whatever they like.
>Their belief system is meant to make money,
>not for anyone else to benefit from.
Agreed!
>Allow me to be sick for a moment (again).
>
>
>Groeten,
>Boudewijn.
Take your time,
and flush often!
Konchok Penday
Technical Writer, GODS CHURCH
Recipient of the Alex Yakovlev
Technical Excellence Award :-)
<konchok...@net-prophet.net>
TEST DRIVE THE UNIVERSAL CLEARING PROCESS!
FOR MORE INFORMATION GOTO GODS CHURCH:
http://net-prophet.net/godshome/godshome.htm
"Get Your Ducks in a Row @ net-prophet.net!"
Starshadow
These posts moved me.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
"Boudewijn van Ingen" <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3a3a6c8d.17960041@jumbo...
Rogers
was a private e-mail to me by Maggie. So I responded privately. No big
deal. But after a bit more deliberation I wrote the Post "Holding Onto
Secondaries" (on ACT only), and I think it more completely expresses my
sentiment.
I thought this thread was getting a bit long, so you will find it under
"Rogers."
Les.
M. C. DiPietra <mdip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B65E8131.298BA%mdip...@earthlink.net...
Rogers
Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> I was born "handicapped". I have consistently been asking those that
> claimed to know more about life than me how that could have happened.
Well, you apparently got the answer and didn't like it, huh, Boudewijn?
> And I have never ever found anyone that could explain anything, once I
> started asking.
You never found an answer that was acceptable?
To the question, "Why would a thetan pick up a defective body?"
I'm afraid you wouldn't accept my answer either.
I'm sure you would LIKE me to say that it wasn't your fault. That you were
victimized. Victimized by genetics. Victimized by your mothers inadequate
intake of Folic Acid. Victimized by....
Well, funnily enough, Boudewijn, sometimes the "empowering" way to fly is
often mistake for the accusative.
Figure that out.
Les.
Rogers
> You don't know anything about science, do you?
What do you mean? You mean that scientists did NOT admit that they didn't
understand how a bumble bee could fly? Well, admittedly, perhaps it was
only British Scientists (probably both the American and Russian scientists
wouldn't admit to such a thing). But certainly, when I went to school, THAT
is what the teachers told us, namely, that according to scientists, the
bumble bee could NOT fly.
What don't you understand about that paragraph?
Les.
Chris Leithiser
Yeah, that myth has been around a long time:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/March00/APS_wang.hrs.html
Starshadow
Les, you revel in your ignorance.
Let me start out by saying it isn't my job to reeducate you because you are
stuck in the valence of the fifties. Science moves on; you obviously did
not. In addition, science is an exact methodology which is a way to measure
the measurable. I'd advise you to pick up a basic science text. Free hint,
though, anything at all by Ron Hubbard does not qualify.
Rogers
> Science moves on;
That is trite enough to be stupid. Of course science moves on - but to
assume AT ANY POINT that it has perfect comprehension and is the only
standard of intelligent thinking and approval is nonsense.
Don't you think medical science was completely smug about its understanding
of the tides of bloodflow - as they bled George Washington to death?
The attitude of science does not change, at EVERY point in time they
pretentiously assume that they have explained everything away.
I'm sure they have occasional geniuses. Personally, when I heard the
"admission of ignorance" regarding bumble-bee flight, I was impressed with
the integrity of the scientists who admitted it. Generally, then as today,
bullshit prevails.
I haven't looked up the link offered by somebody, but it wouldn't surprise
me if it wasn't an American scientist who "solved" (snicker) the bumble bee
dilemma. Was it?
Les.
M. C. DiPietra
here-...@email.msn.com wrote on 12/16/00 6:08 AM:
> Starshadow <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
>
>> Science moves on;
>
> That is trite enough to be stupid. Of course science moves on - but to
> assume AT ANY POINT that it has perfect comprehension and is the only
> standard of intelligent thinking and approval is nonsense.
No one does, Les. The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting. No
one has to go through mental gymnastics to accept that a previous fact has
had further light shed on it. Peer review and replicatable experimentation
are wonderful things.
>
> Don't you think medical science was completely smug about its understanding
> of the tides of bloodflow - as they bled George Washington to death?
>
> The attitude of science does not change, at EVERY point in time they
> pretentiously assume that they have explained everything away.
The first thing any decent scientist "knows" is that they don't know caca.
>
> I'm sure they have occasional geniuses. Personally, when I heard the
> "admission of ignorance" regarding bumble-bee flight, I was impressed with
> the integrity of the scientists who admitted it. Generally, then as today,
> bullshit prevails.
>
> I haven't looked up the link offered by somebody, but it wouldn't surprise
> me if it wasn't an American scientist who "solved" (snicker) the bumble bee
> dilemma. Was it?
>
les, your ethnocentricity is out of place here, and seems relative to just
how much your view of science has been distorted.
http://mp3.com/MaggieCouncil XENU WORLD ORDER CD now available
M.C.DiPietra <mdip...@earthlink.net>, SP4, KoX
"Hell, if you understood everything I say, you'd be me!" -Miles Davis
> Les.
>
>
Thomas J Best
post
> was a private e-mail to me by Maggie. So I responded privately. No big
> deal. But after a bit more deliberation I wrote the Post "Holding Onto
> Secondaries" (on ACT only), and I think it more completely expresses my
> sentiment.
>
> I thought this thread was getting a bit long, so you will find it under
> "Rogers."
>
> Les.
<snip> You mean you're running away, you pathetic deluded
piece of snail-slobber.
tam
Rogers
Thomas J Best <noe...@nowhere.yet> wrote in message
> You mean you're running away, you pathetic deluded
> piece of snail-slobber.
Don't be coy. If there's something you want to say to me go ahead. No,
just go ahead and blurt it out, I can take it. You don't have to sugarcoat
it.
Les.
Boudewijn van Ingen
<here-...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>
>> I was born "handicapped". I have consistently been asking those that
>> claimed to know more about life than me how that could have happened.
>
>Well, you apparently got the answer and didn't like it, huh, Boudewijn?
Can't you read and understand what I wrote?
>> And I have never ever found anyone that could explain anything, once I
>> started asking.
>
>You never found an answer that was acceptable?
I have found a few $cientologists in the Freezone that were able to
admit that Hubbard did not have 'all the answers'. And I have found
that most other grown-up religious people (christian, protestant,
muslim, jewish, buddhist etc) attribute anything they do not
understand to their respective 'deities'. Implicitly all these people
do not claim to have any answer at all.
I have never met any $cientologist with an even remotely plausible
explanation. And none of those that tried, held on to their beliefs
about it once I started to ask questions. In fact I believe that some
even ended up declared and in the Freezone because of the exchange.
>To the question, "Why would a thetan pick up a defective body?"
I have never posed *that* question. Indeed, I would have some other
questions that need answers before I could. (Besides, I do not
consider my body to be "defective", though that may sound strange to
many of the "healthy" humans out there.)
>I'm afraid you wouldn't accept my answer either.
Try me. Please use both proper English and proper logic.
>I'm sure you would LIKE me to say that it wasn't your fault. That you were
>victimized. Victimized by genetics. Victimized by your mothers inadequate
>intake of Folic Acid. Victimized by....
You could not be more wrong. You really have no idea how wrong you
are. You are so wrong in your "judgement" of me and your improper ans
shameless assessment of what I should feel, that I truly would have to
feel pity for you.
But is there not a name in $cientology for what you are doing here?
Why would you not explain to the readers what policy you are
following? Are you ashamed of something? What are you hiding? What is
your crime?
>Well, funnily enough, Boudewijn, sometimes the "empowering" way to fly is
>often mistake for the accusative.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but English is not my first language. Yet
I have the feeling that the above sentence really does not parse. The
expression "... is ... mistake for" would confuse any reader. And do I
need to follow the same "comm-course" you did, in order to understand
what you mean by an '"empowering" way to fly'??
Let me take some guesses:
Are you accusing me of being afraid to fly?
Are you afraid to be accused of being afraid to fly?
Do you consider my previous posting to be "accusative" and do you
have fear of me getting "empowered" to fly all over the place in some
strange way?
Are you talking about the famous piece of music called "the flight of
the bumblebee" here, and have you found that to be an "accusation"
considering your crimes in some way?
Or are you referring to the stuck image you seem to have (I found
that from one of the other threads) that "insect flight cannot be
scientifically explained"? An image that you have apparently
misunderstood. An image that you apparently use to justify to yourself
that scientists "know nothing" and $cientology is always right.
>Figure that out.
I tried and failed. You caused that failure by not communicating
properly. Deal with it. (Or should I have said *FLUNK!!*?)
>Les.
Less, obviously, until you start thinking for yourself, in stead of
for me or anyone else. Your selfrespect needs the boost.
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
CB Willis
that most other grown-up religious people (christian, protestant,
muslim, jewish, buddhist etc) attribute anything they do not
understand to their respective 'deities'."
Frankly I don't know who you've been talking to.
Most religious adults I've known for the last 50 yrs attribute anything
they do not understand to their own ignorance or to lack of having put
together the missing pieces in their own understanding. Yes God's will
may seem mysterious at times, but there is nothing about the mind and
heart of God that is inherently unintelligible. It is our responsibility
to seek to understand God and each other as far as we can, and
continuously, without stopping and giving up. I don't know anyone who
wants others to give up on them.
- CBW
Starshadow
> Starshadow <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
>
> > Science moves on;
>
> That is trite enough to be stupid. Of course science moves on - but to
> assume AT ANY POINT that it has perfect comprehension and is the only
> standard of intelligent thinking and approval is nonsense.
>
You assume too much. You assume, for instance, that I made mention of
"perfect comprehension". I did not. I do, however, think it is one of the
best tools for observation of the observable universe that humans have
discovered yet.
I did not say anything at all about "only standard of intelligent
thinking", however, so you insist on reading into what is actually said what
*I* can only assume, thereby, are your own prejudices. And science is not
about prejudging. It is about observing and extrapolating from what is
observable, and being ready to re-evaluate if what is observed is not what
one expected. Do you know what the definition of science and the scientific
method is? It has an exact definition.
> Don't you think medical science was completely smug about its
understanding
> of the tides of bloodflow - as they bled George Washington to death?
Medicine at that time was not "scientific". You obviously do not know what
the definition of the scientific method is. Look it up. You may be
surprised.
Free hint--just because the label of "science" is used does not make it
so.
> The attitude of science does not change, at EVERY point in time they
> pretentiously assume that they have explained everything away.
No. This is the antithesis of science. Science is about observation,
forming hypotheses, experimenting, (testing) to see if the results are what
was expected, and reevaluating if they are not. Science is constantly
reevaluating, in fact. Did you take any elementary science classes in
school, and if so, did you sleep through them, or did you just have piss
poor instruction?
> I'm sure they have occasional geniuses. Personally, when I heard the
> "admission of ignorance" regarding bumble-bee flight, I was impressed with
> the integrity of the scientists who admitted it. Generally, then as
today,
> bullshit prevails.
>
You obviously have no understanding of science and the scientific method.
> I haven't looked up the link offered by somebody, but it wouldn't surprise
> me if it wasn't an American scientist who "solved" (snicker) the bumble
bee
> dilemma. Was it?
>
There was no dilemma, Les. Just because you heard the myth and believed it
does not make it so. I suggest you do some reading on the subject before
exposing your absymal ignorance again. If you do not wish to, then I submit
it is not ignorance (which is curable) but stupidity, which whether self
imposed or not, which is deplorable, but hardly unique, unfortunately.
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
> Les.
>
>
Rogers
I'll get straight to the point. As far as I am concerned, every thetan on
this planet is handicapped, some more than others, some with (merely) a more
physical manifestation than others.
For the most part, those involved with Scientology - either through greater
intelligence or greater luck - are the ones who are making a serious effort
to transcend their own handicaps.
On the other hand, we have critics of Scientology who would rather wallow in
their own handicapped victimhood rather than FIND OUT. It's almost a joke -
but at the expense, alas, of the critics. We have critics who can't see
mental image pictures and hence assume they have no reactive mind. We have
critics who are "in hiding" and not only reluctant to find anything out,
they would deter anybody else from finding out anything (particularly their
own hidden location). We have critics who are unwilling to take any
responsibility for their own condition, who feel both threatened and accused
should any Scientologist suggest they do take responsibility.
We are all handicapped, but it's hard to hide the physical handicaps. It's
a blatant piece of evidence.
And, not to use your own words against you as much as to provide a perfect
example of the situation.
> (Besides, I do not consider my body to be "defective", though that may
sound strange to many of the "healthy" humans out there.)
Neither do any of the other critics consider their "situations" that
uncomfortable. And why should they? The situation a person is in is likely
to perfectly accord with their acceptance level.
People have been asleep in the mud for a very long time, they've gotten used
to it to the point that they see no mud anymore. It's a sad joke.
Actually, it's insane.
Now, this post has not contained one iota of tact or diplomacy.
Furthermore, it IS accusative and will probably have any critic who reads it
digging themselves FURTHER in the mud just to "make themselves right."
Maybe at some future time I will try a polite and reasonable and
non-threatening sort of approach (again), but you'll have to excuse my
frustration, talking to some of these critics is like talking to a brick
wall.
Are there other paths to enlightenment or understanding? Other than
Scientology? Well, nothing that in any way compares, but I'm sure that the
seeker will find "something." BUT, those who are spending their time
arguing against Scientology are certainly NOT spending their time wisely,
they are certainly NOT on the path to wisdom. They have nothing else to
devote their time to apparently, so what path?
No, it's just an issue of their mud-life is being threatened by clean water.
Les.
Rogers
stance that was really more comfortable when it was more casual.
Let me back out and try to get to my basic thoughts on the Physical
Sciences. My main concern is that Science is a sort of booby-trapped
"path." Some geniuses can traverse the path with impunity I guess, but for
ninety-odd percent of the "participants" they just get deeper and deeper
into "mystification" the more they study MEST. MEST *is* mystery, that's
why it persists.
Now, to cover one of your first points. Any "system" of observation is
likely to be problematic, since it is likely to become a "via." Ultimately,
it is the thetan who is the OBSERVER, and the best observing is the most
direct observing. Furthermore, for ninety-odd percent of the scientists,
the more "theories" they have cluttering their minds, the more poorly they
observe. Or, they are inclined to "fit" their observations into their
theories.
The main problem with Science is the human practitioners. Without address
to THAT issue, Science is... erhhh... tricky.
We have a all sorts of tastes of these difficulties in Scientology training.
For example, we use an e-meter. How difficult is it to read a meter?
Should be easy right? Well, there are some people who need quite a lot of
drilling to just get up to the point of "seeing what is there." Okay, these
are people off the street and may or may not be "scientist material" but
also they are not likely to be befuddled by extraneous theories either.
Anyway, just to emphasize my position. My main qualms about "science" is
that, for (most of) those who push it beyond its (helpful) elementary
insights, it is actually a non-therapeutic path.
I am against all non-therapeutic paths.
Now, as I said, perhaps for geniuses - impervious to the normal slings and
arrows - and perhaps for somebody with some Scientology background, the
liabilities of the subject can be transcended (thank goodness!). But I
still worry about the ninety-odd percent who may have neither going for
them.
Les.
Starshadow <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
yduzitmatter
snip some stuff
> For the most part, those involved with Scientology - either through >greater intelligence or greater luck - are the ones who are making a >serious effort to transcend their own handicaps.
> On the other hand, we have critics of Scientology who would rather >wallow in their own handicapped victimhood rather than FIND OUT. >It's almost a joke - but at the expense, alas, of the critics. We >have critics who can't see mental image pictures and hence assume >they have no reactive mind.
Who says we can't see mental images? That is Hubbard speaking - you
know the guy who lied about his war record,lied about his academic
record was a bigomist, ended his life in hiding so he wouldn't have to
go to jail, who let his wife and 10 others go to jail for him. The
one who lied about a lot of things. Once his lies were exposed how
credible is he? Not very. Anything he had to say is immediately
suspect by any thinking individual. he also claimed that he had
scientific proof of all of his dictates - there are none and until
you can show me verifiable, independent scientific proof of what he
claimed It will not be believed. He calimed as fact many things but
never proved any of them.
> We have critics who are "in hiding" and >not only reluctant to find >anything out, they would deter anybody >else from finding out >anything (particularly their own hidden >location). We have critics >who are unwilling to take any >responsibility for their own >condition, who feel both threatened and >accused should any >Scientologist suggest they do take responsibility.
I am responsible for my self and my own decisions - I am responsible
for the consequences of any decision I make - now and always. I
don't have a chain of command to answer to nor do I have to write
KR's, do sec checks, and endless hours of auditing to clear any
decision I make, if I choose to leave my church no one harasses me
about it and I don't have to pre-pay for services ( in fact I don't
have to pay for any services I receive unless I want to and then I pay
what I feel I can afford)
>
> We are all handicapped, but it's hard to hide the physical >handicaps. It's a blatant piece of evidence.
>
> And, not to use your own words against you as much as to provide a >perfect example of the situation.
>
> > (Besides, I do not consider my body to be "defective", though that >>may sound strange to many of the "healthy" humans out there.)
>
> Neither do any of the other critics consider their "situations" that
> uncomfortable. And why should they? The situation a person is in >is likely to perfectly accord with their acceptance level.
So you are saying that our life situations are a direct result of our
comfort level?? We pull it in - is that it?? How incredibly insane.
> People have been asleep in the mud for a very long time, they've >gotten usedto it to the point that they see no mud anymore. It's a >sad joke. Actually, it's insane.
Sleeping in the mud?? What planet are you on? I think for myself
and decide for myself. I am not insane ( except to a scientologist).
This is bigotry - labelling anyone who does not agree with you.
I don't care what you believe - that is not my concern - however
I will continue to criticize the COS because of its illegal, immoral,
and unethical practices. I will continue to criticize until all the
dead agenting, black pr, and hiring of PI's to "investigate" ( harass)
anyone who dares stand up against this evil corporation stops. This
is not insane - it is consumer advocacy.
> Now, this post has not contained one iota of tact or diplomacy.
> Furthermore, it IS accusative and will probably have any critic who reads it
> digging themselves FURTHER in the mud just to "make themselves right."
You are mistaken - only scientologists insist on "making it go right"
We are here to expose the abuses and illegal, immoral, and unethical
acts of the COS - we are not in the mud - we are clear about why we
criticize the COS. Look at the evidence of Hubbard's lie - go
to http://www.xmission.com/~mirele/rtwh/contents.htm and see for
yourself the government documents about Ron's so-called war heroics.
> Are there other paths to enlightenment or understanding? Other than
> Scientology? Well, nothing that in any way compares, but I'm sure >that the seeker will find "something." BUT, those who are spending >their time arguing against Scientology are certainly NOT spending >their time wisely, they are certainly NOT on the path to wisdom. >They have nothing else to devote their time to apparently, so what >path?
The path I am on is a good one and I devote much time to it. i also
devote time to exposing the lies, unethical,immoral, and illegal
actions of the cos. Tell me Les, how can you justify the taking
of Raul Lopez's money when Scientology had no intention of ever
helping him? According to your scriptures he is an illegal pc
due to his medical condition and medications. How can you look
at yourself and justify this? these actions alone are enough to
condemn scientology. Some enlightened path - taking advantage of
a seriously ill and brain damaged person for money.
anon...@electra.lightlink.com
<here-...@email.msn.com> wrote in thread "Re: Dianetics test", on Sun,
17 Dec 2000 06:53:23 -0500, :
Waste-O-Wurdz writes:
>Boudewijn,
>
>I'll get straight to the point. As far as I am concerned,
>every thetan on this planet is handicapped, some more
>than others, some with (merely) a more physical
>manifestation than others.
And YOU are the Poster Boy
for the Mentally Handicapped.
>For the most part, those involved with Scientology -
>either through greater intelligence or greater luck -
Your self flattery is bathetic.
>are the ones who are making a serious effort
>to transcend their own handicaps.
By AMPLIFYING them!
>On the other hand, we have critics of Scientology
>who would rather wallow in their own handicapped
>victimhood rather than FIND OUT.
Oooooops!
I DID $cientology and FOUND OUT
that it does *NOT* WORK. Then I did
UCP and found out what DOES work.
YOU have done NEITHER, IDIOT!
>It's almost a joke -
You ARE a joke.
A very bad one!
>but at the expense, alas, of the critics. We have
>critics who can't see mental image pictures and
>hence assume they have no reactive mind.
As we have $cientologists who assume they
are "Clear" because "THEY LIKE THEMSELVES"!
Poster Boy!
>We have critics who are "in hiding" and not only
>reluctant to find anything out, they would deter
>anybody else from finding out anything (particularly
>their own hidden location). We have critics who are
>unwilling to take any responsibility for their own condition,
>who feel both threatened and accused should any
>Scientologist suggest they do take responsibility.
Yes. But of course, the $cientologists are even worse.
>We are all handicapped, but it's hard to hide the
>physical handicaps. It's a blatant piece of evidence.
Do you think YOU are hiding your mental handicaps?
>And, not to use your own words against you as much
>as to provide a perfect example of the situation.
And, not to use your own words against you as much
as to provide a perfect example of the situation.
>> (Besides, I do not consider my body to be "defective",
>>though that may sound strange to many of the "healthy"
>>humans out there.)
>Neither do any of the other critics consider their "situations"
>that uncomfortable. And why should they? The situation a
>person is in is likely to perfectly accord with their acceptance level.
What a SAD commentary on YOUR acceptance level,
even though is is UNTRUE for most people I know.
>People have been asleep in the mud for a very long time,
>they've gotten used to it to the point that they see no mud
>anymore. It's a sad joke. Actually, it's insane.
Waste-O-Wurdz has been asleep in the mud for a very long
time, he's gotten used to it to the point that he sees no mud
anymore. It's a sad joke. Actually, it's insane.
>Now, this post has not contained one iota of tact or diplomacy.
>Furthermore, it IS accusative and will probably have any critic
>who reads it digging themselves FURTHER in the mud just to
>"make themselves right."
Huh? You flatter yourself with HALLUCINATORY CAUSE.
>Maybe at some future time I will try a polite and reasonable and
>non-threatening sort of approach (again), but you'll have to excuse
>my frustration, talking to some of these critics is like talking to a brick
>wall.
It must be very hard for a brick wall to talk!
>Are there other paths to enlightenment or understanding?
Yes. UCP.
>Other than Scientology?
You must have enlightenment and understanding
confused with psychotic hallucinations and vistaril!
>Well, nothing that in any way compares, but I'm sure that
>the seeker will find "something." BUT, those who are
>spending their time arguing against Scientology are
>certainly NOT spending their time wisely, they are
>certainly NOT on the path to wisdom. They have nothing
>else to devote their time to apparently, so what path?
Good Lord, IDIOT!
In the last 30 years, YOU have totally FAILED
to *DO* $cientology. I and many others have
actually DONE it, and KNOW what it accomplishes.
Then I developed UCP, which actually DOES work.
I suggest you actually *DO* the $cientology "Bridge".
Then you can SHOW us how a "real OT" operates!
>No, it's just an issue of their mud-life is being threatened by clean water.
>
>Les.
You have an unlimited appetite for public humiliation!
Boudewijn van Ingen
<here-...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Boudewijn,
>
>I'll get straight to the point. As far as I am concerned, every thetan on
>this planet is handicapped, some more than others, some with (merely) a more
>physical manifestation than others.
OK. Though there is a severe language barrier here, because you use
$cientologese, while I use English most of the time, I think we can
agree somewhat on this. As long as we do not go deeper into the data
that underlies your conclusion, methinks.
>For the most part, those involved with Scientology - either through greater
>intelligence or greater luck - are the ones who are making a serious effort
>to transcend their own handicaps.
Apparently you do not have any data from outside $cientology,
otherwise you would have mentioned that, for the most part, those
involved with $cientology do not posess either "greater intelligence"
or "greater luck". Perhaps they feel they do, but it is not measurable
or demonstrable, hence it is a figment of their imagination. Of
course, if $cientologists *agree* on any such idea, it becomes "true"
for them. But that is only due to a redefinition of the terms "truth"
and "reality".
Now, I know that $cientologists (some at least) are "making a serious
effort to transcend their own handicaps". I also know that most "wogs"
would do exactly the same, and often with a measurably much greater
success rate.
>On the other hand, we have critics of Scientology who would rather wallow in
>their own handicapped victimhood rather than FIND OUT.
You are making a classic and very serious mistake here. You are
underestimating your (percieved) "adversary". Another indication that
you do not have data on anything outside of $cientology.
> It's almost a joke -
>but at the expense, alas, of the critics.
The real "expense" I have had, was having to study all of this
nonsense that Hubbard wrote. I have a whole stack of CD's that are
filled to the brim with his rantings, and I must admit that it took
(and takes) a lot of perseverence to keep on reading or listening to
and watching some of his blatently ridiculous material and lectures.
And indeed some of my "wog" friends consider my interest in the
subject "almost a joke". I'm glad $cientologists can see the humor of
it too.
> We have critics who can't see
>mental image pictures
How do you know that?
How do you know that you're not merely attempting to "postulate"
thoughts into my mind? Hubbard did have a term for that, didn't he?
Or are you referring to some critics that are ex-members, and have you
got the information that they "can't see mental image pictures" from
their culled PC-folders?
> and hence assume they have no reactive mind.
Personally, I do not believe in the existance of the "reactive mind"
as Hubbard described it, becaused it is based on his theory on
"engrams". And contrary to what Hubbard claimed, no-one has ever been
able to show that such "engrams" exist. In fact, studies suggest that
no such thing exists...
So, indeed I assume I do not have a "reactive mind". But it is not for
the reasons you state here. Another indication that you do not have
data on anything outside of $cientology.
> We have
>critics who are "in hiding" and not only reluctant to find anything out,
>they would deter anybody else from finding out anything (particularly their
>own hidden location).
You should try to refrain from such complicated statements, and in
stead split them up in more manageable chunks. Didn't you learn
anything on that "comm-course"?
Besides, what is hidden about my location? I have posted about that
several times before. I do not have a nick like yours ("Rogers") and I
do sign with my real name, and have always done so. I also have had a
steady e-mail address for years now. How long do you suppose you will
be using "<here-...@email.msn.com>"? What state do you live in,
"Lex"?
In fact, if we take an actual look at the posters in
alt.religion.scientology, we find out, that there are *NO*
$cientologists posting there under their own name, while plenty of
critics do so. It also emerges, that there is hardly any $cientologist
expressing willingness to communicate by looking at data from both
sides, while, again there are plenty of critics that are eager to
learn more about $cientology.
> We have critics who are unwilling to take any
>responsibility for their own condition, who feel both threatened and accused
>should any Scientologist suggest they do take responsibility.
What definition of the word "responsibility" are you using here?
You're not telling us that critics are not "at cause", are you? ;-)
Because they are. Much more than any $cientologist ever has been or
will be. Not because they have "greater intelligence" or "greater
luck", but because they have access to all the data, whereas you can
only see part of the "mental image picture", as you like to call it.
>We are all handicapped, but it's hard to hide the physical handicaps. It's
>a blatant piece of evidence.
Still, $cientology says it can help. Can it, really? Think about this
carefully.
>And, not to use your own words against you as much as to provide a perfect
>example of the situation.
>
>> (Besides, I do not consider my body to be "defective", though that may
>sound strange to many of the "healthy" humans out there.)
>
>Neither do any of the other critics consider their "situations" that
>uncomfortable. And why should they? The situation a person is in is likely
>to perfectly accord with their acceptance level.
But $cientologists claim to be able to improve on that with the use of
Hubbard's "tech".
>People have been asleep in the mud for a very long time, they've gotten used
>to it to the point that they see no mud anymore. It's a sad joke.
>Actually, it's insane.
Actually, I think it is people like Lisa McPherson and Koos that
were/are insane. I know that $cientology provides no cure for the
insane. Yet I know that insanity is not incurable.
>Now, this post has not contained one iota of tact or diplomacy.
I found it not to be excessively rude. And I myself must admit that I
do not particularly pay attention to your feelings, while writing
this. After some years of hearing the same old "arguments", one tends
to get a bit careless. ;-)
>Furthermore, it IS accusative and will probably have any critic who reads it
>digging themselves FURTHER in the mud just to "make themselves right."
What about this posting of yours "IS accusative"?
I found it ill-informed, at best. ;-)
>Maybe at some future time I will try a polite and reasonable and
>non-threatening sort of approach (again), but you'll have to excuse my
>frustration, talking to some of these critics is like talking to a brick
>wall.
Yeah, I know the feeling.
It must save plenty of time if you do not have to look up all the
references, though. In that sense, you have an easier job. ;-)
>Are there other paths to enlightenment or understanding? Other than
>Scientology?
I do not wish to discuss that, as I intend to stay on subject in these
newsgroups. Besides it would be "Dev-T".
> Well, nothing that in any way compares, but I'm sure that the
>seeker will find "something." BUT, those who are spending their time
>arguing against Scientology are certainly NOT spending their time wisely,
>they are certainly NOT on the path to wisdom.
Why? Because they miss the $cientology brand of "salvation"? Because
you say so? Or because you say so because Hubbard says so? How can you
tell?
It appears to me that you are promoting yourself (and implicitly
$cientology) as the sole "judge" (and I have no doubt that you would
not hesitate to elect $cientology as a "jury" as well) about what
people should and should not think, let alone say.
What happened to the "creed of a $cientologist"? What does the word
"Human" in "Citizens Commission for Human Rights" stand for?
> They have nothing else to
>devote their time to apparently, so what path?
It seems to me that words like "path" or "bridge" or "door" indicate
that those who use these words are not where they want to be in their
life.
So where do you want to go?
>No, it's just an issue of their mud-life is being threatened by clean water.
Hey, I'm a "healthy Dutch boy", I'm not afraid of water! (Misuse of a
rough translation of a local saying, meaning that a little rain can't
hurt you.)
OK. That was what you had to say, apparently. It didn't, as you
claimed at the start of this posting:
>I'll get straight to the point.
In fact, it missed the point by any margin.
But I have other things to do right now (need to finish some work
before mondaymorning), so I have no time to once again explain.
Please do some more research, and do not rely on data from one side
only. It does not only make you look bad, it also hampers both your
intellectual and spiritual advancement. Unless you want to end up like
Lisa McPherson, Koos, or Heber, of course. It is all your own
choice...
HTH
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Starshadow
> Starshadow, I find that I have gotten into, slipped into, "asserting" a
> stance that was really more comfortable when it was more casual.
>
> Let me back out and try to get to my basic thoughts on the Physical
> Sciences. My main concern is that Science is a sort of booby-trapped
> "path." Some geniuses can traverse the path with impunity I guess, but
for
> ninety-odd percent of the "participants" they just get deeper and deeper
> into "mystification" the more they study MEST. MEST *is* mystery, that's
> why it persists.
That is your problem, Les. Science is not a "path", it is a "tool". A very
GOOD tool, but a tool.
Do you think Ron invented the investigation of Matter, Energy, Space, and
Time, none of which he had the slightest understanding of? Hint, pull your
head out of his "literature" and read anything by Stephen Hawking. Or Isaac
Asimov's non fiction. Or even, Gods help me, Carl Sagan, who dumbed down
science and made it palatable for folks with little understanding of it,
like yourself, no slam intended. It's obvious to me you don't read much
outside of Ron Hubbard's drivel. That leaves you seriously ungrounded in
science, since he had little understanding of the subject.
> Now, to cover one of your first points. Any "system" of observation is
> likely to be problematic, since it is likely to become a "via."
Ultimately,
> it is the thetan who is the OBSERVER, and the best observing is the most
> direct observing. Furthermore, for ninety-odd percent of the scientists,
> the more "theories" they have cluttering their minds, the more poorly they
> observe. Or, they are inclined to "fit" their observations into their
> theories.
I know you love to use Scn'y words like "thetan" but in Real Life, this
makes for a jargon filled conversation that many lurkers find hard to
decipher. Can you speak in English whereever possible?
I think you need to reread what "theory" means. Hint. It does not mean
"making a wild guess off the top of your head" no matter how much "research"
Ron did by popping pills and drinking rum and coke. In the Real World, this
is not how research is conducted.
In real science, what you are describing does not happen. Science, as I
said, observes, makes hypotheses, based on observation, tests, retests, and
if the hypothesis holds, then it may become a theory or a fact--depending on
how directly testable the supposition is.
I'm tellin' you, you need to read a real science text. That you refuse to
do so reflects badly on your ability to reason.
> The main problem with Science is the human practitioners. Without address
> to THAT issue, Science is... erhhh... tricky.
Science addresses it far better than Ron Hubbard ever did.
> We have a all sorts of tastes of these difficulties in Scientology
training.
> For example, we use an e-meter. How difficult is it to read a meter?
> Should be easy right? Well, there are some people who need quite a lot of
> drilling to just get up to the point of "seeing what is there." Okay,
these
> are people off the street and may or may not be "scientist material" but
> also they are not likely to be befuddled by extraneous theories either.
An e-meter is nothing more than a galvanic skin response detector. You can
spin it all you want, but the parts would cost less than fifty bucks to make
one, and it proves nothing at all. But I understand it looks
pseudo-scientific, as do the gadgets which claim to exercise muscles by
electrically contracting them. Only you claim spiritual benefit. So be it.
It's not scientific, any more than my use of tarot cards and my psychic
ability, no matter what each of us believes about either.
> Anyway, just to emphasize my position. My main qualms about "science" is
> that, for (most of) those who push it beyond its (helpful) elementary
> insights, it is actually a non-therapeutic path.
As I said, it's not a "path", it is a tool, and until you get beyond what
your "church" teaches it is, you won't understand this.
> I am against all non-therapeutic paths.
Okayfine. I'm against all cults which abuse in the guise of helping, which
try to stifle criticism by using the law to harass, which kill people in
ways which could have easily been avoided if the cult followed the laws and
quit defrauding people and wrongfully detaining them, or not following
lawful safety procedures. I'm against lying and scamming people, by
disguising what is being sold by pretty words which mean nothing and cover
up "secret levels" which can only be attained by great monetary cost.
> Now, as I said, perhaps for geniuses - impervious to the normal slings
and
> arrows - and perhaps for somebody with some Scientology background, the
> liabilities of the subject can be transcended (thank goodness!). But I
> still worry about the ninety-odd percent who may have neither going for
> them.
I worry about people who fall hook line and sinker for the garbage Ron
cooked up when he bragged to me and others of how he scammed you lot. But
that's me.
I also note that you snipped most of my comments to you.
If you continue to ignore points, we aren't going to have any basis for a
dialogue, are we?
Fluffygirl
Genetics ~and~ postulates.
>
> And I have never ever found anyone that could explain anything, once I
> started asking.
I believe Mendel had some information regarding this.
And so did Hubbard.
Hubbard's stuff was not intended to negate anything Mendel or anyone else in
the scientific community said. It was meant to be in addition to that.
> (Nowadays, I do not have a need of any other faith than that in
> myself.)
>
> And I end up wondering -sometimes- if all the other people in the
> world are perhaps -slightly or more- masochistic
Beware of judging people by your own preconceived notions.
>
> Those of you that believe that there is a "doG" that brings you all
> your miserey and happiness, you have my blessing, for what it's worth.
I do not believe this is the case, because you mock people's beliefs
constantly.
>
> And followers of most other "regular faiths" have my -limited- support
> too.
I'm sure they're quite pleased.
>
> But I will not be caught, letting a "snake-oil salesman" like L.Ron
> Hubbard get away. He was and is a complete fraud, when it comes to
> "helping people". He could only help himself, and he did.
He helped many people because he developed Scn tech. Scn tech has been
helpful to people, therefore it follows that Hubbard was helpful.
You are a victim of the same line of thought party-line Scientologists are.
The all or nothing line of thought. Theirs is that Hubbard was perfect and
everything he did or said was perfect.
Yours is that he was completely the opposite and that nothing he did was
right.
The first group looks at things Hubbard did and said that they like and they
use that as a rationale for believing he did nothing wrong and should never
be criticized and should always be believed.
The second group (your group)looks at things Hubbard did and said that they
didn't like and they use that as a rationale for believing he did nothing
right and should always be criticized and should never be believed.
Neither line of thinking is correct and that is why you won't find me in
either camp.
>
> There is no scientific proof for a "reactive mind" as Hubbard
> described it. In fact there is not even the slightest scrap of
> evidence that *any* of his own theories had any base in reality.
Auditors (both CofS and non-CofS) see it daily. For them, it's empirical
data.
>
> According to Hubbard's writings, my disease would have to be my own
> "accomplishment". In this life or any life before this. But Hubbard
> was blissfully ignorant about genetics,
No. He spoke of predisposition for illness. He knew what genetics was and
had no problem with it's precepts.
>and so he came up with his
> "implant stations" where our imprisoned souls ("thetans" in
> scientologese) would be reprogrammed.
This has nothing to do with genetics. Nothing.
>And after being reprogrammed
> these "thetans" would -still according to Hubbard's fantasies- be
> attached to a completely unrelated new "human" body (regardless what
> exactly is or was the mock-up in his various stories does not matter
> now).
He did not say this was always the case.
>
> Following his own "theories", Hubbard believed that his own "thetan"
> had clinged to important people's bodies before. Hubbard actually
> believed he had been Napoleon, Jaenne D'Arc, Adolf Hitler, and a whole
> host of other people.
You are making this up. He did believe he was some important people but he
did not name these. Except in your fevered imagination.
> He even made his followers pay for an expidition
> to find the "hoard of gold" he stashed away in a previous life as a
> "famous pirate". Needless to say that nothing was found...
You do not know this for a fact.
>
> His inability to cope with the real world echo through in his
> followers today.
And I see similar traits in you.
>
> None of them -either from the offcial "org" or from the "Freezone"-
> have any explanation about genetically inherited diseases.
Sure they do. Hubbard himself talked about genetics and science. He talked
about those things being true and affecting the body. He did not believe
that those things were not true. It's just that he believed that there were
other spiritual factors as well.
You attribute statements and opinions to Hubbard that he never said or
thought just to suit your own point of view.
>
> And the most worrying fact is, that they will try to sell you their
> services as long as possible. That means that they are willing -and
> able- to actually *not hear* the words "genetically inherited",
Sure they are. I'm one, and I use that term all the time.
> because it doesn't fit into their socalled "belief system".
Yes, actually it does.
C
Fluffygirl
>
> "Rogers" <here-...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:3a3cb...@news2.lightlink.com...
> > Starshadow, I find that I have gotten into, slipped into, "asserting" a
> > stance that was really more comfortable when it was more casual.
> >
> > Let me back out and try to get to my basic thoughts on the Physical
> > Sciences. My main concern is that Science is a sort of booby-trapped
> > "path." Some geniuses can traverse the path with impunity I guess, but
> for
> > ninety-odd percent of the "participants" they just get deeper and deeper
> > into "mystification" the more they study MEST. MEST *is* mystery,
that's
> > why it persists.
>
> That is your problem, Les. Science is not a "path", it is a "tool". A very
> GOOD tool, but a tool.
I gotta agree with you there.
>
> Do you think Ron invented the investigation of Matter, Energy, Space, and
> Time, none of which he had the slightest understanding of?
I think he had quite a bit of understanding of those things. I do not
believe,however, that he had the same knowledge of science as do these other
people you name below, but that doesn't mean he didn't have the slightest
understanding of it.
>Hint, pull your
> head out of his "literature" and read anything by Stephen Hawking. Or
Isaac
> Asimov's non fiction. Or even, Gods help me, Carl Sagan, who dumbed down
> science and made it palatable for folks with little understanding of it,
> like yourself, no slam intended.
And Asimov was so blinded by his own ego that he seemed to spend more time
tooting his own horn than anything else.
What do you think of Steven Jay Gould, Starshadow? I was hoping to get some
opinions on him as he was recommended to me.
>It's obvious to me you don't read much
> outside of Ron Hubbard's drivel. That leaves you seriously ungrounded in
> science, since he had little understanding of the subject.
Oh, he did have some. He believed in many scientific theories that have been
proven as fact. Trouble is many critics state that he did not believe in
these things at all, when in fact he did.
Hubbard felt that there was something more than science, is all. He felt
that there was intelligence making decisions guiding it all, so his stuff
had a certain emphasis to it.
Like I said, he wasn't Steven Hawking. But that doesn't mean he had ~no~
understanding.
That's kind of an all or nothing type idea which I do not subscribe to.
He wasn't interested in supplanting Science. Some people think that he was,
but he wasn't. He was interested in bringing something else into the mix. He
called it theta, others have called it "lifeforce" "elan vital"
"intelligence" "God" "Luke! The force!" etc.
>
> > We have a all sorts of tastes of these difficulties in Scientology
> training.
> > For example, we use an e-meter. How difficult is it to read a meter?
> > Should be easy right? Well, there are some people who need quite a lot
of
> > drilling to just get up to the point of "seeing what is there." Okay,
> these
> > are people off the street and may or may not be "scientist material" but
> > also they are not likely to be befuddled by extraneous theories either.
>
> An e-meter is nothing more than a galvanic skin response detector.
You will ~never~ find any Scientologist who'd argue that point, S.
> You can
> spin it all you want, but the parts would cost less than fifty bucks to
make
> one, and it proves nothing at all. But I understand it looks
> pseudo-scientific, as do the gadgets which claim to exercise muscles by
> electrically contracting them.
No, it's just a tool. An aid to picking up responses. It measures and
indicates thought, just as a lie detector (which is a sort of a
sister-machine to the emeter) does.
> Only you claim spiritual benefit.
We do NOT claim spiritual benefit in using an emeter. Never have, never
will.
> So be it.
> It's not scientific, any more than my use of tarot cards and my psychic
> ability, no matter what each of us believes about either.
The people I've met who were awed by the emeter and accorded it much mystery
and attributed spiritual thingies to it were all non-Scientologists.
Scientologists, whether FZ or Church, know better.
We think it's a tool.
We consider that we could counsel without it but that with it, we do a
better job.
Just as when my husband built a large shed for us one time. He used electric
saws, nail guns and all kinds of mysterious guy stuff like that. Had he
been Amish, however, he'd have done it without those things and the shed
would have gotten built either way. 'Cuz ~John~ built the shed. Not the
tools.
<snip other dialogue>
Claire
Boudewijn van Ingen
wrote:
>
>"Rogers" <here-...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
>news:3a3cb...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> Starshadow, I find that I have gotten into, slipped into, "asserting" a
>> stance that was really more comfortable when it was more casual.
>>
>> Let me back out and try to get to my basic thoughts on the Physical
>> Sciences. My main concern is that Science is a sort of booby-trapped
>> "path." Some geniuses can traverse the path with impunity I guess, but
>for
>> ninety-odd percent of the "participants" they just get deeper and deeper
>> into "mystification" the more they study MEST. MEST *is* mystery, that's
>> why it persists.
>
>That is your problem, Les. Science is not a "path", it is a "tool". A very
>GOOD tool, but a tool.
Seems to me that "Roger" (or "Les", let me know when a decision is
reached) thinks he does not need a tool, but in stead he needs a
"path". He seems to be wanting to go somewhere. Obviously he's not
happy where he is. Where should he go?
Another very important characteristic of real science is, that each
and every stage of this investigative process is thoroughly
documented. Hubbard never documented anything, in spite of his
apparent ability to produce meaningless writings in an unbelievable
rate.
> I'm tellin' you, you need to read a real science text. That you refuse to
>do so reflects badly on your ability to reason.
>
>> The main problem with Science is the human practitioners. Without address
>> to THAT issue, Science is... erhhh... tricky.
>
> Science addresses it far better than Ron Hubbard ever did.
Hubbard never actually "addressed" this "problem". He sneered at real
scientists during his lectures, because he did not understand the
legitimacy of their methods. He never understood.
That is why he started putting the blame for the rejection of his
theories on those that rejected them. Those are the origins of "Fair
Game".
And that in turn is the reason why "Rogers" here tells us that it is
us "human practitioners" who cause the problem.
I guess he (?) must feel somehow "superhuman", or something...
>> We have a all sorts of tastes of these difficulties in Scientology
>training.
>> For example, we use an e-meter. How difficult is it to read a meter?
>> Should be easy right? Well, there are some people who need quite a lot of
>> drilling to just get up to the point of "seeing what is there." Okay,
>these
>> are people off the street and may or may not be "scientist material" but
>> also they are not likely to be befuddled by extraneous theories either.
>
>An e-meter is nothing more than a galvanic skin response detector. You can
>spin it all you want, but the parts would cost less than fifty bucks to make
>one, and it proves nothing at all. But I understand it looks
>pseudo-scientific, as do the gadgets which claim to exercise muscles by
>electrically contracting them. Only you claim spiritual benefit. So be it.
>It's not scientific, any more than my use of tarot cards and my psychic
>ability, no matter what each of us believes about either.
Additionally, if you look at what an e-meter does, it cannot actually
measure anything. It can indicate changes in skin resistance, but
cannot tell you how large or small these changes actually are.
Furthermore, the device seems hardly shielded from outside clutter.
But I won't say much more than this, at this time. That belongs in
another thread.
>> Anyway, just to emphasize my position. My main qualms about "science" is
>> that, for (most of) those who push it beyond its (helpful) elementary
>> insights, it is actually a non-therapeutic path.
>
> As I said, it's not a "path", it is a tool, and until you get beyond what
>your "church" teaches it is, you won't understand this.
Let's face it. "Lex" here has been told that "science is bad" for him.
And he has accepted that as "stable datum".
Unfortunately, "Rogers" -at the very same time- decided that no other
incoming data should be accepted.
So intrinsically, the "path" that he (?) is following, can only lead
one way. No matter what "Rogers" or "Lex" attempts at "thinking"
consist of, he (?) will inevitably end up like Lisa or Koos.
>> I am against all non-therapeutic paths.
>
> Okayfine. I'm against all cults which abuse in the guise of helping, which
>try to stifle criticism by using the law to harass, which kill people in
>ways which could have easily been avoided if the cult followed the laws and
>quit defrauding people and wrongfully detaining them, or not following
>lawful safety procedures. I'm against lying and scamming people, by
>disguising what is being sold by pretty words which mean nothing and cover
>up "secret levels" which can only be attained by great monetary cost.
Indeed, "Lex" vented his "agreement" with the treatment of Lisa
McPherson in his above statement, if I'm not mistaken.
> > Now, as I said, perhaps for geniuses - impervious to the normal slings
>and
>> arrows - and perhaps for somebody with some Scientology background, the
>> liabilities of the subject can be transcended (thank goodness!). But I
>> still worry about the ninety-odd percent who may have neither going for
>> them.
>
>I worry about people who fall hook line and sinker for the garbage Ron
>cooked up when he bragged to me and others of how he scammed you lot. But
>that's me.
And "Lex" got his percentages wrong, too.
>I also note that you snipped most of my comments to you.
>
> If you continue to ignore points, we aren't going to have any basis for a
>dialogue, are we?
Heck, I like all of you. ;-)
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Starshadow
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:30:59 GMT, "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rogers" <here-...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> >news:3a3cb...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >> Starshadow, I find that I have gotten into, slipped into, "asserting" a
> >> stance that was really more comfortable when it was more casual.
> >>
> >> Let me back out and try to get to my basic thoughts on the Physical
> >> Sciences. My main concern is that Science is a sort of booby-trapped
> >> "path." Some geniuses can traverse the path with impunity I guess, but
> >for
> >> ninety-odd percent of the "participants" they just get deeper and
deeper
> >> into "mystification" the more they study MEST. MEST *is* mystery,
that's
> >> why it persists.
> >
> >That is your problem, Les. Science is not a "path", it is a "tool". A
very
> >GOOD tool, but a tool.
>
> Seems to me that "Roger" (or "Les", let me know when a decision is
> reached) thinks he does not need a tool, but in stead he needs a
> "path". He seems to be wanting to go somewhere. Obviously he's not
> happy where he is. Where should he go?
To be fair, I read "roger" as a last name, which it sometimes is. Thus "Les
Roger".
Personally, I think, as far as reasoning goes, he's going to proverbial
hell in a handbasket, but that's me.
Yes, he certainly had that down pat. But I wonder what the schools are
teaching about science nowadays, to turn out folks like Les who don't even
have an elementary grounding in it. I can understand Ron; he was essentially
lazy and wouldn't research anything that required tenacity and work. He got
by on charm most of his life. But the followers don't even have that much
going for them, they are just followers, eager to believe regardless of the
cost to reason. Frightening to those of us who revere intellect.
> > I'm tellin' you, you need to read a real science text. That you refuse
to
> >do so reflects badly on your ability to reason.
> >
> >> The main problem with Science is the human practitioners. Without
address
> >> to THAT issue, Science is... erhhh... tricky.
> >
> > Science addresses it far better than Ron Hubbard ever did.
>
> Hubbard never actually "addressed" this "problem". He sneered at real
> scientists during his lectures, because he did not understand the
> legitimacy of their methods. He never understood.
He was another instant gratification person. Science requires
stick-to-itiveness, and the only things he really stuck to was his drug use.
He was a dilletante in nearly everything else. Maybe everything else, but
I'm allowing some leeway. He wasn't all bad. Just lazy, and power hungry.
> That is why he started putting the blame for the rejection of his
> theories on those that rejected them. Those are the origins of "Fair
> Game".
>
> And that in turn is the reason why "Rogers" here tells us that it is
> us "human practitioners" who cause the problem.
>
> I guess he (?) must feel somehow "superhuman", or something...
It'[s that wanting to belong thing, the herd mentality. He needs to validate
his life by "proving" to himself that Hubbard really had discovered some
"technology". I wouldn't mind, only it's not science, and calling it science
doesn't make it so.
> >> We have a all sorts of tastes of these difficulties in Scientology
> >training.
> >> For example, we use an e-meter. How difficult is it to read a meter?
> >> Should be easy right? Well, there are some people who need quite a lot
of
> >> drilling to just get up to the point of "seeing what is there." Okay,
> >these
> >> are people off the street and may or may not be "scientist material"
but
> >> also they are not likely to be befuddled by extraneous theories either.
> >
> >An e-meter is nothing more than a galvanic skin response detector. You
can
> >spin it all you want, but the parts would cost less than fifty bucks to
make
> >one, and it proves nothing at all. But I understand it looks
> >pseudo-scientific, as do the gadgets which claim to exercise muscles by
> >electrically contracting them. Only you claim spiritual benefit. So be
it.
> >It's not scientific, any more than my use of tarot cards and my psychic
> >ability, no matter what each of us believes about either.
>
> Additionally, if you look at what an e-meter does, it cannot actually
> measure anything. It can indicate changes in skin resistance, but
> cannot tell you how large or small these changes actually are.
Well, it's another bit of pseudoscientific quackery. Harmless enough by
itself, but when they start believing it actually does something that's
provable by science, or when they put down science because it invalidates
their belief system, well...
> Furthermore, the device seems hardly shielded from outside clutter.
>
> But I won't say much more than this, at this time. That belongs in
> another thread.
>
> >> Anyway, just to emphasize my position. My main qualms about "science"
is
> >> that, for (most of) those who push it beyond its (helpful) elementary
> >> insights, it is actually a non-therapeutic path.
> >
> > As I said, it's not a "path", it is a tool, and until you get beyond
what
> >your "church" teaches it is, you won't understand this.
>
> Let's face it. "Lex" here has been told that "science is bad" for him.
> And he has accepted that as "stable datum".
Then he will never learn to reason. A pity, that.
> Unfortunately, "Rogers" -at the very same time- decided that no other
> incoming data should be accepted.
>
> So intrinsically, the "path" that he (?) is following, can only lead
> one way. No matter what "Rogers" or "Lex" attempts at "thinking"
> consist of, he (?) will inevitably end up like Lisa or Koos.
Again, a pity.
> >> I am against all non-therapeutic paths.
> >
> > Okayfine. I'm against all cults which abuse in the guise of helping,
which
> >try to stifle criticism by using the law to harass, which kill people in
> >ways which could have easily been avoided if the cult followed the laws
and
> >quit defrauding people and wrongfully detaining them, or not following
> >lawful safety procedures. I'm against lying and scamming people, by
> >disguising what is being sold by pretty words which mean nothing and
cover
> >up "secret levels" which can only be attained by great monetary cost.
>
> Indeed, "Lex" vented his "agreement" with the treatment of Lisa
> McPherson in his above statement, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> > > Now, as I said, perhaps for geniuses - impervious to the normal slings
> >and
> >> arrows - and perhaps for somebody with some Scientology background, the
> >> liabilities of the subject can be transcended (thank goodness!). But I
> >> still worry about the ninety-odd percent who may have neither going for
> >> them.
> >
> >I worry about people who fall hook line and sinker for the garbage Ron
> >cooked up when he bragged to me and others of how he scammed you lot. But
> >that's me.
>
> And "Lex" got his percentages wrong, too.
Not surprising to me.
> >I also note that you snipped most of my comments to you.
> >
> > If you continue to ignore points, we aren't going to have any basis for
a
> >dialogue, are we?
>
> Heck, I like all of you. ;-)
>
Thanks, Boudewijn. I like all of you, too... :]
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow, KoX, SP4, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
>
> Groeten,
> Boudewijn.
Rogers
Starshadow <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
> Science, as I
> said, observes, makes hypotheses, based on observation, tests, retests,
and
> if the hypothesis holds, then it may become a theory or a fact--depending
on
> how directly testable the supposition is.
This is the crux of the problem. Internal inconsistency. First you say
Science is a tool. Now you are animating it into something that can make
hypotheses based on observation. Well, I'm sorry Starshadow, Science is
just an inanimate subject, it cannot do any of those things you suggest.
Now, I find it extremely amusing to argue Science with a Wiccan. And sure,
you can always press my buttons about how ignorant I am - I KNOW I am
ignorant, I am often embarrassed by my ignorance. But I have a couple of
things going for me, I was the top student in Science and Math in the year
of my graduation from (British) high school. My interest has continued
since then, but my studies have been - like my life - on the fringe of the
scientifically correct. More interested in Tesla than Edison for example.
But I am ignorant, no doubt. And all the more for arguing Science with a
Wiccan?
No offense to you or Wicca (which I have a great fondness of) but I would
think that the highly intelligent or scientifically inclined would AT LEAST
pursue High Magick rather than the folksy art of Wicca.
Les.
Rogers
have called a "konchok."
As Professor Harumpheltzer stated, "A konchok is similar to a quark.... but
has a smaller dick."
Apparently, unlike a quark that exhibits all sorts of interesting phenomena,
the konchok only exhibits two: copying and pasting.
Professor Kofsdehackhack added that the excitement of discovering this new
particle was considerably repressed by the observation that the konchok is a
retarded particle. "It just doesn't know which way is forward or which way
is backward. It is a very confused particle. I'm almost inclined, but I
don't know why, to call it 'clueless.'"
Les.
Rogers
> Seems to me that "Roger" (or "Les", let me know when a decision is
> reached) thinks he does not need a tool, but in stead he needs a
> "path". He seems to be wanting to go somewhere. Obviously he's not
> happy where he is. Where should he go?
Semantics, semantics. Scientology is a good tool for exploration as well as
a clarifying path through previously unexplored territories.
But it is typical (and transparent) to throw virtue into question. For
those who consider it virtuous to maintain the status quo, almost any
activity is questionable. For those who have no goals, having a goal is
questionable. For those who have nothing to do, any sort of agenda or
schedule or "path" is going to seem alien. For those who have no life,
"knocking" other people's practices might seem like a good way to pass the
time.
On a more brutal level. Those who have something to hide will fight
ANYTHING that might throw light on them, fight ANYONE who might be a
truthseeker (truth-revealer).
These are the exact same people who will espouse the merits of SAFE studies
like, for example, the physical sciences, for those subjects will never pose
a threat to those things hidden in one's mind and soul.
Who's kidding who?
Les.
JSteiner
<here-...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Yesterday, scientists announced the discovery of a new particle which they
>have called a "konchok."
>
>As Professor Harumpheltzer stated, "A konchok is similar to a quark.... but
>has a smaller dick."
Say, what's with you and Konchok's dick? This is the second post I've
seen you playing with that subject. ; )
JS
I.S.Rennie
>
> Starshadow <starsh...@home.com> wrote in message
>
> > Science moves on;
>
> That is trite enough to be stupid. Of course science moves on - but to
> assume AT ANY POINT that it has perfect comprehension and is the only
> standard of intelligent thinking and approval is nonsense.
>
> Don't you think medical science was completely smug about its understanding
> of the tides of bloodflow - as they bled George Washington to death?
>
> The attitude of science does not change, at EVERY point in time they
> pretentiously assume that they have explained everything away.
if this is true, why do they bother funding research departments?
the attitude of science (pure science at least) has always been that
they do not have the final explanation, just the one that fits the facts
best at the moment
anon...@electra.lightlink.com
<here-...@email.msn.com> wrote in thread "Scientists discover new
particle.", on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:13:03 -0500, :
Waste-O-Wurdz wrote:
>Yesterday, scientists announced the discovery of
>a new particle which they have called a "konchok."
"Hey! Just call me stupid!"
Lesster "Waste-O-Wurdz" Rogers
>As Professor Harumpheltzer stated, "A konchok
>is similar to a quark.... but has a smaller dick."
"If you want complete honesty, I must apologetically spurt out that I don't
know anymore. It's been a very busy day, today, and I just feel a bit
frazzled and brain dead (not that I ever use my brain anyway)."
Lesster "Waste-O-Wurdz" Rogers
A small dick is one thing.
A soft dick AND NO BRAIN
is a whore of another color.
>Apparently, unlike a quark that exhibits all sorts
>of interesting phenomena, the konchok only exhibits
>two: copying and pasting.
And what might the SOURCE
of this "copy and paste" be?
Have you every heard of TR-3?
>Professor Kofsdehackhack added that the excitement
>of discovering this new particle was considerably
>repressed by the observation that the konchok is a
>retarded particle. "It just doesn't know which way is
>forward or which way is backward. It is a very confused
>particle. I'm almost inclined, but I don't know why, to call
>it 'clueless.'"
>
>Les.
"I might compare a non-clear to someone who is stuck in a turd.
Clearing exteriorizes him from the turd only to discover that he
now has to confront the cesspool that contained that turd."
Lesster "Waste-O-Wurdz" Rogers
*YOU* ARE THE NON-CLEAR!
Time to "Confront the Commode"!
WHAT *IS* YOUR CASE STATE? In your 30+ years in $cientology, did you ever
*DO* the CLEARING course, before you became an "expert" on "clearing"? Why
do you have *SO* much trouble answering this SIMPLE question? WHERE did
you get the ABSURD idea that you are "clear" if you "LIKE YOURSELF"? Do
you have a technical reference for that? Aren't you EMBARRASSED to PRETEND
that you know more about clearing than someone who has DONE both the
"clearing" course and the "OT" levels? Is your GRADE ZERO out? Do you
have WITHHOLDS? SERVICE FACS IN RESTIM? For a guy whose religion is
"communication," you seem to have an enormous difficulty with simple
questions and answers that even WOGS could easily handle. I'm SURE I must
have asked you at LEAST 90 or 95 times by now. STILL NO ANSWER! I'm
WORRIED about you. I HOPE you don't THINK that you are "saving face" with
your non-confront and NOT-IS! By now, EVERYONE knows that you are a
*FAILED* $CIENTOLOGI$T WHO *NEVER DID* THE "BRIDGE."
GET A CLUE, IDIOT!
anon...@electra.lightlink.com
<jay_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in thread "Re: Scientists discover new
particle.", on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:34:32 -0800, :
Waste-O-Wurdz wrote:
>>Yesterday, scientists announced the discovery of
>>a new particle which they have called a "konchok."
>>As Professor Harumpheltzer stated, "A konchok
>>is similar to a quark.... but has a smaller dick."
Jay Steiner responds:
>Say, what's with you and Konchok's dick? This is the
>second post I've seen you playing with that subject. ; )
>JS
Lesster seems to have "penday-envy".
>>Apparently, unlike a quark that exhibits all sorts
>>of interesting phenomena, the konchok only
>>exhibits two: copying and pasting.
>>Professor Kofsdehackhack added that the excitement
>of discovering this new particle was considerably
>repressed by the observation that the konchok is a
>>retarded particle. "It just doesn't know which way is
>>forward or which way is backward. It is a very confused
>>particle. I'm almost inclined, but I don't know why, to call
>>it 'clueless.'"
>
>>
>>Les.
Dear Lesster:
Derection seems to be of interest of you!
Thanks for stopping by to remind us how
irrelevant your psychotic fantasies are!
Konchok Penday
Rogers
> >As Professor Harumpheltzer stated, "A konchok is similar to a quark....
but
> >has a smaller dick."
JSteiner <jay_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> Say, what's with you and Konchok's dick? This is the second post I've
> seen you playing with that subject. ; )
Who me? No, it's probably the third post (at least). But I've always been
fascinated by any "subject" that involves a microscope and tweezers...
Les.
JSteiner
Touche'.
JS
anon...@electra.lightlink.com
"Rogers" <here-...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >As Professor Harumpheltzer stated, "A konchok is similar to a quark....
>>but
>>> >has a smaller dick."
JSteiner <jay_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
>>> Say, what's with you and Konchok's dick? This is the second post I've
>>> seen you playing with that subject. ; )
>>Who me? No, it's probably the third post (at least). But I've always been
>>fascinated by any "subject" that involves a microscope and tweezers...
>>
>>Les.
>
>Touche'.
>JS
I guess he learned that from Phatso!
KP
Ralph Hilton
-0500, :
>No offense to you or Wicca (which I have a great fondness of) but I would
>think that the highly intelligent or scientifically inclined would AT LEAST
>pursue High Magick rather than the folksy art of Wicca.
Sorry but "High" Magick does not exist. It is an arrogant figment for Ego
gratification.
Somehow Scientology needs the open love of the Wiccan tradition.
The "High Magick" of Crowley, Hubbard and Dee is a false road.
The Left path and the Right Path are not dissimilar. Tread the middle way
with love.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://www.fzint.org/rhilton
Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org
C-Meter: http://www.inquisitive-instruments.co.uk/
Thomas J Best
> Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>
> > Seems to me that "Roger" (or "Les", let me know when a decision is
> > reached) thinks he does not need a tool, but in stead he needs a
> > "path". He seems to be wanting to go somewhere. Obviously he's not
> > happy where he is. Where should he go?
>
> Semantics, semantics. Scientology is a good tool for exploration as well
as
> a clarifying path through previously unexplored territories.
<snip half-witted fugue on Tub O'Lard's SP/PTS tek>
> Who's kidding who?
>
> Les.
You're kidding yourself.
tam
Rogers
I'm going to be disagreeing with you here, but more like a non-emotional
debate in good spirits.
> "Rogers" <here-...@email.msn.com> wrote
> >No offense to you or Wicca (which I have a great fondness of) but I would
> >think that the highly intelligent or scientifically inclined would AT
LEAST
> >pursue High Magick rather than the folksy art of Wicca.
Ralph Hilton <ra...@hilton.org> wrote in message
> Sorry but "High" Magick does not exist. It is an arrogant figment for Ego
> gratification.
When I practiced High Magick, it existed. Furthermore, my main criticism of
it is that it tends to empower "vias" - not exactly the opposite of, but
certainly not harmonious with, Ego gratification.
Hey I'm not touting High Magick as a reasonable alternative to Scientology.
> Somehow Scientology needs the open love of the Wiccan tradition.
The love of a Wiccan isn't necessarily tied into Wicca, neither is the love
of a Scientologist tied into Scientology. In both cases, all you have are
individuals. However, my personal sentiment (as you might guess) is that a
non-cleared person is often more inclined to have muddy feelings of love.
But again, subject to the individualities concerned.
One of my cognitions in High Magick (well, I had ALREADY opened my Heart
Chakra with Scientology years earlier - in about 1969) was that, at the
highest plane level, Love was very subtle. Very subtle. But even in
Scientology I had realized that Love was more like a spiritual ATTRIBUTE
than it was, say, an emotion.
But as far as covens are concerned, I have only had acquaintance with two.
And the Love was muddied by jealousies and intrigues (just like in the
outside world).
> The "High Magick" of Crowley, Hubbard and Dee is a false road.
No argument there. But I'm still inclined to consider it ten times more
"scientifically consistent" than Wicca. In addition, one would have to say
that modern day Wicca is the stepchild of Magick, it has not the slightest
superiority to High Magick, and a terrific tendency toward Low Magick.
> The Left path and the Right Path are not dissimilar. Tread the middle way
> with love.
I would have not been inclined to put High Magick on one path and Wicca on
the other. I mean, I don't consider they are opposed exactly. As I said,
Modern Wicca is rooted in Magick anyway. But since I consider them BOTH
false roads, I don't understand the merits of even attempting to walk the
middle line between them.
Les.
Rogers
The "old religion" was a feature of pagan (country-dweller) living and
literacy was uncommon so there's not much in the way of ancient texts. And
then with Christian persecution, written texts (even if they existed) would
be used as incriminating evidence by the prosecutors, hence not a desirable
thing to have around.
But as a point of trivia, one of the most "natural" systems of magic to a
thetan is Sympathetic Magic (in my opinion) where one aspires to create an
effect by means of similarity and resonance. I consider this an easily
intuited "knowledge" amongst thetans. Anyway, according to lore, a fairly
common fertility ritual (for increasing crop yield) amongst pagans was for
the girls to run naked, under the Moon, through the fields with a phallic
symbol between their legs - a broomstick sufficing.
It was undoubtedly this practice that led to the later supposition that
witches flew on brooms.
Les.
Rogers
Rogers <here-...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> But as a point of trivia, one of the most "natural" systems of magic to a
> thetan is Sympathetic Magic (in my opinion) where one aspires to create an
> effect by means of similarity and resonance. I consider this an easily
> intuited "knowledge" amongst thetans.
After writing the above it dawned on me that my favorite magickal authors,
Denning and Phillips, were mistaken to attribute Sympathetic Magick to that
of Low Magick. Well, I can understand the criticism when considering how
Sympathetic Magick is often performed. Still, even High Magick involves
"resonance."
Of course, the "basic" on Sympathetic Magick is just BEING the object of the
ritual. Although I might draw an important distinction between being
something and that of having zero space between yourself and it. Actually,
I think the "zero space separation" concept is more basic and less
problematic than any notion of being the object - but it's easy to see how
close they are in practice.
And it's a funny manifestation of case that those issues and problems one
has the most trouble with are likely to be held close to the breast or right
in front of the nose. Reactive zero space separation.
Les.
paul...@my-deja.com
> >No offense to you or Wicca (which I have a great fondness of) but I
would
> >think that the highly intelligent or scientifically inclined would
AT LEAST
> >pursue High Magick rather than the folksy art of Wicca.
>
> Sorry but "High" Magick does not exist. It is an arrogant figment for
Ego
> gratification.
>
Ralph -
doesn't this statement display the arrogance you seem to attribute to
ceremonial magick?
Just checking. I must say my experience of egotistical Wiccans (they
exist) and ego-transcendent magicians (yes, even among us arrogantly
imaginative Thelemitesm they exist too) suggests your response is of
limited accuracy.
93.
Paul
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Ralph Hilton
alt.clearing.technology :
True. It's based on my limited observation though meeting only those from a
few groups. It's a matter for further deliberation. I continue to have the
feeling that there are aspects of both approaches that could somehow be
brought into Scientology and its practice but the integration would not be
easy. Hubbard's personality flaws appeared to me to be similar to some who
practiced "High Magick" for a period of time. That indicates to me that he
restimulated areas of charge that were left unhandled.