More (or less) of My Beliefs (was Re: Ease Off?)
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>
> This responds to a separate p&m
> from david Mayo, same starting point.
David Mayo:
> >> :: | I do not think that I am cultishly inclined but I would
> >> :: | like to know of any cultish characteristic that you have
> >> :: | perceived in me so that I can correct it.
Bernie:
> >> :I would have been interested if someone answered the questions
> >> :of DM. Seems that nor ef nor you can satisfy my curiosity
> >> :here. I thought you guys were specialists in mind control.
David Mayo:
> > Yes, I too, would have been interested if either efischer
> > or Dave Bird would answer the question instead of merely
> > continuing their unsubstantiated assertion that my beliefs
> > and/or practices are harmful -- especially when they have
> > failed to comment on *any* of the beliefs that I have stated
> > in this newsgroup and have no idea what my practices are!
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
> If you think I've drifted off track from some original questions,
> perhaps you could re-state them? What I have done is take up
> the challenge and opportunity in your question "well, why SHOULD I
> abandon Hubbard's tech?" (What is wrong with it that I should not
> continue developing it). I have tried to say what is IMO wrong
> with Hubbard's tech -- I don't know to what extent you still
> uphold that tech -- and if you wish me to respond on your current
> beliefs different from Hubbard's tech then please remind me what
> they are. I am not saying "damn you, David Mayo, you definitely
> believe all the things I find fault in"; merely finding fault
> in standard tech, and asking whether you agree with those faults.
No no no Dave. The questions are straight above under your eyes, no need
of re-statement. We are *not* speaking here about the tech or believes
here, but about *cultish_behavior*. I would like to know what cultish
behavior DM displayed (because I never saw any), and DM wants to know
because he probably would like to improve himself. But you are not
helping him in this direction, you are making accusation in such a way
that he can't learn from them. So, did you recover from your illness and
can now answer the question which is straight above here? Or maybe you
did already in some other post I didn't see.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
Bernie:
> >> :I would have been interested if someone answered the questions
> >> :of DM....
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine:
> > I said in my post that I was tired and ill, and not capable
> > of doing the matter justice in the present article but
> > would attempt to do so in a later one.
Bernie:
> >I will send you oranges, Dave, because you probably are still sick:
> >you didnt answered any single question of DM here.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
> I am doing my best to address the subject of my doubts about
> the tech bit by bit.
No! no, no, no and no. The question is *not* about the tech, it's about
alledged cultish behavior displayed by David Mayo (see above).
[snipped the whole discussion about the tech, because it's getting a bit
confused]
> I'm arguing that the tech is
> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and author,
> the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to separate them
> you end up with nothing left.
I kept only the above paragraph of the whole discussion, which I think
summarize the essence of what you said. Can we agree that you are saying
that the mind control element of Scn is build within the tech itself,
while I am saying that the tech and the cultish mindset are two separate
things (like a knife is not responsible of my killing someone or
buttering my bread)?
What can I say more on this that I didn't say yet? All I can say is that
things are not the way you see them. It's very important to see exactly
for oneself what the cultic or mind-control element is. That's the only
way to be free from it. As far as I am concerned, I may be wrong, but
the phenomenon is very clear for me, and I can see exactly at which
point the cultic mindset joins in with the tech, but then also at wich
point it separates from it. If you say "everything is flawed at the
start by the evil intention of the founder, and so everything is
mind-control the moment it has the Scn label on it", then I think that,
if you will ever pardon me, you do not have a correct conception of what
a cultic mindset really is. I may even go as far as saying that this
*is* a cultic mindset, a black & white view, a "we are all good/they are
all bad" attitude.
That's all that is left to be said. I do hope, for the benefit of
everyone, that you will nuance your position with time. But maybe you
have no mean to do that, because maybe (I don't know your background)
you only have an external view and not an inside one.
Bernie:
> >Well, I hope you get soon well enough and, secondarily, address at
> >least one of his question.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
> I can't remember what they were.
What did DM specifically do that you can qualify as cultic (see on top
of this p/m)?
> But I think you will agree I
> am addressing **the** questions on separability of tech
> from its authoritarian purposes.
Yes, kind of, but frankly I am more interested by the first question.
Cheers,
------
Bernie
Bernie
OK, ok. Above (before) is my earliest reply. I simply drawed the raw
conclusions without further explanations. This because I was tired of a
discussion that was only turning round and round. I will make an effort
and try to (re)explain my viewpoint expanding on the paragraph quoted in
my previous reply.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> I'm arguing that the tech is
> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and author,
> the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to separate them
> you end up with nothing left.
First, I think the means must not be confounded with the ends. A knife
(the mean) isn't dangerous by itself. It's only if I use it with the
intention to kill (the end) that it takes this meaning. If I use it with
intention to butter my bread (an other end), it becomes actually quiet
useful. So the means are not the ends.
Second, I don't even think that the hidden goal of Scn is brainwashing. I
think the mind control, the cultic aspect of Scn arouse as a
*consequence* rather than an end. A consequence of LRH uncontrolled ego,
helped with the consent and reverberation of uncontrolled ego of the
followers.
Now lets take some concrete examples.
I think that some of the most useful part of the Scn tech is the relief
of 'charge', or whatever you choose to call this phenomenon that can be
easily experienced. In a safe setting (a session), you follow some
systematic steps (the communication cycle), respectuous of the person (no
evaluation), and you can actually end up with the relieve of the tension,
the problem, or whatever. I find this part of the Scn tech better than
anything else I know (psychotherapy, etc).
But what I object to, is the 'cumulative' aspect of this technique. The
Scn theory have it that the 'incidents' are linked in chains, the
totality of the chains forming the 'reactive bank'. I think there is no
such thing. Of course, some past traumatic incident can be associated to
some other traumatic incidents that bear a similitude, but I don't think
it works in a mechanical way such as is described in Scn. The whole thing
is much too simplistic. Obviously, if you don't have cumulation, you
don't have a reactive bank, and of course you don't have a clear. If you
don't have a clear, you don't have OT and you don't have a bridge to
total freedom. If you don't have total freedom, you don't have a
religion, and you don't have a “we possess the ultimate truth” and an
“all people opposing Scn are opposing the ultimate truth”, and all the
rubbish we can witness. All the cultic mindset.
So, IMHO, the relieving part is valid, although YMMV (you see Dave am
learning fast), but the cumulative aspect is false, and the un-scientific
attitude of LRH not allowing his technique to come under cross
examination is already cultic behavior, and the tons of derogative
remarks and paranoia against the established healing profession under
which he buries his tech is also cultic behavior, his constant repetition
and assertion that the 'tech works' and is the only valid thing around,
is already mind control. All this amounting at the end, almost
inevitably, into a cult.
If LRH had enough 'spiritual maturity' to avoid the trap of cult, I think
the valid aspects of the tech, such as the relief of emotions and past
trauma, might have been by now integrated as one of the many techniques
at the disposal of Man, for the biggest benefit of all. But since, by
LRH’s attitude, the tech is embodied in a context of absolutism and
delusion, it may just be lost, because any sane man will at some point
have no other choice than to kick the whole thing off. But it remains
that, when stripped off all the delirium in which the tech is surrounded,
some parts may be put to good use, and are not necessarily mind control
techniques per se.
Another example. It is true that, if in some sentences there are some
words you don't understand, you may misunderstand the whole sentence. So
it has it's importance. But then, it is blown into all proportion by the
cultic assertion that if you don't understand, it's *only* because you
have a misunderstood. Then, because you have a misunderstood, you make
'overts'. Because you make 'overts', you blow Scn. Then, if you want to
leave, they make you clear documents instead of listening to your
grievances. This all is nonsense and can be said to be mind control
techniques. But it remains that the misunderstood word, used in a
non-cultic setup, and put in the right context, could be something
useful. And so with many other things in the 'study tech', such as the
correct proportion of significance and mass, such as the gradual steps
progression, etc.
I could go on and on, on many different fields. This makes Scn actually
something remarkable and is the real initial attraction, not so much
because of the mind control aspect. Of course, some critic do not want to
admit this fact, because maybe they are afraid that if you admit that
there is something useful in the Scn technique, then after all Scn could
be right and the critics could be wrong. Not something they are ready to
admit, especially after all the effort they invested in their fight
against the cult. But, IMHO, their reaction on this subject is based on
fear or ignorance rather than an effort to be objective and to understand
the actual mechanisms, and I cannot condone this attitude, because it
really is the same attitude displayed by the cult mindset, and at the end
it will only be ineffective and even counter-productive.
For me, Scn is a cult. There is just so much mind control and cultic
elements involved, and I think it is very important to underline and
expose these for what they are. But then, I think it is equally idiotic
to try to force all the techniques in one's own little pet theory of mind
control and that of the “evil cult”. It is as simplistic and stupid as
the cult attitude itself. Why not try to be objective in all these
matters? What are all these critics so afraid of? For me, where there is
fear, there is no freedom, there is no objectivity and truth, and there
is no love because you have to call in hate to justify how right you are.
--------
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <31B779...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> If you think I've drifted off track from some original questions,
>> perhaps you could re-state them? What I have done is take up
>> the challenge and opportunity in your question "well, why SHOULD I
>> abandon Hubbard's tech?" (What is wrong with it that I should not
>> continue developing it). I have tried to say what is IMO wrong
>> with Hubbard's tech -- I don't know to what extent you still
>> uphold that tech -- and if you wish me to respond on your current
>> beliefs different from Hubbard's tech then please remind me what
>> they are. I am not saying "damn you, David Mayo, you definitely
>> believe all the things I find fault in"; merely finding fault
>> in standard tech, and asking whether you agree with those faults.
>
>No no no Dave. The questions are straight above under your eyes, no need
>of re-statement. We are *not* speaking here about the tech or believes
>here, but about *cultish_behavior*. I would like to know what cultish
>behavior DM displayed (because I never saw any), and DM wants to know
>because he probably would like to improve himself. But you are not
>helping him in this direction, you are making accusation in such a way
>that he can't learn from them. So, did you recover from your illness and
>can now answer the question which is straight above here? Or maybe you
>did already in some other post I didn't see.
>
I have not accused David Mayo of anything. Perhaps you should look at
the original point where I entered the conversation.
QUOTE{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
In article <4ob7l2$b...@light.lightlink.com>, David Mayo writes:
>At 09:22 PM 5/26/96 -0700, efis...@wimsey.com wrote:
>>In art<4o8t27$5...@light.lightlink.com>, David Mayowrote:
>>>
>>> Persecuted by Scientology(tm), unaided by the Freezoners, and
>>> virtually accused of being clams or another cult here on a.r.s
>>
>>yes it is true that i do consider you to be, shall we say, cultishly
>>inclined. but in no way do i consider you to be a clam, which i would
>
>I do not think that I am cultishly inclined but I would like to know of
>any cultish characteristic that you have perceived in me so that I can
>correct it. I am asking sincerely and would really want to know.
>As I have stated earlier, I happen to like the book, The True Believer,
>by Eric ...
[Hoffer] .....as it very accurately lists and
>describes the main characteristics of cults. I studied it while setting
>up the CNC - AAC and tried to avoid making the errors of my predecessors.
>
>>[no, this does not] equate with membership in the so-called "church"
>>of scientology. Obviously you are no longer so. but also obviously
>>you do not disavow the tech thereof, and in fact still propagate
>>a version of it. which is *why* i consider you to be inclined
>>towards a particular mindset.
> Why could I disavow "the tech"?
This may be an unwellcome thing for you, as the person who helped
develop and extend much of it, but many of us here think the tech
(a) doesn't work and is based on falsehhods, (b) is actively dangerous
and has regularly driven people nuts, and (c) many of the practices of
the tech are in fact control methods for the authoritarian cult
structure and it is very hard to truly separate the two and still
have anything worthwhile left in the "tech" half of the division.
> No-one, including me, can clearly and
>accurately define what "the tech" is. First, there are multiple "techs"
>in Scientology(tm) and secondly these are often a mixture of information
>and methods that existed both prior to and/or outside and parallel to
>Scientology(tm). Which of these "techs" would you have me "discard" or
>more precisely which parts of which of these "techs" ought I to discard?
>
There is some suspicion of you, as having worked so closely
(albeit for good motives) with Hubbard in developing something which
harmed a lot of people, and I am afraid the answer is "a good deal
of it". I will give more detail in a later post, but I am tired and ill
now and can't do it justice tonight.
>Should I not talk to people? Including not posting here?
>Should I not listen to people? Including not reading and "duplicating"
>this, your post?
>
No, clearly not.
>You also said that I still propagate a version of it ("the tech").
>Please believe that I am not being facetious here but I do not think that
>you really have any idea of what I am propagating. I do not think that I
>am propagating any version of Scientlogy(tm) tech but again, I stand ready
>to be corrected. Specify, one single process or technique or piece of
>Scientology(tm) "tech" (or techs) that I am propagating. If you can't do
>that, at least detail any "tech" that I am propagating.
>
Perhaps you should give some details of the auditting processes
you are currently proagating, and I will tell you how I react to
them. If they still feature the exorcism of spirit fleas ("body
thetans") you are right I will not have much enthusiasm for them.
But I really can't give a reaction when I have no clear idea
of what's in them!
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}UNQUOTE.
You will see that it is EFISCHER who talks of David Mayo
being "cultishly inclined". All I say is that maybe she
meant by this that he was still involved with the BELIEFS
rather than--as David sees it--still involved in the
authoritarian POLICIES AND BEHAVIOURS of the CoS. That
is all I said and the extent of my interest in that part
of the conversation.
David also made remarks about "I don't see why people are
suspicious of me" [because of continued connection with the
tech?] and "why **should** I drop the tech anyway?".
This is the part of the conversation that interested me
and which I repsonded to.
>
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> I am doing my best to address the subject of my doubts about
>> the tech bit by bit.
>
>No! no, no, no and no. The question is *not* about the tech, it's about
>alledged cultish behavior displayed by David Mayo (see above).
>
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. All I did was offer a suggested explanation
for --- I did not reaffirm or make my own --- a statement by efisher.
>[snipped the whole discussion about the tech, because it's getting a bit
>confused]
[snipped any nonsense trying to put me on trial for what efischer said,
and which I neutrally tried to explain for all of 30 seconds]
>> I'm arguing that the tech is
>> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and author,
>> the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to separate them
>> you end up with nothing left.
>
>I kept only the above paragraph of the whole discussion, which I think
>summarize the essence of what you said. Can we agree that you are saying
>that the mind control element of Scn is build within the tech itself,
>while I am saying that the tech and the cultish mindset are two separate
>things (like a knife is not responsible of my killing someone or
>buttering my bread)?
>
Um. I think a method which gets a person mildly dazed and
suggestible by staring at a point, that teaches them to be
physically controlled and then under the verbal direction
of another, is allied to all sorts of other methods to
destroy normal comprehension of language and normal critical
thinking is for one purpose only. What you are looking
at is a .45 automatic. A .45 automatic is for shooting people.
If you use it for hammering in nails you are not putting
it to its real use and, if you do so not undestanding what
it is and do that loaded with the safety catch off, you
are probably going to shoot yourself in the foot or worse.
Only consider a set-up whose inner revelations consist
of learning to have a delium tremens vision of the world
in flames, learning to mimic parasitosis, thinking you
are literally divine, and finally realising <snigger>
that the original mad author was in fact god. I bet the
leaked version of OT8 "the truth revealed" **is** the
genuine article---any comments, David?
We're not going to agree on this, but I really do
think the tech is irredemable harmful and not
just "coz I feel it so" but for carefully thought
out reasons. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
>
>
>> But I think you will agree I
>> am addressing **the** questions on separability of tech
>> from its authoritarian purposes.
>
>Yes, kind of, but frankly I am more interested by the first question.
>
I'm not, and never was. Ask efisher why she said what she said--not me.
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on (alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----, and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
______________________________________________________
"L.Ron Hubbard is the P.T.Barnum of religious leaders"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Mayo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thank you Bernie, whoever you are, the following is an excellent
compilation of what occurred on these threads. You did a better job of this
than I could have and I appreciate that. I too, await the answers of either
Dave Bird or efischer to my questions which you have SO clearly laid out
below.
Rev. David Mayo
"So many have fallen, yet so far left to go ... "
- -------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 06 Jun 1996 17:35:46 -0700, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> wrote:
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>>
>> This responds to a separate p&m
>> from david Mayo, same starting point.
>
>David Mayo:
>> >> :: | I do not think that I am cultishly inclined but I would
>> >> :: | like to know of any cultish characteristic that you have
>> >> :: | perceived in me so that I can correct it.
>
>Bernie:
>> >> :I would have been interested if someone answered the questions
>> >> :of DM. Seems that nor ef nor you can satisfy my curiosity
>> >> :here. I thought you guys were specialists in mind control.
>
>David Mayo:
>> > Yes, I too, would have been interested if either efischer
>> > or Dave Bird would answer the question instead of merely
>> > continuing their unsubstantiated assertion that my beliefs
>> > and/or practices are harmful -- especially when they have
>> > failed to comment on *any* of the beliefs that I have stated
>> > in this newsgroup and have no idea what my practices are!
>
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> If you think I've drifted off track from some original questions,
>> perhaps you could re-state them? What I have done is take up
>> the challenge and opportunity in your question "well, why SHOULD I
>> abandon Hubbard's tech?" (What is wrong with it that I should not
>> continue developing it). I have tried to say what is IMO wrong
>> with Hubbard's tech -- I don't know to what extent you still
>> uphold that tech -- and if you wish me to respond on your current
>> beliefs different from Hubbard's tech then please remind me what
>> they are. I am not saying "damn you, David Mayo, you definitely
>> believe all the things I find fault in"; merely finding fault
>> in standard tech, and asking whether you agree with those faults.
>
>No no no Dave. The questions are straight above under your eyes, no need
>of re-statement. We are *not* speaking here about the tech or believes
>here, but about *cultish_behavior*. I would like to know what cultish
>behavior DM displayed (because I never saw any), and DM wants to know
>because he probably would like to improve himself. But you are not
>helping him in this direction, you are making accusation in such a way
>that he can't learn from them. So, did you recover from your illness and
>can now answer the question which is straight above here? Or maybe you
>did already in some other post I didn't see.
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>
>Bernie:
>> >> :I would have been interested if someone answered the questions
>> >> :of DM....
>
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine:
>> > I said in my post that I was tired and ill, and not capable
>> > of doing the matter justice in the present article but
>> > would attempt to do so in a later one.
>
>Bernie:
>> >I will send you oranges, Dave, because you probably are still sick:
>> >you didnt answered any single question of DM here.
>
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> I am doing my best to address the subject of my doubts about
>> the tech bit by bit.
>
>No! no, no, no and no. The question is *not* about the tech, it's about
>alledged cultish behavior displayed by David Mayo (see above).
>
>[snipped the whole discussion about the tech, because it's getting a bit
>confused]
>
>> I'm arguing that the tech is
>> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and author,
>> the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to separate them
>> you end up with nothing left.
>
>I kept only the above paragraph of the whole discussion, which I think
>summarize the essence of what you said. Can we agree that you are saying
>that the mind control element of Scn is build within the tech itself,
>while I am saying that the tech and the cultish mindset are two separate
>things (like a knife is not responsible of my killing someone or
>buttering my bread)?
>
>What can I say more on this that I didn't say yet? All I can say is that
>things are not the way you see them. It's very important to see exactly
>for oneself what the cultic or mind-control element is. That's the only
>way to be free from it. As far as I am concerned, I may be wrong, but
>the phenomenon is very clear for me, and I can see exactly at which
>point the cultic mindset joins in with the tech, but then also at wich
>point it separates from it. If you say "everything is flawed at the
>start by the evil intention of the founder, and so everything is
>mind-control the moment it has the Scn label on it", then I think that,
>if you will ever pardon me, you do not have a correct conception of what
>a cultic mindset really is. I may even go as far as saying that this
>*is* a cultic mindset, a black & white view, a "we are all good/they are
>all bad" attitude.
>
>That's all that is left to be said. I do hope, for the benefit of
>everyone, that you will nuance your position with time. But maybe you
>have no mean to do that, because maybe (I don't know your background)
>you only have an external view and not an inside one.
>
>Bernie:
>> >Well, I hope you get soon well enough and, secondarily, address at
>> >least one of his question.
>
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> I can't remember what they were.
>
>What did DM specifically do that you can qualify as cultic (see on top
>of this p/m)?
>
>> But I think you will agree I
>> am addressing **the** questions on separability of tech
>> from its authoritarian purposes.
>
>Yes, kind of, but frankly I am more interested by the first question.
>
>Cheers,
>------
>Bernie
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMbgfFOmCyCdNXuVZAQGsMgP8Drd95CQyfsuhX8e9fALjH5XPKZkFO2K2
rbOFK22S38D3MPqkY3Q7sdjWwVsPkjwzWD4hVQ8j3Xkmu3IL37hkVM1OK3EVBhJC
kBWxND5bp0+jdE8y8LLQIUDY0IzWS7vE0GsH5h8ZM9FxEQpnEoGOYDvVyq3aIPQp
anwaenJ5Lhg=
=P194
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[p&m'd]
David Mayo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 18:54:37 +0100, Dave
Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <31B779...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>>
>>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>>No no no Dave. The questions are straight above under your eyes, no need
>>of re-statement. We are *not* speaking here about the tech or believes
>>here, but about *cultish_behavior*. I would like to know what cultish
>>behavior DM displayed (because I never saw any), and DM wants to know
>>because he probably would like to improve himself. But you are not
>>helping him in this direction, you are making accusation in such a way
>>that he can't learn from them. So, did you recover from your illness and
>>can now answer the question which is straight above here? Or maybe you
>>did already in some other post I didn't see.
>>
>Right. Now I *think* I understand what you're talking about.
>I have not accused David Mayo of anything. Perhaps you should look at
Not true, Dave Bird. In your own words:
>>>[no, this does not] equate with membership in the so-called "church"
>>>of scientology. Obviously you are no longer so. but also obviously
>>>you do not disavow the tech thereof, and in fact still propagate
>>>a version of it. which is *why* i consider you to be inclined
>>>towards a particular mindset.
Above you accuse me of propagating a version of Scientology(tm) tech yet
(as I have pointed out repetitively) you do not know what version of "tech"
I propagate --if any. In the absence of any factual knowledge, you make an
accusation based on a preconceived opinion of yours or based on an opinion
you have accepted, without verification, from a third party. (pun intended)
>This may be an unwellcome thing for you, as the person who helped
>develop and extend much of it, but many of us here think the tech
Not true in that I did not develop much of Scn tech
AND
this is an ad hominem attack --frowned on on a.r.s if it is used against
you but not otherwise?
[...]
>There is some suspicion of you, as having worked so closely
All the more reason for you to be factual and for me to demand factual
substantiation of opinions.
[...]
>>You also said that I still propagate a version of it ("the tech").
>>Please believe that I am not being facetious here but I do not think that
>>you really have any idea of what I am propagating. I do not think that I
>>am propagating any version of Scientlogy(tm) tech but again, I stand
ready
>>to be corrected. Specify, one single process or technique or piece of
>>Scientology(tm) "tech" (or techs) that I am propagating. If you can't do
>>that, at least detail any "tech" that I am propagating.
>>
>Perhaps you should give some details of the auditting processes
>you are currently proagating, and I will tell you how I react to
For the LAST time, what do YOU think I am "proagating" and/or from whom
did you get that "information"?
If I am "proagating" the "auditting" you think I am, how is that harmful.
(I assure you that if you answer and if your answer is true and if it is
harmful, I will cease it immediately.)
If you do not answer, or do not answer factually, then I will allege that
you are wittingly or unwittingly forwarding the explanation that RTC has
used to justify why they have tried to destroy me.
>But I really can't give a reaction when I have no clear idea
>of what's in them!
My point exactly. Yet you did give your reaction(s).
Please substantiate or retract.
>
>}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}UNQUOTE.
>
>You will see that it is EFISCHER who talks of David Mayo
>being "cultishly inclined". All I say is that maybe she
>meant by this that he was still involved with the BELIEFS
>rather than--as David sees it--still involved in the
>authoritarian POLICIES AND BEHAVIOURS of the CoS. That
>is all I said and the extent of my interest in that part
>of the conversation.
Please don't hide behind efischer. You did so also.
Furthermore, you also said that I was "insufferably arrogant" for
expressing my opinion that copyright violations had played into the hands
of
the RTC and less the cause of the critics and I pointed to copyright
lawsuits that upheld my opinion. I also advocated exposure of unacceptable
behaviour and said why. In a later post, I detailed the lawsuits I had
referred to.
>
>David also made remarks about "I don't see why people are
>suspicious of me" [because of continued connection with the
>tech?]
> and "why **should** I drop the tech anyway?".
False assertion. I said that I had been and was sorting out which was
harmful and why and which was not. Rather different than the
interpretation
above.
>This is the part of the conversation that interested me
>and which I responded to.
No, you first came in on the side of disapproving of my opposition to
copyright violation, which lead to "insufferable opinion"(s).
Dave, I don't dislike you and I do not think your opinions are insufferably
arrogant but I do think they are ill informed. I am no longer asking you
to
do anything about any of this.
[...]
>Only consider a set-up whose inner revelations consist
>of learning to have a delium tremens vision of the world
>in flames, learning to mimic parasitosis, thinking you
>are literally divine, and finally realising <snigger>
>that the original mad author was in fact god. I bet the
>leaked version of OT8 "the truth revealed" **is** the
>genuine article---any comments, David?
Express my "insufferable opinion" in the face of ...
>
>We're not going to agree on this, but I really do
>think the tech is irredemable harmful and not
>just "coz I feel it so" but for carefully thought
>out reasons. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
... your "carefully thought out reasons"?
>
Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of
which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who
have been adversely affected? or to those who may be?
Or do you prefer to just shut me up in case I shake a biased or
preconceived opinion? Hell, I might even ask you to *think* for yourself
instead of just writing it all off as bad. But if that was the case, how
come so many "insufferably arrogant" people like me got so into it? Oh,
yeah, the question answers itself, so conveniently.
>>Yes, kind of, but frankly I am more interested by the first question.
I was, too.
>>
>I'm not, and never was. Ask efisher why she said what she said--not me.
I did ask her, too.
>
>
>--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
> X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
For the second time, who did? Do you know?
or am I asking an "insufferable question"?
Rev. David Mayo
"I like dogs and cats." --me
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMbgwremCyCdNXuVZAQG+qgP/ewaptrNd60ZxpwduJluyOD+avBPDlrsD
elBfGgjzLmmgKMGldfMjuKeROYtglBd02TJDzuKhZTpeqXl6Mqzedt0DJ1zjj9YI
m4eRU7Yyms1rK4moGnyurX3gZ11QW3qHB0BUYoWqPjNMhsvcN2q5+UhHdEbjCLQ4
AuEVJZ94xV4=
=Zkg6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
Responding to David Mayo <ma...@lightlink.com>:
>Not true in that I did not develop much of Scn tech
Right. David was Senior Case Supervisor during the development of a
number of rundowns by El Rotundo. He compiled the briefings he
received from the Phattard on NOTs into the rundowns which now
comprise Oat Tea 4-7.
>AND
>this is an ad hominem attack --frowned on on a.r.s if it is used against
>you but not otherwise?
Depends on who's doing the frowning, bro. I certainly am not here
to argue with people, but rather in my chosen role: answering
people's questions.
If you want, David, I will even answer questions about your beliefs
that folks may have. If you think it will help.
>For the LAST time, what do YOU think I am "proagating" and/or from whom
>did you get that "information"?
It is generally assumed by the population that, as dictated by what
passes for culture in merka, everyone is marketting something.
>If I am "proagating" the "auditting" you think I am, how is that harmful.
Ah, depending on what you are doing, let me count the ways.
>(I assure you that if you answer and if your answer is true and if it is
>harmful, I will cease it immediately.)
Cool. I-mo take you up on that.
>If you do not answer, or do not answer factually, then I will allege that
>you are wittingly or unwittingly forwarding the explanation that RTC has
>used to justify why they have tried to destroy me.
Russ Meadows use to tell me that El Ron was sure to have shot
anybody who was a 'popular figure' in scn besides himself. After
watching for a few years, it certainly was true. And it is a
tradition poodleboy naturally had to continue.
>Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of
>which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who
>have been adversely affected? or to those who may be?
<raises hand> I did. But your analysis would only be useful, IMO,
if you share it freely as a gift, and are willing to discuss the
reasoning behind your beliefs. Plus it would be nice to know your
pricing structure, if any.
>Or do you prefer to just shut me up in case I shake a biased or
>preconceived opinion?
If you don't say anything worth discussion, you are not so open to
change as you claimed above. But I certainly don't have 'David's
Beliefs' as a front-burner topic that we've got to get right to the
bottom of <excuse the dangling participle> because people are
certainly in much greater danger of being injured elsewhere.
>Hell, I might even ask you to *think* for yourself
>instead of just writing it all off as bad.
Have I somehow given the impression that I might not have thought
out my position? Sorry.
>But if that was the case, how
>come so many "insufferably arrogant" people like me got so into it? Oh,
>yeah, the question answers itself, so conveniently.
You have no reason not to be proud of yourself, your intellect, your
insights, and your years of work trying to help people. I certainly
do not consider you one of 'them' that stole our church from us.
But still I believe you to be blind of the 'connections of evil'
that make up the basic structure of the scieno-tek. I believe I can
explain it to you and everyone else, if we stay calm and take our
time. But no hurry, eh?
We have serious crimes by those who stole scn to first expose, I
believe. To me, however, it is fascinating to see how the beliefs and
practices of the cult lead (IMHO) *inevitibly* to those crimes and
abuses. [p/m]
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Jens Tingleff
In article <4p9bn2$c...@light.lightlink.com>, David Mayo
<ma...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of
> which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who
> have been adversely affected? or to those who may be?
>
I have no ideas what other people think, but I think (all on my little
own) that it would be *extremely* interesting to see your analysis of the
tech.
So, please, if you want to share your thoughts, don't felt that we (well,
I) do not welcome your input.
[p & m to David]
Jens
------ No PGP signature, no authenticity. Vive La France!! ----------
Scientology[tm] ?? Check it out at http://www.scientology.org *and*
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Report interesting conclusions to alt.religion.scientology ;-)
efis...@wimsey.com
> >You will see that it is EFISCHER who talks of David Mayo
> >being "cultishly inclined". All I say is that maybe she
> >meant by this that he was still involved with the BELIEFS
> >rather than--as David sees it--still involved in the
> >authoritarian POLICIES AND BEHAVIOURS of the CoS. That
> >is all I said and the extent of my interest in that part
> >of the conversation.
yes, that is what i meant. beliefs.
with that said, i don't think it is possible for me to argue these
beliefs... for a couple of reasons:
one: i have no inclination to study the implementations of *these* beliefs
in detail, i admit that that is due to a, perhaps, failing on my part;
namely a tendency to lump *all* "beliefs" into a systemic behavioral
pattern that i mistrust. or, perhaps, it is due to a certain intellectual
laziness... it's possible. i *do* admit to being subject to an intuitive
reaction, when faced with the concept of "churches"... and "reverence".
you see for me, all churches are evil. bar none. you see for me, all
codified systems of belief, all reverence, are evil, bar none. i said so
before, i think. you cannot possibly convince me otherwise. though i do
think you honestly believe your beliefs to be beneficient, you still seek
to do what you do within the system that the concept of "church" implies.
see, i do not believe in churches. to me, all churches are political
organizations. (so aptly portrayed by our experience with the
*organization* of scientology, here). to me all systemic beliefs carry the
seeds of fascism within. to what degree seems dependent on the application
of said beliefs, the tech. that is what i call "tech", or technique. in
your case as well.
secondly: it would be futile even to try to discuss the details of *your*
beliefs in this instance as it is impossible for you, david, to explain
and to delienate the systems by which you apply your beliefs... several
times you have been asked to do so in detail, but you have avoided the
question. i now understand it wise of you to avoid the question. not
because of my or anyone else's challenges by the way... but because i
think it is impossible for you, *at this time*, to indulge in a detailed
exposition, and, importantly, this is due to the threats of litigation
that you are continually under. nothing to do with us, really, or that is
what i think.
so i do not resent it, but i do think this discussion to be futile.
because the very real threats from *that* system of beliefs preclude an
honest exposition of yours.
with all that in mind, i would like to end this discussion. we are all
under considerable attack at this time from the afforementioned "church"
of scientology... behaving as the thoroughly fascist organization it
really is. i would think it better to turn from a discussion of our
differences to a discussion of our similarities so that we can instead
present a somewhat unified front for the battles ahead.
regards
ef
===================
NWHQ
http://www.knosso.com/NWHQ/
Bernie
> that make up the basic structure of the scieno-tek. I believe I can
> explain it to you and everyone else, if we stay calm and take our
> time. But no hurry, eh?
Please do. Am interested. I just hope it will be different than the
scratched record of our friend Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
untirelingly repeating his 'opinion' that all is mind-control, period
(sorry Dave). I also hope it will be less ridiculous and biaised than the
Chap. 18 of the Anderson report I saw just today.
------
Bernie
-- I mock up my reactive hard drive --
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <4p9bn2$c...@light.lightlink.com>, David Mayo writes:
>Dave St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <31B779...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>>>
>>>of re-statement. We are *not* speaking here about the tech or believes
>>>here, but about *cultish_behavior*. I would like to know what cultish
>>>behavior DM displayed (because I never saw any), and DM wants to know
>>>because he probably would like to improve himself. But you are not
>>>helping him in this direction, you are making accusation in such a way
>>>that he can't learn from them. So, did you recover from your illness and
>>>can now answer the question which is straight above here? Or maybe you
>>>did already in some other post I didn't see.
>>>
>>Right. Now I *think* I understand what you're talking about.
>>I have not accused David Mayo of anything. Perhaps you should look at
>
>Not true, Dave Bird. In your own words:
Wrong. They are efisher's words.
>>>>[no, this does not] equate with membership in the so-called "church"
>>>>of scientology. Obviously you are no longer so. but also obviously
>>>>you do not disavow the tech thereof, and in fact still propagate
>>>>a version of it. which is *why* i consider you to be inclined
>>>>towards a particular mindset.
>
>Above you accuse me of propagating a version of Scientology(tm) tech yet
>(as I have pointed out repetitively) you do not know what version of "tech"
>I propagate --if any. In the absence of any factual knowledge, you make an
>accusation based on a preconceived opinion of yours or based on an opinion
>you have accepted, without verification, from a third party. (pun intended)
Wrong. They are not my words.
>>This may be an unwellcome thing for you, as the person who helped
>>develop and extend much of it, but many of us here think the tech
>
>Not true in that I did not develop much of Scn tech
>
In your own words you were LRH's audior, helped document
much of the stuff, and wrote some HCOBs in his name.
Please tell me how much of the tech you did develop.
>this is an ad hominem attack --frowned on on a.r.s if it is used against
>you but not otherwise?
>
No it isn't. An ad hominem attack is like someone saying:
"David Mayo put peanut butter in his underpants,
so I don't believe what he says about weapons at flag."
Such an attack on your character has nothing to do with the
proposition being argued, and shows its author has no answer
to the argument itself.
OTOH, questioning how much you were involved in the tech is
relevant to discussing your involvement with the tech;
it is not a personal attack to avoid some other point.
[Is "you" Dave Bird or efischer?]
>>>You also said that I still propagate a version of it ("the tech").
>>>Please believe that I am not being facetious here but I do not think
>>>that you really have any idea of what I am propagating.
>>>I do not think that I
>>>am propagating any version of Scientlogy(tm) tech
>>>but again, I stand ready
>>>to be corrected. Specify, one single process or technique or piece of
>>>Scientology(tm) "tech" (or techs) that I am propagating. If you can't do
>>>that, at least detail any "tech" that I am propagating.
>>>
>>Perhaps you should give some details of the auditting processes
>>you are currently proagating, and I will tell you how I react to
>
>For the LAST time, what do YOU think I am "proagating" and/or from whom
>did you get that "information"?
>
This is getting insane. I am to tell you what you believe
and teach, propogate, disseminiate or whatever to others?
You tell me what you believe. You tell me what, if anything,
you teach others in the line of religion or philosophy.
You did start a thread entitled "more or less of my beliefs".
MORE please. Tell us what those beliefs (and teachings to others,
if any) are.
>If I am "proagating" the "auditting" you think I am, how is that harmful.
>(I assure you that if you answer and if your answer is true and if it is
>harmful, I will cease it immediately.)
>
I have said elsewhere why I think the whole scientology setup,
of which auditting is an essential part, is inherently flawed:
this is opinion, but it is opinion backed by detailed analysis
not simply a "gut feeling". I presume you have read it. I don't
expect automatic agreement to what is, after all, only my opinion;
but you might at least address the reasons set forth to justify it.
>If you do not answer, or do not answer factually,
>
I have answered. Factually.
>>You will see that it is EFISCHER who talks of David Mayo
>>being "cultishly inclined". All I say is that maybe she
>>meant by this that he was still involved with the BELIEFS
>>rather than--as David sees it--still involved in the
>>authoritarian POLICIES AND BEHAVIOURS of the CoS. That
>>is all I said and the extent of my interest in that part
>>of the conversation.
>
>Please don't hide behind efischer. You did so also.
>
No I didn't. Citation? Here is what was said:
===============================================
In article <9PeHsaBd...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird writes
>In message <199605300442.AAA13342@light>, David Mayo writes:
>>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>>>
>>> Bernie writes:
>>> :Dave Bird wrote:
>>> :: David Mayo writes:
>>> :: |
>>> :: | I do not think that I am cultishly inclined but I would
>>> :: | like to know of any cultish characteristic that you have
>>> :: | perceived in me so that I can correct it.
>>> ::
>>> :: It may be that Elizabeth uses the word "cult" simply of
>>> :: the beliefs --- or feels that the behaviours are inherent
>>> :: in the beliefs. Perhaps she will answer on that
>>> :
>>> :I would have been interested if someone answered the questions
>>> :of DM. Seems that nor ef nor you can satisfy my curiosity
>>> :here. I thought you guys were specialists in mind control.
>>
>> Yes, I too, would have been interested if either efischer
>> or Dave Bird would answer the question instead of merely
>> continuing their unsubstantiated assertion that my beliefs
>> and/or practices are harmful
===============================
Efischer said the "cultish" bit, I suggested an explanation
of what she may have meant. I think you are confused between
"attacking *your* beliefs" (which I didn't do as such) when I've
no idea what your beliefs are, versus attacking standard tech
as IMO harmful (which is what I did).
>Furthermore, you also said that I was "insufferably arrogant" for
>expressing my opinion that copyright violations had played into the
>hands of the RTC
>
This is untrue. I said you were insufferebly arrogant for
saying that IF I DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION THEN IT
WAS BECAUSE I WAS TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENTS.
Which is a slightly different matter....
>>This is the part of the conversation that interested me
>>and which I responded to.
>
>No, you first came in on the side of disapproving of my opposition to
>copyright violation, which lead to "insufferable opinion"(s).
>
No, insufferebale BEHAVIOUR in asserting that anyone who
disagrees with your opinions must be a fool.
>[...]
>>Only consider a set-up whose inner revelations consist
>>of learning to have a delium tremens vision of the world
>>in flames, learning to mimic parasitosis, thinking you
>>are literally divine, and finally realising <snigger>
>>that the original mad author was in fact god. I bet the
>>leaked version of OT8 "the truth revealed" **is** the
>>genuine article---any comments, David?
>
>Express my "insufferable opinion"
>
I never said "insufferable opinion", you just made that up.
>>
>>We're not going to agree on this, but I really do
>>think the tech is irredemable harmful and not
>>just "coz I feel it so" but for carefully thought
>>out reasons. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
>
>... your "carefully thought out reasons"?
>
There are several articles full of them.
In a<31b8606...@news.primenet.com>, "Rev. Dennis L Erlich" writes
:
: You have no reason not to be proud of yourself, your intellect, your
:insights, and your years of work trying to help people. I certainly
:do not consider you one of 'them' that stole [the] church.
:
:
: But still I believe you to be blind of the 'connections of evil'
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:that make up the basic structure of the scieno-tek. I believe I can
:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:explain it to you and everyone else, if we stay calm and take our
:
:time. But no hurry, eh?
:
:
Exactly. And here's just a fraction of what I wrote earlier:
============================================================
In article <9PeHsaBd...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird writes:
>David Mayo wrote:
>>So, to come back to the starting questions:
>>
>>If I use some part of the tech that is, or was for that purpose,
>>linked to a mind control mindset, does it still carries particles
>>of the said mind control? Not if I understood what was involved
>>and I dont repeat the same mistakes.
>>
>No you, are wrong.
>The means cannot be separated from the ends they were designed for.
>the means of tyranny are suited to produce tyranny and will not
>produce freedom, just as a duck will lay eggs and not lumps of coal.
>
>Suppose a cult probably much closer to the original than DM's
>so it still has much the same form of auditting, and you are
>taught to give and recieve auditting by something very much
>like the early part of the comms course. That is, you are
>taught a central situation which revolves around you being
>passively controlled and later, when you are given permission,
>controlling others in the same way. You learn to manipulate
>conversation to get what you want, "do fish swim?" (or, "why
>will you not lend me fifty dollars?" :-) over and over without
>adapting to the response or considering the other's position,
>until you get what you want. You learn to manipulate your
>preclear, who has been trained on the obedience part anyway,
>even to the extent of gently pushing them back into the chair
>or getting between them and the door. Everything within the
>cult's pace is done to the cult's purposes without intrusive
>individual questioning.
>
>But apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, everything will be free and
>democratic in the way that you apply these techniques, which
>are MERELY NEUTRAL TECHNIQUES FOR SELF IMPROVEMENT, AREN'T THEY.
>
>No---they aren't. Everything in them has a hidden agenda of
>unconsciously creating an authoritarian environment. You will
>not keep the "admin" free from the "tech". Irresistably, the tech
>pulls towards the dictatorial urge in those who have it, and
>it will be no surprise (except to you), in fact it will be bloody
>near inevitable, that a new Miscavaidge emerges one day soon:
>the means are irredemably tainted with the original ends.
============================================================
There is also a long article clled "COME, AND GO MAD" which
you might care to glance at. So, you may nto agree with this,
but you can hardly pretend I never said it.
>Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of
>which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who
>have been adversely affected? or to those who may be?
>
May well be so.
>Or do you prefer to just shut me up in case I shake a biased or
>preconceived opinion?
No, I never told you to shut up
or not to hold an opinion. I only said that I disagreed
with some of your opinions. And took exception to your saying
I must be a fool if I disagreed with yours. Especially about
copyright, where you are no more a practicing expert
lawyer than I am.
>>
>>
>>--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
>> X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
>
>For the second time, who did? Do you know?
> or am I asking an "insufferable question"?
>
Why do you need to be answered twice? Same answer as before:
the version in circulation is that Lennie Liebowitz did it,
but the only authority for this is paras 19 & 20 of
the Fishman affidavit.
This is corroborated, howver, by the guilty reaction
of Andrew Milne on a.r.s. First he said the dog was drowned
deliberately, by the defendants (Wollersheim). Then the affidavit
emerged, alledging it was done on behalf of CoS. Now, had Milne
been telling the truth before, he need only have said "this man
is a total liar, this story is a total lie, I still maintain it
was done by Wollershiem's crowd and that's the truth of it."
Instead, he did a back sommersault and said the dog died of
natural causes. Hmmm. Very suspicious.
>Rev. David Mayo
>"I like dogs and cats." --me
>
>
"I like cows, at least you can get a free drink off them" --ME.
-- (__) (__)
(@@) XEMoo.moo.moo (@@)
_____(oo) #--(oo)_____
/( / \ # <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> / \ )\
* /_x \ / | \ / x_\ *
'''''''''''ww''''www.demon.net/castle/x/xemu.html''''ww''''''''''''
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
Responding to Bernie <be...@arcadis.be>:
>the battle is raging and it's real fun!
>Bernie
I'm glad you think this is fun. Step into the crosshairs and then
tell me what you think.
Ted Mayett
In <31b8606...@news.primenet.com> inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis
> You have no reason not to be proud of yourself, your intellect, your
>insights, and your years of work trying to help people. I certainly
>do not consider you one of 'them' that stole our church from us.
>
Now your talking. I would not have put years in if there were not some
good to the cult.
> But still I believe you to be blind of the 'connections of evil'
>that make up the basic structure of the scieno-tek. I believe I can
>explain it to you and everyone else, if we stay calm and take our
>time. But no hurry, eh?
>
> We have serious crimes by those who stole scn to first expose, I
>believe. To me, however, it is fascinating to see how the beliefs and
>practices of the cult lead (IMHO) *inevitibly* to those crimes and
>abuses. [p/m]
>
This should prove exciting. I hope you two can settle on the terms and
cover the subject like, like it should be covered.
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <dennis....@support.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
--
Ted Mayett
Scientology(tm) is a dangerous cult.
If you are new to this NG realize the dangers of posting here.
This link offers a bit of explanation.
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
Bernie
>
Actually is it Dave Birdy Hypopo of St Augustine (Gosh, this name is
challenging my perfect-recall memory..) who wrote in answer to a thread with
David Mayo:
> > >You will see that it is EFISCHER who talks of David Mayo
> > >being "cultishly inclined". All I say is that maybe she
> > >meant by this that he was still involved with the BELIEFS
> > >rather than--as David sees it--still involved in the
> > >authoritarian POLICIES AND BEHAVIOURS of the CoS. That
> > >is all I said and the extent of my interest in that part
> > >of the conversation.
>
> yes, that is what i meant. beliefs.
>
> with that said, i don't think it is possible for me to argue these
> beliefs... for a couple of reasons:
>
> one: i have no inclination to study the implementations of *these* beliefs
> in detail, i admit that that is due to a, perhaps, failing on my part;
> namely a tendency to lump *all* "beliefs" into a systemic behavioral
> pattern that i mistrust. or, perhaps, it is due to a certain intellectual
> laziness... it's possible. i *do* admit to being subject to an intuitive
> reaction, when faced with the concept of "churches"... and "reverence".
>
> you see for me, all churches are evil. bar none. you see for me, all
> codified systems of belief, all reverence, are evil, bar none. i said so
> before, i think. you cannot possibly convince me otherwise.
All codified systems of belief force you to see through the said system rather
than see for yourself things "as they are". Soon enough, you interprete things
in reference to this framework in a more and more mechanical way. The necessary
attention to adapt to a constantly changing reality becomes eroded. You end up
trying to resolve the distance thus created between 'reality' and your
conception thereof through the use of force: fanatisme, war, intolerance.
> though i do
> think you honestly believe your beliefs to be beneficient, you still seek
> to do what you do within the system that the concept of "church" implies.
So what?
> see, i do not believe in churches. to me, all churches are political
> organizations. (so aptly portrayed by our experience with the
> *organization* of scientology, here). to me all systemic beliefs carry the
> seeds of fascism within. to what degree seems dependent on the application
> of said beliefs, the tech. that is what i call "tech", or technique. in
> your case as well.
You are mixing tech and beliefs. These are not necessarily linked. They are in
the COS, and that's where the problem is. You are making the same mistake but
in the opposite direction.
> secondly: it would be futile even to try to discuss the details of *your*
> beliefs in this instance as it is impossible for you, david, to explain
> and to delienate the systems by which you apply your beliefs... several
> times you have been asked to do so in detail, but you have avoided the
> question. i now understand it wise of you to avoid the question. not
> because of my or anyone else's challenges by the way... but because i
> think it is impossible for you, *at this time*, to indulge in a detailed
> exposition, and, importantly, this is due to the threats of litigation
> that you are continually under. nothing to do with us, really, or that is
> what i think.
>
> so i do not resent it, but i do think this discussion to be futile.
> because the very real threats from *that* system of beliefs preclude an
> honest exposition of yours.
>
> with all that in mind, i would like to end this discussion. we are all
> under considerable attack at this time from the afforementioned "church"
> of scientology...
Pff, are we? I like the spam, I killfile them all and from time to time I have
a real kick at turning one of the text around. I don't think it prevents the
discussion between regular critics. It's only bad for the servers and the
newbies, and even that I am not sure. But the long term fruits of all this for
the Co$ *are* really disastrous!
> i would think it better to turn from a discussion of our
> differences to a discussion of our similarities so that we can instead
> present a somewhat unified front for the battles ahead.
Lighten up ef, the battle is raging and it's real fun!
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> David Mayo writes:
> >... your "carefully thought out reasons"?
> >
> There are several articles full of them.
Maybe you carefully thought out your reasons, Dave, I can't comment about
that, but I never felt you were really addressing my arguments on a point
by point basis and in an 'analytical' way (not analytical in the Scieno
sense, heaven forbit!). I felt that you were always comming back with the
same song that was more like mono-motto affirmation, that in your opinion
the whole of the Blubbart conception was just insane. I respect your
opinion but I would have liked that you take my arguments appart and that
you did a better, more precise and convincing job, to get me to this point.
Rather I feel that the discussion is only going round and I don't see much
sense in that.
> In a<31b8606...@news.primenet.com>, "Rev. Dennis L Erlich" writes
> :
> : You have no reason not to be proud of yourself, your intellect, your
> :insights, and your years of work trying to help people. I certainly
> :do not consider you one of 'them' that stole [the] church.
> :
> :
> : But still I believe you to be blind of the 'connections of evil'
> : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> :that make up the basic structure of the scieno-tek. I believe I can
> :^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> :explain it to you and everyone else, if we stay calm and take our
> :
> :time. But no hurry, eh?
> :
> :
> Exactly.
Yes but exactly also: why do you underline this? This is only a statement
of belief and Dennis said he *will* explain it. Without an explanation, an
analysis really, this is just a very limited statement of opinion.
Something that, I feel you have done at great lenght but without ever
really going into the analysis part, or if you did, I never really realised
it. No offence: I just say the way I feel about it.
> >Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of
> >which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who
> >have been adversely affected? or to those who may be?
> >
> May well be so.
Excellent! As an ex-Scieno and one who pulled out quiet a few people
myself, I know that it isn't by the recitation of the volcanoes symphony or
by dancing on your head about how evil the cult, the leader, the tech, is,
that you arrive anywhere. It is by the dissection of the mechanism, piece
by piece, and by the use of 'reason', as strange as it may seem, that you
hit the target.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <31B91D...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>Rev. Dennis L Erlich wrote:
>>
>> time. But no hurry, eh?
>
>scratched record of our friend Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>untirelingly repeating his 'opinion' that all is mind-control, period
>(sorry Dave).
but the detaailed reasoning is? "Duh--itsuh scratched record."
Hmm.
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
tom collins
On 7 June 1996 David Mayo <ma...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of
> which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who
> have been adversely affected? or to those who may be?
Actually, this sounds like a wonderful idea. The damned cult has behaved
with such egregious contempt for so many for so long and destroyed so many
lives so wantonly-- not just in the past, but, as we can see daily on
a.r.s, all too enthusiasticly and venomously in the present-- that any
actual discussion of any possible value in any part of "the tech" is
basically precluded by the overwhelming need to destroy the bastards and
all their barratous, vicious, racist, 'phobic, child-abusing, medically
fraudulent, goose-stepping institutions.
The consequence is that all that stuph that used to be at the lower
levels that could conceivably have been of benefit to anyone-- not the
paranoid obsessions with possession and enemies and Marcabs and Xenu, but
the stuph the freezoners presumably are running with, the parts that
Werner Erhard swiped and used to transform the lives of thousands of
people who still believe they were benefitted by the experience.
What I think would be especially interesting is a full account of your
entrance into the cult, your life as a clam, your exist from the cult, and
your life since then. And along with that narrative, the philosophical
growth and changes you have gone through from wherever you started to your
deepest state of delusion (or whatever) to where you are now and where you
think you are or would like to be headed.
And as part of that, maybe as a precursor even, I can't imagine anyone
here who would not benefit, each for their own reasons and sometimes in
spite of them, from your analysis of what works and what doesn't and why.
Especially because so many are so demonstrably damaged by something that
leads some people to suicide, madness, or dispair, some informed analysis
and discussion of precisely what part or parts of the cult's word and
deed that create those results might even help save lives right now, even
while the cult is yet undead.
Is this sufficient encouragement, or would you prefer to hear other
voices in support of your suggestion before you begin that part of the
on-going multilogue?
Posted, e-mailed
Experimental .sig follows.
--
tom...@cinenet.net "Ars [alt.religion.scientology] is a pitbull on the
jugular of Scientology." --Martin G V Hunt. Do you mock up your reactive
mind? Xenu wants to know. See: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Do Something! Go to http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/HomePage.vote.html
Ted Mayett
In <E3CNlBA6...@xemu.demon.co.uk> Dave Bird---St Hippo of
Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <31B91D...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>>Rev. Dennis L Erlich wrote:
>>>
>>> Responding to David Mayo <ma...@lightlink.com>:
>>>
>>> But still I believe you to be blind of the 'connections of evil'
>>> that make up the basic structure of the scieno-tek. I believe I
can
>>> explain it to you and everyone else, if we stay calm and take our
>>> time. But no hurry, eh?
>>
>>Please do. Am interested. I just hope it will be different than the
>>scratched record of our friend Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>>untirelingly repeating his 'opinion' that all is mind-control, period
>>(sorry Dave).
> And your reaction to, not just an assertion,
>but the detaailed reasoning is? "Duh--itsuh scratched record."
>Hmm.
>
It is not all mind control. There is a side of the tek that is viable.
That part is not really a marketable item, it's too easily taught and
doesn't require 200 forms and 4 secretary's and thousands of dollars.
So that part is not really done in Scientology(tm). Perhaps one quiet
day that part will be discussed. Scientology(tm) runs a race with no
finish line, and so mind control. Real auditing has a finish line. IMO.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <31B965...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> :David Mayo writes:
> :|
> :| ... your "carefully thought out reasons"?
> :
> :There are several articles full of them.
>
>Maybe you carefully thought out your reasons, Dave, I can't comment about
>that, but I never felt you were really addressing my arguments on a point
>by point basis and in an 'analytical' way (not analytical in the Scieno
>sense, heaven forbit!). I felt that you were always comming back with the
>same song that was more like mono-motto affirmation, that in your opinion
>the whole of the Blubbart conception was just insane. I respect your
>opinion but I would have liked that you take my arguments appart and that
>you did a better, more precise and convincing job, to get me to this point.
Well I would agrre with you on the following:
>Rather I feel that the discussion is only going round
>[in circles]
But, examining the thread, I can't see any reasoned arument from you.
I have said **that** I think the tech is harmful, I have said **that**
I think it reflects LRH's inner insanity, and I have given
point-by-point analysis **how** I think it reflects those insane
purposes; and you have answered none of this in detail.
OTOH, you have said don't I think THAT the tech and the authoritarian
tendencies and don't I think THAT the tech can be separated from the
authoritarian tendencies and don't I think THAT....the nearest you
have come to giving detailed reasoning was an **analogy** that a
knife can spread butter and well as being a weapon. And I told you
that a colt .45 can be used to hammer nails, but if you do it
uncomprehendlingly and with the saftey catch off then you will
probably shoot yourself in the foot. But where is you detailed
reasoning: cite it! I can't see any such animal.
>
>> In a<31b8606...@news.primenet.com>, "Rev. Dennis L Erlich" writes
>> :
>> :
>> : But still I believe you to be blind of the 'connections of evil'
>> : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> :that make up the basic structure of the scieno-tek. I believe I can
>> :^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> :explain it to you and everyone else, if we stay calm and take our
>> :
>> :time.
>> :
>> Exactly.
>
>Yes but exactly also: why do you underline this? This is only a statement
>of belief and Dennis said he *will* explain it.
>
Agreed. You were banging on as if I were the only person in the world
who felt the tech might be irredemably harmful. I thought it might
help to remind you that someone with detailed knowledge and experience
of it which I don't have, i.e. a former FLAG Caramming Officer who
knows the tech inside out, feels the same way [and will give detailed
reasons later].
>> >Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of
>> >which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who
>> >have been adversely affected? or to those who may be?
>> >
>> May well be so.
>
>Excellent! As an ex-Scieno and one who pulled out quiet a few people
>myself, I know that it isn't by the recitation of the volcanoes symphony or
>by dancing on your head about how evil the cult, the leader, the tech, is,
>that you arrive anywhere. It is by the dissection of the mechanism, piece
>by piece, and by the use of 'reason', as strange as it may seem, that you
>hit the target.
>
Anything you can say towards getting people out
is always helpful.
>
>
>-- I mock up my reactive hard drive --
:-)
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
Bernie
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>
> >Please do. Am interested. I just hope it will be different than the
> >scratched record of our friend Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
> >untirelingly repeating his 'opinion' that all is mind-control, period
> >(sorry Dave).
> And your reaction to, not just an assertion,
> but the detaailed reasoning is? "Duh--itsuh scratched record."
> Hmm.
See my separate post related to this point Dave. I thank you for taking
the time to go in lenght detailing your reasoning. However, as I say in
the separate post, I just don't feel you say anything else than your
opinion, under many varied, different and sometimes entertaining way. I
think that you just fail to prove your point by a convincing analysis. At
least for me, maybe other readers were convinced, so nothing is lost.
Cheers
------
Bernie
tom collins
Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes:
>All codified systems of belief force you to see through the said system rather
>than see for yourself things "as they are". Soon enough, you interprete things
>in reference to this framework in a more and more mechanical way. The necessary
>attention to adapt to a constantly changing reality becomes eroded. You end up
>trying to resolve the distance thus created between 'reality' and your
>conception thereof through the use of force: fanatisme, war, intolerance.
Pretty wonderful, I think. Always easy to forget, in our endlesss search
for comfort, security, certainty, that they are not to be found.
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie efore us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain,
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Matthew Arnold, "Dover Beach"
posted, e-mailed
And now that .sig I'm so busy trying out:
Bernie
> >>
> >>Please do. Am interested. I just hope it will be different than the
> >>scratched record of our friend Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
> >>untirelingly repeating his 'opinion' that all is mind-control, period
> >>(sorry Dave).
>
Yea, that's my point. Although, paradoxically, I am personally not
interested in the tek per se (cause I have other philosophical
orientations). I just think that it is important to understand the
mind-control mechanism involved. Understand, not just scrap off the whole
thing as mind-control, because there is no understanding in that. If you say
to a would-be Scientology defector 'you are just being deluded', he will
stick to what he knows is positive, and fail to see your point. You need to
show him that the positive aspects are not necessarily linked to the
mind-control aspects and that he can safely drop the cultic elements without
the feeling of loosing something. Quiet on the contrary, it is a tremendous
freedom one gains.
> That part is not really a marketable item, it's too easily taught and
> doesn't require 200 forms and 4 secretary's and thousands of dollars.
> So that part is not really done in Scientology(tm). Perhaps one quiet
> day that part will be discussed. Scientology(tm) runs a race with no
> finish line, and so mind control. Real auditing has a finish line. IMO.
------
Bernie
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> Well I would agrre with you on the following:
>
> >Rather I feel that the discussion is only going round
> >[in circles]
> But, examining the thread, I can't see any reasoned arument from you.
> I have said **that** I think the tech is harmful, I have said **that**
> I think it reflects LRH's inner insanity, and I have given
> point-by-point analysis **how** I think it reflects those insane
> purposes; and you have answered none of this in detail.
>
> OTOH, you have said don't I think THAT the tech and the authoritarian
> tendencies and don't I think THAT the tech can be separated from the
> authoritarian tendencies and don't I think THAT....the nearest you
> have come to giving detailed reasoning was an **analogy** that a
> knife can spread butter and well as being a weapon. And I told you
> that a colt .45 can be used to hammer nails, but if you do it
> uncomprehendlingly and with the saftey catch off then you will
> probably shoot yourself in the foot. But where is you detailed
> reasoning: cite it! I can't see any such animal.
Hm. I wonder if one of my post just didn't get lost or something. You will
find it here under reproduced. I think it goes quiet in the concrete. On the
other hand, if you feel that you went into detailed explanation and that I
didn't answered them, I will take another look at your post and try to do
something.
> >Yes but exactly also: why do you underline this? This is only a statement
> >of belief and Dennis said he *will* explain it.
> >
> Agreed. You were banging on as if I were the only person in the world
> who felt the tech might be irredemably harmful. I thought it might
> help to remind you that someone with detailed knowledge and experience
> of it which I don't have, i.e. a former FLAG Caramming Officer who
> knows the tech inside out, feels the same way [and will give detailed
> reasons later].
And so does many people. I know. Actually am probably in the minority in this
newsgroup, but that's ok. I just want to point out that it is not sure yet
that Dennis "feels the same way", because you speak here that "the tehch might
be irredemably harmful" and he speaks about the "connection of evil that make
up the basic structure of the Scieno tek". I agree that there is a 'connection
of evil', not that it is 'irredemably harmful', as you will see with my repost
hereunder. But ok, it's the same idea, agreed.
> >> >Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of
> >> >which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who
> >> >have been adversely affected? or to those who may be?
> >> >
> >> May well be so.
> >
> >Excellent! As an ex-Scieno and one who pulled out quiet a few people
> >myself, I know that it isn't by the recitation of the volcanoes symphony or
> >by dancing on your head about how evil the cult, the leader, the tech, is,
> >that you arrive anywhere. It is by the dissection of the mechanism, piece
> >by piece, and by the use of 'reason', as strange as it may seem, that you
> >hit the target.
> >
> Anything you can say towards getting people out
> is always helpful.
Yes. Although getting people out is not my goal, that's only a consequence. My
goal is to help people to be free of the cultic mindset, something which is
not always achieved by the simple fact of walking out. This is the reason I
started a series (still ongoing) called 'everybody has a dream', which you can
find at http://www.icon.fi/~marina/1stpersn/index.htm, if you are interested.
------
Bernie
-- I mock up my reactive hard drive --
------------------- repost ----------------
Subject: Re: More (or less) of My Beliefs (was Re: Ease Off?)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 17:53:23 -0700
From: Bernie <be...@arcadis.be>
To: da...@xemu.demon.co.uk
CC: ma...@lightlink.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
OK, ok. Above (before) is my earliest reply. I simply drawed the raw
conclusions without further explanations. This because I was tired of a
discussion that was only turning round and round. I will make an effort
and try to (re)explain my viewpoint expanding on the paragraph quoted in
my previous reply.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> I'm arguing that the tech is
> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and author,
> the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to separate them
> you end up with nothing left.
First, I think the means must not be confounded with the ends. A knife
(the mean) isn't dangerous by itself. It's only if I use it with the
intention to kill (the end) that it takes this meaning. If I use it with
intention to butter my bread (an other end), it becomes actually quiet
useful. So the means are not the ends.
Second, I don't even think that the hidden goal of Scn is brainwashing. I
think the mind control, the cultic aspect of Scn arouse as a
*consequence* rather than an end. A consequence of LRH uncontrolled ego,
helped with the consent and reverberation of uncontrolled ego of the
followers.
Now lets take some concrete examples.
I think that some of the most useful part of the Scn tech is the relief
of 'charge', or whatever you choose to call this phenomenon that can be
easily experienced. In a safe setting (a session), you follow some
systematic steps (the communication cycle), respectuous of the person (no
evaluation), and you can actually end up with the relieve of the tension,
the problem, or whatever. I find this part of the Scn tech better than
anything else I know (psychotherapy, etc).
But what I object to, is the 'cumulative' aspect of this technique. The
Scn theory have it that the 'incidents' are linked in chains, the
totality of the chains forming the 'reactive bank'. I think there is no
such thing. Of course, some past traumatic incident can be associated to
some other traumatic incidents that bear a similitude, but I don't think
admit, especially after all the effort they invested in their fight
against the cult. But, IMHO, their reaction on this subject is based on
fear or ignorance rather than an effort to be objective and to understand
the actual mechanisms, and I cannot condone this attitude, because it
really is the same attitude displayed by the cult mindset, and at the end
it will only be ineffective and even counter-productive.
For me, Scn is a cult. There is just so much mind control and cultic
elements involved, and I think it is very important to underline and
expose these for what they are. But then, I think it is equally idiotic
to try to force all the techniques in one's own little pet theory of mind
control and that of the “evil cult”. It is as simplistic and stupid as
the cult attitude itself. Why not try to be objective in all these
matters? What are all these critics so afraid of? For me, where there is
fear, there is no freedom, there is no objectivity and truth, and there
is no love because you have to call in hate to justify how right you are.
----------- end of repost -----------
Martin G. V. Hunt
Between David Mayo and Dave Bird on this thread, it looks like
you are operating and posting based on two different definitions of
"cultish behaviour."
Dave Bird seems to be taking it as behaviour which could be said
to typify Scientology and its application or "technology", by which
definition David Mayo could be said to be "cultish", ie, using
Scn techniques of auditing, emeters, etc.
David Mayo, on the other hand, appears to be using a definition
that is more broad; authoritarian, dictatorial, controlling,
brainwashing, manipulative, like cults in general, but which
definition David Mayo could *not* be described.
You're working at cross-purposes, so I thought I should point this
out; I've seen the questions and answers to questions based on the
other definitions bouncing back and forth a bit in the thread.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
Have you ever tried to serve papers on a meme?
It's like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling. -Jeff Bell
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <31BA75...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>Ted Mayett wrote:
>>
>> In <31B91D...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>> >
>> > Dave Bird wrote:
>> > >>Rev. Dennis L Erlich wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>that make up the basic structure of the scieno-tek. I believe I
>> > >> time. But no hurry, eh?
>> >
>> > Please do. Am interested. I just hope it will be different than the
>> > untireingly repeating his 'opinion' that all is mind-control,
>> > period
Yahboo to you too!
''''''''''''''''''
>
>> It is not all mind control.
>> There is a side of the tek that is viable.
>
>Yea, that's my point. Although, paradoxically, I am personally not
>interested in the tek per se (cause I have other philosophical
>orientations). I just think that it is important to understand the
>mind-control mechanism involved. Understand, not just scrap off the whole
>thing as mind-control, because there is no understanding in that.
>If you say to a would-be Scientology defector 'you are just being
>deluded', he will stick to what he knows is positive, and fail to
>see your point. You need to show him that the positive aspects are not
>necessarily linked to the mind-control aspects and that he can safely
>drop the cultic elements without the feeling of loosing something.
>Quite on the contrary, it is a tremendous freedom one gains.
I would tell a departing cultie or anyone else that they probably
should say goodbye to auditting and most people who leave the
church do BUT, if s/he still feels the need for it, then it is
available in the freezone. That does not mean I approve of it,
simply that I feel it is a personal choice.
About staying in the church, there is no doubt or compromise
that the peron is being scammed for money and contributing to
a dangerous mafia that harms others. About harming others I
won't compromise, I demand that they stop!
Continuing to harbour beliefs I hold to be absurd and
maybe harmful to them without harming others is, however,
a personal choice. If they want to do that to themselves,
more fool them but I won't try to stop them---I will tell
them my opinion and advice that it is damaging, and if
they want to carry on damaging themselves that's their choice.
I might not wave my opinions at them this blubtly if they
were about to blow, merely offer the options that most people
leave scientology behind completely but, if they want to
continue auditing, they can do it in the freezone.
The TRs, and emerging from them the way auditting is carried
out, does in my view have an agenda of mind control for detailed
reasons I gave earlier.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MORE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article <31BA5C...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>> In article <31B91D...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>> >
>> >Please do. Am interested. I just hope it will be different than the
>> >scratched record of our friend Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>> >untirelingly repeating his 'opinion' that all is mind-control, period
>> >(sorry Dave).
>> And your reaction to, not just an assertion,
>> but the detaailed reasoning is? "Duh--itsuh scratched record."
>> Hmm.
>
>See my separate post related to this point Dave. I thank you for taking
>the time to go in lenght detailing your reasoning. However, as I say in
>the separate post, I just don't feel you say anything else than your
>opinion, under many varied, different and sometimes entertaining way. I
>think that you just fail to prove your point by a convincing analysis.
If you mean I only said **that** -- without giving detailed reasons
**why** -- I found the tech to be faulty, this is simply untrue.
Reposted from an earlier article:
=========================================================
I think you should address the WHY, given here,
that the TRs are inherently mindcontrol methods.
================================================
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <31BA89...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>> Bernie wrote:
>> >
>> >[Snip]
>>
>> Well I would agree with you on the following--
>> >
>> > Rather I feel that the discussion is only going round in circles
>>
>> But, examining the thread, I can't see any reasoned arument from you.
>> I have said **that** I think the tech is harmful, I have said **that**
>> I think it reflects LRH's inner insanity, and I have given
>> point-by-point analysis **how** I think it reflects those insane
>> purposes; and you have answered none of this in detail.
>> OTOH, you have said don't I think THAT the tech and the authoritarian
>> tendencies and don't I think THAT the tech can be separated from the
>> authoritarian tendencies and don't I think THAT....
>
>find it here under reproduced.
>> >Yes but exactly also: why do you underline this? This is only a statement
>> >of belief and Dennis said he *will* explain it.
>> >
>> Agreed. You were banging on as if I were the only person in the world
>> who felt the tech might be irredemably harmful. I thought it might
>> help to remind you that someone with detailed knowledge and experience
>> of it which I don't have, i.e. a former FLAG Caramming Officer who
>> knows the tech inside out, feels the same way [and will give detailed
>> reasons later].
>
>And so does many people. I know. Actually am probably in the minority in this
>newsgroup, but that's ok. I just want to point out that it is not sure yet
>that Dennis "feels the same way", because you speak here that "the tehch might
>be irredemably harmful" and he speaks about the "connection of evil that make
>up the basic structure of the Scieno tek". I agree that there is a 'connection
>of evil', not that it is 'irredemably harmful', as you will see with my repost
>hereunder. But ok, it's the same idea, agreed.
>
Well, I can't put words in Denis' mouth, but the way I read "a
connection of evil that MAKES UP THE BASIC STRUCTURE of the scieno tek"
is that it is evil in its basic structure i.e. all of it is bad because
it comes from bad roots; which sounds very like my "irredemably harmful"
>> >Dave:
>> >> DMayo:
>> >> |
>> >> | Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my
>> >> | analyses of which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be
>> >> | of benefit to those who have been adversely affected? or to
>> >> | those who may be?
>> >>
>> >> May well be so.
>> >
>> >Excellent! As an ex-Scieno and one who pulled out quiet a few people
>> >myself, I know that it isn't by the recitation of the volcanoes symphony or
>> >by dancing on your head about how evil the cult, the leader, the tech, is,
>> >that you arrive anywhere. It is by the dissection of the mechanism, piece
>> >by piece, and by the use of 'reason', as strange as it may seem, that you
>> >hit the target.
>> >
>> Anything you can say towards getting people out
>> is always helpful.
>
>Yes. Although getting people out is not my goal, that's only a consequence. My
>goal is to help people to be free of the cultic mindset, something which is
>not always achieved by the simple fact of walking out. This is the reason I
>started a series (still ongoing) called 'everybody has a dream', which you can
>find at http://www.icon.fi/~marina/1stpersn/index.htm, if you are interested.
>
Yes, it's good stuff.
>------------------- repost ----------------
>Subject: Re: More (or less) of My Beliefs (was Re: Ease Off?)
>Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 17:53:23 -0700
>From: Bernie <be...@arcadis.be>
>
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>>
>> I'm arguing that the tech is
>> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and author,
>> the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to separate them
>> you end up with nothing left.
>
>First, I think the means must not be confounded with the ends. A knife
>(the mean) isn't dangerous by itself. It's only if I use it with the
>intention to kill (the end) that it takes this meaning. If I use it with
>intention to butter my bread (an other end), it becomes actually quiet
>useful. So the means are not the ends.
>
>Second, I don't even think that the hidden goal of Scn is brainwashing. I
>think the mind control, the cultic aspect of Scn arouse as a
>*consequence* rather than an end. A consequence of LRH uncontrolled ego,
>helped with the consent and reverberation of uncontrolled ego of the
>followers.
>
I argued the contrary, with deatiled reasons. But you're right that I
haven't dealt with some of the arguments which follow.
Well, there are a number of things I have difficulty with. One is that
the nature of the TRs leading up to the basic structure of auditting
inherently serve crazy purposes about controlling and being
controlled (as I've set down in detail elsewhere). Another
is that engram in the precise way LRH defined it i.e. learning things
while unconscious is provenly false. Another is that what seems to
me the valid basis of engram i.e. the way we are unnecessarily
constrained by reactions based on past pain can't be erased
as easily as just talking about it for a few minutes. I have a
caveat that ** in certain subjects ** something as apparently
harmless as "just talking through your problems" can be very
damaging. OTHER THAN THAT, in most people, it is reasonable to
say that talking through your problems -- even with a skin resistance
meter if you really want -- can be beneficial and give a good
feeling. Yes, I think we could agree on that.
>If LRH had enough 'spiritual maturity' to avoid the trap of cult, I think
>the valid aspects of the tech, such as the relief of emotions and past
>trauma, might have been by now integrated as one of the many techniques
>at the disposal of Man, for the biggest benefit of all. But since, by
>LRH’s attitude, the tech is embodied in a context of absolutism and
>delusion, it may just be lost, because any sane man will at some point
>have no other choice than to kick the whole thing off. But it remains
>that, when stripped off all the delirium in which the tech is surrounded,
>some parts may be put to good use, and are not necessarily mind control
>techniques per se.
>
I don't think you have confronted what the TRs are about, or just
how central they are to the practice of auditting.
>
>[study tech and M/Us]
>
Most of study tech is simply rubbish. Looking up a word that
gives you difficulty, if that is the specific problem, is
sheer basic commnsense and we didn't need El Rotundo
to point it out for us.
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <4pdtjg$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, "Martin G. V. Hunt"
<av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>
>Between David Mayo and Dave Bird on this thread, it looks like
>you are operating and posting based on two different definitions of
>"cultish behaviour."
>
>Dave Bird seems to be taking it as behaviour which could be said
>to typify Scientology and its application or "technology", by which
>definition David Mayo could be said to be "cultish", ie, using
>Scn techniques of auditing, emeters, etc.
BZZZZZT! Error! The person who said David Mayo was exhibitting
"cultish behaviour" was efischer: I suggested (and she confirmed)
that she meant something much like you say.
My interest all along has been in disecting what I think is wrong
with standard tech....
Bernie
Bernie:
>>And so does many people. I know. Actually am probably in the minority in this
>>newsgroup, but that's ok. I just want to point out that it is not sure yet
>>that Dennis "feels the same way", because you speak here that "the tehch might
>>be irredemably harmful" and he speaks about the "connection of evil that make
>>up the basic structure of the Scieno tek". I agree that there is a 'connection
>>of evil', not that it is 'irredemably harmful', as you will see with my repost
>>hereunder. But ok, it's the same idea, agreed.
Dave:
> Well, I can't put words in Denis' mouth, but the way I read "a
> connection of evil that MAKES UP THE BASIC STRUCTURE of the scieno tek"
> is that it is evil in its basic structure i.e. all of it is bad because
> it comes from bad roots; which sounds very like my "irredemably harmful"
Yes it sounds very like. We will see what comes up, if ever.
>>> >> DMayo:
>>> >> |
>>> >> | Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my
>>> >> | analyses of which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be
>>> >> | of benefit to those who have been adversely affected? or to
>>> >> | those who may be?
>>> >>
Dave:
>>> >> May well be so.
>>> >
Bernie:
>>> >Excellent! As an ex-Scieno and one who pulled out quiet a few people
>>> >myself, I know that it isn't by the recitation of the volcanoes symphony or
>>> >by dancing on your head about how evil the cult, the leader, the tech, is,
>>> >that you arrive anywhere. It is by the dissection of the mechanism, piece
>>> >by piece, and by the use of 'reason', as strange as it may seem, that you
>>> >hit the target.
Dave:
> >> Anything you can say towards getting people out
> >> is always helpful.
> >
Bernie:
> >Yes. Although getting people out is not my goal, that's only a consequence. My
> >goal is to help people to be free of the cultic mindset, something which is
> >not always achieved by the simple fact of walking out. This is the reason I
> >started a series (still ongoing) called 'everybody has a dream', which you can
> >find at http://www.icon.fi/~marina/1stpersn/index.htm, if you are interested.
> >
> Yes, it's good stuff.
Hey, thanks. (Although I should have to get it checked sometimes English-wize,
like I did for Part 9 that I hope to have time to post today).
Now if you don't mind, for the sake of simplification and since you answered to
my repost hereunder, I propose to concentrate on that only and not review
previous post even though you, and I, wrote quite a few.
> >------------------- repost ----------------
> >Subject: Re: More (or less) of My Beliefs (was Re: Ease Off?)
> >Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 17:53:23 -0700
> >From: Bernie <be...@arcadis.be>
> >
> >Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm arguing that the tech is
> >> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and author,
> >> the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to separate them
> >> you end up with nothing left.
> >
> >First, I think the means must not be confounded with the ends. A knife
> >(the mean) isn't dangerous by itself. It's only if I use it with the
> >intention to kill (the end) that it takes this meaning. If I use it with
> >intention to butter my bread (an other end), it becomes actually quiet
> >useful. So the means are not the ends.
> >
> >Second, I don't even think that the hidden goal of Scn is brainwashing. I
> >think the mind control, the cultic aspect of Scn arouse as a
> >*consequence* rather than an end. A consequence of LRH uncontrolled ego,
> >helped with the consent and reverberation of uncontrolled ego of the
> >followers.
> >
> I argued the contrary, with deatiled reasons. But you're right that I
> haven't dealt with some of the arguments which follow.
OK, that's clear I think.
> >I think that some of the most useful part of the Scn tech is the release
> >of 'charge', or whatever you choose to call this phenomenon that can be
> >easily experienced. In a safe setting (a session), you follow some
> >systematic steps (the communication cycle), respectuous of the person (no
> >evaluation), and you can actually end up with the release of the tension,
OK.
> One is that
> the nature of the TRs leading up to the basic structure of auditting
> inherently serve crazy purposes about controlling and being
> controlled (as I've set down in detail elsewhere).
Maybe. But I am not talking about TRs here. We can talk about that some other
time if you want. I want to concentrate here on the "release of charge". I don't
imply above that the TRs are good, only that the release of charge is.
> Another
> is that engram in the precise way LRH defined it i.e. learning things
> while unconscious is provenly false. Another is that what seems to
> me the valid basis of engram i.e. the way we are unnecessarily
> constrained by reactions based on past pain can't be erased
> as easily as just talking about it for a few minutes.
This could also be the subject of some other discussion. By "charge" here I don't
necesserily mean engrams.
> I have a
> caveat that ** in certain subjects ** something as apparently
> harmless as "just talking through your problems" can be very
> damaging.
Maybe you could expand on your caveat sometime.
> OTHER THAN THAT, in most people, it is reasonable to
> say that talking through your problems -- even with a skin resistance
> meter if you really want -- can be beneficial and give a good
> feeling. Yes, I think we could agree on that.
OK, here we are on the subject. I am glad you agree that it *could* be
beneficial. I think that it is one of the most useful thing to be found in Scn
(and actually probably to be find in other 'discipline' too (as so far as we can
call Scn a discipline)). There is something we can recognize as "charge".
Although this is a Scn term, I don't know any equivalence to it in English. It
also is quite illustrative. Like an "electric charge". And the "relieve"
(release) of this charge is akin to an electrical phenomenon too, aided by
communication, which could also be related to electrical phenomena. In order to
have electricity, you need to have a positive and a negative pole. The "charge"
goes from one to the other. So it's logical to think that the relieve of a
"stuck" electric charge can be aided by communication between two "terminals". I
could observe this phenomenon many time, both within the Scn context and outside
of it. So that is one part I think is worth going into, independently from
falsehood and mind-control to which it can be related.
I developped these falsehood and mind-control elements in the two paragraphs
following the one in which I deal with the positive element. Apparently you have
no comment to make on these. The purpose of the juxtaposition of these three
paragraphs was to show that a potentially valid element in Scn was not
necessarily invalidated by the ensuing falsehood and mind-control elements. On
the contrary, it is what gives them their weight. The positive input of some part
of the tech is clear (I think), the mind-control elements are even more clear,
and the 'evil connection' seems also clear to me: how based on some parts that is
valid and is bringing results, how from there one could jump to false conclusions
(cumulation, clear, religion, etc), and thereby how it also gives weight to LRH
ramblings and repetitions about the tech being "unique", etc.
So, if someone is interested (I am not but DM is) to take off these positive
elements out of their mind-control context and use them the way he wish, why not?
I frankly have no problem with that, and if this person went in some lenght and
effort to free himself from the mind-control element parts, I think that it is
unfair that he be accused of perpetrating a "cultish behavior" just for doing so.
On the contrary, again, I think it only helps to see with a better clarity what
these cultish or mind-control elements are and to isolate their mechanisms
better.
> >If LRH had enough 'spiritual maturity' to avoid the trap of cult, I think
> >the valid aspects of the tech, such as the relief of emotions and past
> >trauma, might have been by now integrated as one of the many techniques
> >at the disposal of Man, for the biggest benefit of all. But since, by
> >LRH’s attitude, the tech is embodied in a context of absolutism and
> >delusion, it may just be lost, because any sane man will at some point
> >have no other choice than to kick the whole thing off. But it remains
> >that, when stripped off all the delirium in which the tech is surrounded,
> >some parts may be put to good use, and are not necessarily mind control
> >techniques per se.
> >
> I don't think you have confronted what the TRs are about, or just
> how central they are to the practice of auditting.
As I said, we could discuss TRs some other times if you wish. The purpose of the
above example was only to illustrate my point.
> >[study tech and M/Us]
I am somewhat at a lost to understand your "snipping" style. You leave *a_lot* of
text at the beginning of the post, and you just snip out completely my second
example (as well as the whole conclusion). How can you or I comment or analyse
any of it's content this way? I know that for you it was only "just study tech
stuff and all things we know already", but I think it was not. It was, based on
this example, the way it leads to cultish behavior and how, at the same time, it
could have value on its own. But since you clipped it out, well, ok. Don't accuse
*me* of not making comments on your comments.
> Most of study tech is simply rubbish.
"Most"? Which is and which is not, and why? If you didn't snipped the paragraph
above we could have had a discussion.
> Looking up a word that
> gives you difficulty, if that is the specific problem, is
> sheer basic commnsense and we didn't need El Rotundo
> to point it out for us.
Yes and no. But let's discuss that possibly some other time. I think the example
above is sufficient. Don't you?
------
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <31BBA7...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes:
>Dave:
>>
>> Bernie:
>> >Dave:
>> >>
>> >>[Quoting Dennis's unease with the Tek]
>> >>
>> >And so do many people, I know. Actually am probably in the
>> >out that it is not sure yet that Dennis "feels the same way",
>>
>> connection of evil that MAKES UP THE BASIC STRUCTURE of the scieno
>> tek" is that it is evil in its basic structure i.e. all of it
>> is bad because it comes from bad roots
>
>> >> Bernie:
>> >> >Dave:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> DMayo:
>> >> >> |
>> >> >> | Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my
>> >> >> | analyses of which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be
>> >> >> | of benefit to those who have been adversely affected? or to
>> >> >> | those who may be?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> May well be so.
>> >> >
>> >> >Excellent! As an ex-Scieno and one who pulled out quiet a few
>> >> >people myself, I know that it isn't by the recitation of the
>> >> >volcanoes symphony or by dancing on your head about how evil
>> >> >the cult, the leader, the tech, is, that you arrive anywhere.
>> >
>> >Anything you can say towards getting people out
>> >is always helpful.
>>
>> Yes. Although getting people out is not my goal, that's only a
>> consequence. My goal is to help people to be free of the cultic
>> mindset [....] This is the reason I started a series
>> (still ongoing) called 'everybody has a dream',
>>
>> Yes, it's good stuff.
>
>Hey, thanks.
>Now if you don't mind, for the sake of simplification and since you answered to
>my repost hereunder, I propose to concentrate on that only
>> >> I'm arguing that the tech is
>> >> irredemably tainted with the purposes of its original cult and
>> >> author, the ends are inherent in the means and if you try to
>> >> separate them you end up with nothing left.
>> >
>> >First, I think the means must not be confounded with the ends.
>> >A knife (the means) isn't dangerous by itself. It's only if I
>> >use it with the intention to kill (the end) that it takes this
>> >meaning.
>>
>> I argued the contrary, with detailed reasons. But you're right
>> that I haven't dealt with some of the arguments which follow.
>
>OK, that's clear I think.
>> >I think that some of the most useful part of the Scn tech is the
>> >release of 'charge', or whatever you choose to call this phenomenon
>> >that can be easily experienced. In a safe setting (a session), you
>> >follow some systematic steps (the communication cycle), respectuous
>> >of the person (no evaluation), and you can actually end up with the
>> >release of the tension, the problem, or whatever. I find this part
>> >of the Scn tech better than anything else I know (psychotherapy&c).
>>
>> Well, there are a number of things I have difficulty with.
>
>OK.
>
>> One is that
>> the nature of the TRs leading up to the basic structure of auditting
>> inherently serve crazy purposes about controlling and being
>> controlled (as I've set down in detail elsewhere).
>
>Maybe. But I am not talking about TRs here.
>
I am. The point you have missed is, I think, just how much
an auditting session flows from the TRs or the TRs truly are
a preparation for auditting. One is taught to be dazed and
suggestible, and to act out the roles of animaltrainer and
chump in which the chump is physically manipulated into place,
the animaltrainer asks only mainpulative questions and does not
ack until he has got what he wants, and so forth. The two things
are not so easily disentangled as you think, and you haven't
addressed this aspect.
>> Another
>> is that engram in the precise way LRH defined it i.e. learning things
>> while unconscious is provenly false. Another is that what seems to
>> me the valid basis of engram i.e. the way we are unnecessarily
>> constrained by reactions based on past pain can't be erased
>> as easily as just talking about it for a few minutes.
>
> This could also be the subject of some other discussion. By "charge"
> here I don't necesserily mean engrams.
>
Well, what *DO* you mean then? I know what it says in How To Use
The EMeter. Thoughts have mental mass (picture of chump on bathroom
scales thinking "weighty thoughts" and getting 20 kilos heavier ---
I'm not making any of this junk up, honest, LOL). Mass produces
electrical charge, the EMeter measures this.
Complete bollocks.
The EMeter measures skin resistance, much of it simply the varying
strength of grip on the electrodes. Proof: change the soupcan
electrodes for sharp needle electrodes, and burn the points sterile.
Pierce them through your skin so that they are contacting flesh
and blood. The resistance is much lower AND COMPLETELY UNVARYING:
the needle won't even flicker. Skin resistance.
So what is this "removal of charge": just "feeling better having
talked your problems through"? Then why not call it that!
Do you think the EMeter is needed at all? Such things can be a
fairly reliable indicator of stress reactions, though unrelaible
for detecting lies (some lieing does not produce stress ans some
stress is not from lieing). You could get about the same effect
by training yourself to watch the chump's voicepitch and rate
of blinking.
> > I have a
> > caveat that ** in certain subjects ** something as apparently
> > harmless as "just talking through your problems" can be very
> > damaging.
>
>Maybe you could expand on your caveat sometime.
>
I did earlier. I pointed it out in the Anderson report,
and David Mayo agreed with the principle if not the specific case.
With some obsessives--and you wouldn't spot who they were without
medical training--talking over their imagined "problems"
reinforces the delusions so much that you tip them over
into complete breakdown. This has happened! And I pointed
it out because (unlike the TR-related things which can be
pointed out as mind control), one intuitively thinks "well
talking a problem over can only help." Not so; it can harm too!
> > OTHER THAN THAT, in most people, it is reasonable to
> > say that talking through your problems -- even with a skin resistance
> > meter if you really want -- can be beneficial and give a good
> > feeling. Yes, I think we could agree on that.
>
>OK, here we are on the subject. I am glad you agree that it *could* be
>beneficial. I think that it is one of the most useful thing to be found in Scn
>(and actually probably to be find in other 'discipline' too (as so far as we can
>call Scn a discipline)). There is something we can recognize as "charge".
>Although this is a Scn term, I don't know any equivalence to it in English. It
>also is quite illustrative. Like an "electric charge". And the "relieve"
>(release) of this charge is akin to an electrical phenomenon too, aided by
>communication, which could also be related to electrical phenomena. In order to
>have electricity, you need to have a positive and a negative pole. The "charge"
>goes from one to the other. So it's logical to think that the relieve of a
>"stuck" electric charge can be aided by communication between two "terminals". I
>could observe this phenomenon many time, both within the Scn context and outside
>of it. So that is one part I think is worth going into, independently from
>falsehood and mind-control to which it can be related.
>
I'm afraid this is pseudoscientific hogwash, for the reasons given
above. talking problems through may USUALLY help, yes -- full stop.
>I developped these falsehood and mind-control elements in the two paragraphs
>following the one in which I deal with the positive element. Apparently you
>have
>no comment to make on these. The purpose of the juxtaposition of these three
>paragraphs was to show that a potentially valid element in Scn was not
>necessarily invalidated by the ensuing falsehood and mind-control elements. On
>the contrary, it is what gives them their weight. The positive input of some
>part
>of the tech is clear (I think), the mind-control elements are even more clear,
>and the 'evil connection' seems also clear to me: how based on some parts that
>is
>valid and is bringing results, how from there one could jump to false
>conclusions
>(cumulation, clear, religion, etc), and thereby how it also gives weight to LRH
>ramblings and repetitions about the tech being "unique", etc.
>
At this point we are still on separate planets. You haven't adressed
the inherent mindcontrol stuff which comes from the TRs: pray how are
you going to carry out auditting without getting the chump a little
suggestible, keeping them sat in a chair, and constraining them to
give only brief and relevant answers to your auditting question then
cutting them off with a "thank you"? The stuff about charge sounds
to me like complete bilgewater; there is only talking through your
problems to get a little relief from them, which anyone could
do in any therapy.
>
>
> > >[study tech and M/Us]
>
>I am somewhat at a lost to understand your "snipping" style. You leave *a_lot*
>of
>text at the beginning of the post, and you just snip out completely my second
>example (as well as the whole conclusion). How can you or I comment or analyse
>any of it's content this way? I know that for you it was only "just study tech
>stuff and all things we know already", but I think it was not. It was, based on
>this example, the way it leads to cultish behavior and how, at the same time, it
>could have value on its own. But since you clipped it out, well, ok. Don't
>accuse
>*me* of not making comments on your comments.
>
> > Most of study tech is simply rubbish.
>
>"Most"? Which is and which is not, and why? If you didn't snipped the paragraph
>above we could have had a discussion.
>
> > Looking up a word that
> > gives you difficulty, if that is the specific problem, is
> > sheer basic commnsense and we didn't need El Rotundo
> > to point it out for us.
>
>Yes and no. But let's discuss that possibly some other time. I think the example
>above is sufficient. Don't you?
>
>
I had cut more than I intended and, since I considered the stuff
about study tech fairly unimportant, didn't take elabortae steps
to close the article, go back, and refetch the text I needed
to paste into the outgoing text and continue.
/; ;\
--Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.demon.net @@@@ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
/castle/x/xemu.html @@@ \___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
John Ritson
>
> > It is not all mind control. There is a side of the tek that is viable.
>
>Yea, that's my point. Although, paradoxically, I am personally not
>interested in the tek per se (cause I have other philosophical
>orientations). I just think that it is important to understand the
>mind-control mechanism involved. Understand, not just scrap off the whole
>thing as mind-control, because there is no understanding in that. If you say
>to a would-be Scientology defector 'you are just being deluded', he will
>stick to what he knows is positive, and fail to see your point. You need to
>show him that the positive aspects are not necessarily linked to the
>mind-control aspects and that he can safely drop the cultic elements without
>the feeling of loosing something. Quiet on the contrary, it is a tremendous
>freedom one gains.
>
> > That part is not really a marketable item, it's too easily taught and
> > doesn't require 200 forms and 4 secretary's and thousands of dollars.
> > So that part is not really done in Scientology(tm). Perhaps one quiet
> > day that part will be discussed. Scientology(tm) runs a race with no
> > finish line, and so mind control. Real auditing has a finish line. IMO.
The problem with sorting out the 'viable' parts of the 'Tech' is that
what is original is not viable and what is viable is not original. The
key concept in Dianetics - the 'engram' was (irrespective of the 'pinch-
test' schtick) disproved by an experiment approved by Hubbard himself.
And further invalidated by the higher levels claiming that problems are
'really' due to infestation by invisible brainwashed aliens. The E-meter
is a rudimentary lie-detector, and thanks to Aldrich Ames (of the CIA
and KGB) we all know how easy it is to fool them. Even apologists admit
that the E-meter cannot be relied on to detect 'ethics violations' (or
else they would have problems explaining their sorry parade of
'apostates', 'squirrels', 'infiltrators' etc. needed to explain away
their failures and the crimes of the GO). All the E-meter training
provides is training in producing a consistent response on the E-meter
in order to pass on to the next level and pay more money .
There may be 'viable' things in the 'Tech', but they are common to a
number of therapies/religions. Talking over your problems with a non-
judgemental listener/'auditor' is hardly unique. Nor are the problems
associated with it. A record of the 'confessions' provides a powerful
threat in future. And accepting that there is a person/organisation who
'understands you better than you understand yourself' puts you in clear
danger of exploitation. It would surely be perverse to resist a
suggestion made by someone who you 'know' knows better than you. This is
why we have the sorry tale of sexual abuse by therapists, religious
leaders and Scientologists (Why did the Co$ resist the proposed US state
law that would punish 'psychs' for sexual relations with their patients?
Because it caould be applied to auditors. 'The overt speaks in
accusation'?) And remember the Scientology 'minister' shot by a
cuckolded husband.
Given the vast bulk of stuff produced by LRH, it would be remarkable if
people found *nothing* useful in it. The infinite number of monkeys
eventually producing the works of Shakespeare somehow comes to mind...
Also the ability of the human mind to search for patterns, even if they
are not there - 'The Barnum Effect' - will find some gold in the tons of
dross, and perceive a 'personal' truth amid the truisms.
And even those who find nothing impressive in Hubbard's ramblings on
subjects they know about may be impressed by claims of his expertise in
other areas. Nuclear physicist, explorer, photographer, author, war
hero, hypnotist, bigamist, satanist.....
The Training Routines perhaps?
Has anyone claimed that the staring routine (blinkless or non-blinkless)
has any purpose other than to induce hallucinatory effects and temporary
euphoria (a BigWin) on its conclusion? Many cults achieve the same
effects in new recruits by hyperventilation (sorry, breathing exercises)
Then there is the 'Bullbaiting' T-R. Many 'Management courses' or 'Self-
assertiveness workshops' will do the same kind of thing. There may be
some value in teaching people not to wimp out under pressure, but it is
equally training participants to be abusive and coercive.
The 'Do birds fly' routine may have value in helping people detect when
they are being given the runaround, but this insight is available
elsewhere (Try demanding your rights from any bureaucracy). It also
trains people in how to give others the runaround (see also TR-L
'lying'), while leading to the conclusion that there are simple answers
to every question, and blind repetition will obtain them.
Perhaps it would be better to pass over the T-R filmed by Alison Braund
which involves the sucker huddled up in the foetal position pretending
to be an infant who has wet himself.............
Telling someone that they have succeeded in their course and are now
more capable? Gives them confidence but hardly unique.
Concentration on 'stats' which always improve while ignoring the real
world which bears less and less relation to the 'stats'. Again hardly
unique. Hitler in his bunker, the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, British
economic statistics.......
John *** "Life insurance, houses, cars, stocks, bonds, college savings, all are
transitory and impermanent... There is nothing to compare with advanced courses.
They are infinitely valuable and transcend time itself." - LRH - Flag Mission
Order 375 ***
kEvin
In article <efischer-070...@ts111.vcr.wis.net>,
<efis...@wimsey.com> wrote in reply to David Mayo <ma...@lightlink.com>:
>with all that in mind, i would like to end this discussion. we are all
>under considerable attack at this time from the afforementioned "church"
>of scientology... behaving as the thoroughly fascist organization it
>really is. i would think it better to turn from a discussion of our
>differences to a discussion of our similarities so that we can instead
>present a somewhat unified front for the battles ahead.
Who needs a unified front on theology? We need to be united in support
of the right to speak, but disagreeing AND *intelligently discussing*
the theology, beliefs, and practices of scientology[tm] are the most
effective offensive weapon we have. From what I've seen, scientology[tm]
has tried to shut down this newsgroup because they fear that such a
discussion will take place.
I have some basic questions for David Mayo that I hope will provide
some understanding and basis for discussion:
0) Is there more than one truth? (ie. Do you buy the "if it's true for
you..." line?)
0.1) How do you determine what's true?
1) What are thetans? (scientology[tm] definition)
1.1) Do you now believe this?
1.1a) if you don't now believe this, what has changed?
2) Does someone undergoing auditing respond to unintended suggestions
from the auditor?
3) What is a suppresive person? (scientology[tm] definition)
3.1) Do you now believe this?
3.1a) if you don't now believe this, what has changed?
3.1b) If you do believe this, how do you recommend dealing
with SP's?
4) Does this format bother you?
4.1a) if yes, what would you suggest to change it?
5) What does one gain from practing your belief set?
kEvin
el...@netcom.com
efis...@wimsey.com
In article <banhut-1206...@193.98.8.148>, ban...@mail.hh.provi.de
(Freimann) wrote:
> In article <4pctk8$p...@hollywood.cinenet.net>, tom...@cinenet.net (tom
> collins) wrote:
>
> > Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes:
> >
> > >All codified systems of belief force you to see through the said system
>
> All *codified* systems..
> what a nonsens, as even language is a codified system of belief..
well yeah... which is why one has to consider language and one's
conceptual references. not only that, you, for example are from germany,
bernie is from belgium (i think), me, i was born in hungary. so even using
the same language (english) we all three have subtly different conceptual
frameworks for the same words. seeing as none of us had english as our
*first* language.
but even if we had had... the meanings of words would still be subtly
mutated (and mutating) dependent on educational, geographical, cultural,
gender-based, age etc. divergences.
so scientology's insistence on it's adherents adhering to the *same*
conceptual framework (i.e. word-clearing) makes a lot of sense... if you
want to install a strict and enforceable mind-set in a group of
individuals.
i think perhaps the phrase "codified systems of belief" refers more to
that sort of codification. one that is based on an *outside*, third-party
system of references.
something like that.
so it's not such nonsense freiman, we just each of us have to make an
effort to understand eachothers frames of references as to what the phrase
actually means... to each.
shit. and me who hates post-modernism. :-)
ef
--
NWHQ
http://www.knosso.com/NWHQ/
Freimann
> Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes:
>
> >All codified systems of belief force you to see through the said system
All *codified* systems..
what a nonsens, as even language is a codified system of belief..
**********FREIMANN BODDHISATVA***********
Teacher for Neo-Buddhism & Rational Humanism
a small section of the homepage is about that at:
http://www.bda.de/bda/nat/fgap
The rest is fancy colors and pretty pictures,
our profession: ARTS
****************************************
Bernie
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> >
> > >Maybe. But I am not talking about TRs here.
> > >
> > I am. The point you have missed is, I think, just how much
> > an auditting session flows from the TRs or the TRs truly are
> > a preparation for auditting. One is taught to be dazed and
> > suggestible, and to act out the roles of animaltrainer and
> > chump in which the chump is physically manipulated into place,
> > the animaltrainer asks only mainpulative questions and does not
> > ack until he has got what he wants, and so forth. The two things
> > are not so easily disentangled as you think, and you haven't
> > addressed this aspect.
Because I don't want to address all points at the same time. I want to follow
some systematic line of thinking. Let's say you would be 100% right about the
TR. I don't see how it has something to do with the release of charge I was
taking as an example.
> > > This could also be the subject of some other discussion. By "charge"
> > > here I don't necesserily mean engrams.
> > >
> > Well, what *DO* you mean then? I know what it says in How To Use
> > The EMeter. Thoughts have mental mass (picture of chump on bathroom
> > scales thinking "weighty thoughts" and getting 20 kilos heavier ---
> > I'm not making any of this junk up, honest, LOL). Mass produces
> > electrical charge, the EMeter measures this.
You are right in that in Scieno term, charge is often similar to engrams and
associated to this the notion. However you can also have "charge" with an
"ARCX" though, not necessarily an engram but simply a "break in
communication", you know, when you are cross with someone for example. The
communication procedure to release such a charge, not necessarily with
auditing, TRs, cans, etc, does often succeed in its aim.
> > Complete bollocks.
> >
> > The EMeter measures skin resistance, much of it simply the varying
> > strength of grip on the electrodes. Proof: change the soupcan
> > electrodes for sharp needle electrodes, and burn the points sterile.
> > Pierce them through your skin so that they are contacting flesh
> > and blood.
???
> > The resistance is much lower AND COMPLETELY UNVARYING:
> > the needle won't even flicker. Skin resistance.
> > So what is this "removal of charge": just "feeling better having
> > talked your problems through"? Then why not call it that!
You are right. Much more sensible to call it just that. I also like 'removal
of charge', though, because it feels that way. You have 'charge' or 'mass'
(you feel heavy headed, how can I say, you know the feeling no?), and when you
feel better, this 'charge' or 'mass' is gone, you feel lighter, you see things
in a positive way again.. So it seems to me quite illustrative and descriptive
of a phenomenon you can actually feel. But you can also say "feeling better",
of course.
> > Do you think the EMeter is needed at all?
Not at all. The sensible communication is enough.
> > Such things can be a
> > fairly reliable indicator of stress reactions, though unrelaible
> > for detecting lies (some lieing does not produce stress ans some
> > stress is not from lieing).
True
> > You could get about the same effect
> > by training yourself to watch the chump's voicepitch and rate
> > of blinking.
Probably, but auditors are not trained that way.
> > > > I have a
> > > > caveat that ** in certain subjects ** something as apparently
> > > > harmless as "just talking through your problems" can be very
> > > > damaging.
> > >
> > >Maybe you could expand on your caveat sometime.
> > >
> > I did earlier. I pointed it out in the Anderson report,
Did you write part of or participate in the Anderson report?
> > and David Mayo agreed with the principle if not the specific case.
> > With some obsessives--and you wouldn't spot who they were without
> > medical training--talking over their imagined "problems"
> > reinforces the delusions so much that you tip them over
> > into complete breakdown. This has happened! And I pointed
> > it out because (unlike the TR-related things which can be
> > pointed out as mind control), one intuitively thinks "well
> > talking a problem over can only help." Not so; it can harm too!
Yes. Some people reinforces their problems by constantly talking about them.
> > > > OTHER THAN THAT, in most people, it is reasonable to
> > > > say that talking through your problems -- even with a skin resistance
> > > > meter if you really want -- can be beneficial and give a good
> > > > feeling. Yes, I think we could agree on that.
Good.
> > I'm afraid this is pseudoscientific hogwash, for the reasons given
> > above. talking problems through may USUALLY help, yes -- full stop.
Full stop.
> > At this point we are still on separate planets. You haven't adressed
> > the inherent mindcontrol stuff which comes from the TRs: pray how are
> > you going to carry out auditting without getting the chump a little
> > suggestible, keeping them sat in a chair, and constraining them to
> > give only brief and relevant answers to your auditting question then
> > cutting them off with a "thank you"?
No, I haven't adressed these. I adressed the inherent mindcontrol stuff which
comes with false assumptions, an inner will to believe, an escape of basic
insecurity, ignorance, fears and guilt.
> > The stuff about charge sounds
> > to me like complete bilgewater; there is only talking through your
> > problems to get a little relief from them, which anyone could
> > do in any therapy.
That summarize you view well.
> > > > >[study tech and M/Us]
> > >
> > I had cut more than I intended and, since I considered the stuff
> > about study tech fairly unimportant, didn't take elabortae steps
> > to close the article, go back, and refetch the text I needed
> > to paste into the outgoing text and continue.
OK.
Thanks for your input Dave. And I do apologize for the scratched record bit. I
think I won't repeat such a mistake again. One has to learn, he?
------
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In message <31C10F...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe. But I am not talking about TRs here.
>>
>> I am. The point you have missed is, I think, just how much
>> an auditting session flows from the TRs or the TRs truly are
>> a preparation for auditting. One is taught to be dazed and
>> suggestible, and to act out the roles of animaltrainer and
>> chump in which the chump is physically manipulated into place,
>> the animaltrainer asks only mainpulative questions and does not
>> ack until he has got what he wants, and so forth. The two things
>> are not so easily disentangled as you think, and you haven't
>> At this point we are still on separate planets. You haven't adressed
>> the inherent mindcontrol stuff which comes from the TRs: pray how are
>> you going to carry out auditting without getting the chump a little
>> suggestible, keeping them sat in a chair, and constraining them to
>> give only brief and relevant answers to your auditting question then
>> cutting them off with a "thank you"?
>
>some systematic line of thinking. Let's say you would be 100% right about the
>TR. I don't see how it has something to do with the release of charge I was
>taking as an example.
>
"how are you going to carry out an auditting session without having it
based on the TRs as above?" Whether it is based on "charge",
capacitance, or modulus of elasticity. An auditting session
is carried out in this way, isn't it. Why do you not answer??
I am trying to follow some systematic thinking --- about how auditting
is conducted --- and you just won't confront it!
>> >This could also be the subject of some other discussion.
>> >By "charge" here I don't necesserily mean engrams.
>> >
>> Well, what *DO* you mean then? I know what it says in How To Use
>> The EMeter. Thoughts have mental mass (picture of chump on bathroom
>> scales thinking "weighty thoughts" and getting 20 kilos heavier ---
>> I'm not making any of this junk up, honest, LOL). Mass produces
>> electrical charge, the EMeter measures this.
>
>You are right in that in Scieno term, charge is often similar to engrams and
>associated to this the notion. However you can also have "charge" with an
>"ARCX" though, not necessarily an engram but simply a "break in
>communication", you know, when you are cross with someone for example. The
>communication procedure to release such a charge, not necessarily with
>auditing, TRs, cans, etc, does often succeed in its aim.
>
Let me put the question more clearly: do you believe in Hubbard's
ideas that thought has to do with mass, that the chump thinks weighty
thoughts and the scales show he weighs heavier? That it is something
to do with ELECTRICAL CHARGE as measured on the EMeter?? Or does
charge just mean for you something like "emotions of tension or
discomfort". Can you clarify this for me please.......?
If it is actually an electrical measurement accross the whole
width of the body, as Hubbard says, then we can carry
out a simple experiment:---
>
>> The EMeter measures skin resistance, much of it simply the varying
>> strength of grip on the electrodes. Proof: change the soupcan
>> electrodes for sharp needle electrodes, and burn the points sterile.
>> Pierce them through your skin so that they are contacting flesh
>> and blood.
>
>???
>
Questionmark yourself! Take off the leads which have a connector
then wire then soldered to a soup can. Replace them with leads
which have connector then wire then soldered to a medium size
sewing needle. CLEAN and STERILISE the needles, then prick
them just through the skin of your thumb on each hand.
>>
>> The resistance is much lower AND COMPLETELY UNVARYING:
>> the needle won't even flicker. Skin resistance.
>>
Yes? The Phat Phraud's theory says the EMeter reading is
something electrical which will always give the same sort
of measurement across the whole body. Wrong. It is determined
by grip and by skin resistance. Prick the contacts through
the skin, and the meter is dead steady -- no falls, no TA,
no nothing -- if your skin is no longer in the path then the
meter no longer moves.
>
>
>> So what is this "removal of charge": just "feeling better having
>> talked your problems through"? Then why not call it that!
>
>You are right. Much more sensible to call it just that. I also like 'removal
>of charge', though, because it feels that way. You have 'charge' or 'mass'
>(you feel heavy headed, how can I say, you know the feeling no?), and when you
>feel better, this 'charge' or 'mass' is gone, you feel lighter, you see things
>in a positive way again.. So it seems to me quite illustrative and descriptive
>of a phenomenon you can actually feel. But you can also say "feeling better",
>of course.
>
OK: El Rotundo means it is **literally** electrical charge in Coloumbs.
This is nonsense; as a metaphor, fine, you can say your head is iced
up and needs a defrosting if you feel this is a sensible way
to express the idea.
>
>> Do you think the EMeter is needed at all?
>
No
>
>> You could get about the same effect by training yourself to watch
>> the chump's voicepitch and rate of blinking.
>
>Probably, but auditors are not trained that way.
>
Didn't say they were; I said such observations woould be
about as good or bad a physical indicator as skin resistance.
>> >> I have a caveat that ** in certain subjects ** something as
>> >> apparently harmless as "just talking through your problems"
>> >> can be very damaging.
>> >
>> >Maybe you could expand on your caveat sometime.
>>
>> I did earlier. I pointed it out in the Anderson report,
>
>Did you write part of or participate in the Anderson report?
>
Don't be silly.
>
>> and David Mayo agreed with the principle if not the specific case.
>> With some obsessives--and you wouldn't spot who they were without
>> medical training--talking over their imagined "problems"
>> reinforces the delusions so much that you tip them over
>> into complete breakdown. This has happened! And I pointed
>> it out because (unlike the TR-related things which can be
>> pointed out as mind control), one intuitively thinks "well
>> talking a problem over can only help." Not so; it can harm too!
>
>Yes. Some people reinforces their problems by constantly talking about them.
>
It's more than that. Too much talking to an obsessive about their
obsessions can drive them into a serious breakdown: hospitalised,
drugs and heavy sedation. This is no joke. If you were medically
qualified and spotted such a person, the LAST thing you would do
is talk through their obsessions: you would do everything to
refuse to confront their delusions, discourage them from exploring
such areas, get them concentrating back on reality.
>
>> OTHER THAN THAT, in most people, it is reasonable to
>> say that talking through your problems -- even with a skin
>> resistance meter if you really want -- can be beneficial
>> and give a good feeling. Yes, I think we could agree on that.
>
>Good.
>
>> The stuff about charge sounds
>> to me like complete bilgewater; there is only talking through your
>> problems to get a little relief from them, which anyone could
>> do in any therapy.
>
>That summarizes your view well.
>
I'm talking about the idea that there is **literally** electrical
charge, or **literally** mass, involved -- that is nonsense.
But what is YOUR view on that issue?
Freimann
In article <efischer-110...@ts079.vcr.wis.net>,
efis...@wimsey.com wrote:
> In article <banhut-1206...@193.98.8.148>, ban...@mail.hh.provi.de
> (Freimann) wrote:
>
> > In article <4pctk8$p...@hollywood.cinenet.net>, tom...@cinenet.net (tom
> > collins) wrote:
> >
> > > Bernie <be...@arcadis.be> writes:
> > >
> > > >All codified systems of belief force you to see through the said system
> >
> > All *codified* systems..
> > what a nonsens, as even language is a codified system of belief..
Hi, Ef, your are as eloquent as always, and you are right.
To answer your post, a quote from a mail-sentence regarding this:
X wrote :
<>...and it forces you to see through this said system. This would
<>seem to hold true even for language. What's your point?
me :
:Then we would have a paradox-paragraph, which is done on the basis of the
:implied "truth" and therefor just an impression of a "subsequent forced
view :from a codified system" and therefor is nonsens ..
Bernies statement was :
1. all codified belief-systems (CBS) enforce the implicated (?) reality..
2. thus all CBS are inevitably leading to disconnection from reality.(?)
3. Thus all CBS are leading to "Fanatism, War, Intolerance...
Unknowingly ( or knowingly :-) ) Bernie established here a "paragraph" of a
"codified belief-system" .. yet I dont know what it is.
(no reference)
The believed reality here given from Bernie is, that everybody bound to a
CBS will inevitably become a fanatic, war-driven, ignorant -
and I simply wonder if there is any "tolerance" given in this statement/
paragraph. This is the same authority-mechanism as it is given in the
reactive mind, or memes (very fashionable at the moment) here this
"ultimate evil" is simply exchanged with CBS.)
> I think perhaps the phrase "codified systems of belief" refers more to
> that sort of codification. one that is based on an *outside*, third-party
> system of references. something like that.
That maybe, I don't know! If the paragraphs of the CBS contents the
"ultimate evil" that can be attached to everybody who does not follow the
codification..
then we have a despotic/fascist/tyrannic system...
But Bernie's paragraph is fanatic and intolerant, insofar as we all can
only exist with the minimum of trust and certainty in our world and our
social-relations within codified systems of belief... and if it is only
the belief in the meaning of words..like: friend, truth, love, care,
decency, and so on and on... if we would have no CBSs, then all this words
would be empty bubbles. (anyway there is enough isolation in the many
misunderstoods we have :-))
You see here the codizes are grounded, language is the matrix of thinking...
it is a belief-system. Someone tells you about another person: "He/she is
a decent person!" ... and all you can do is "believe". And the
codification of language is very complex, from grammar to the
culture-codes and the sub-culture-codes. If this wasn't that way, we would
be unable to tell a bicycle from a coffeepot, far away from bicycles or
coffeepots in different conditions and/or situations..
And that is all I said:
Every paragraph that enforces an inevitable consequence/development, or as
we say Karma on man in general, or an individum, sorry .. say so:
it is nonsense in the best case. In the worst case it is "authority-claim"
or deception, delusion.
> so it's not such nonsense freiman,
Yes. You're right. It is my paranoia that always starts screaming if I hear
people given "simple answers" to the most complex problems, or to the
deepest dillemata of human kind.
> we just each of us have to make an effort to understand eachothers
<frames of references as to what the phrase actually means... to each.
You are right in critizising my form of expression. :-)
And if it kicks you, then I ask you to take my apologize.
> shit. and me who hates post-modernism. :-)
> ef
best
Freimi
************** FREIMANN BODDHISATVA ***************
Teacher for Neo-Buddhism & Rational Humanism
a small section of the homepage is about that at:
-- http://www.bda.de/bda/nat/fgap --
Free monthly mail-magazine in engl./deut.:
neo-buddhism, counter-clearing, arts
***************************************************